User talk:Geoffrey.landis/Archive 2

Could you comment...

... on my request on Talk:Solar cycle - so that we can get the text back to what is actually supported by the references, as well as resolve that silly edit-war? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've mostly been working on trying to get the Solar variation in readable shape-- haven't gone back to Solar cycle for a while. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC) And I see it's edit-protected now, so I'm not going to do any editing on it any time soon. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The question is on whether we can get consensus to change "very low" to "low" with the reference to AR4 instead of TAR. This should be uncontroversial for both WMC and the ip-editor (in fact it should resolve the conflict :-)) - the reason i'm requesting you to look on it, is because you've edited the page recently, and thus should be part of a consensus to do an edit-protect request. Thanks. See Talk:Solar cycle#.22very_low.22_.3D.3E_.22low.22 --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with either wording, actually. "needs further work" would probably be the phrase I'd use. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg Hello, Geoffrey.landis. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Uploading_images#.22a_photograph_you_took.22. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the or  template.

-- John of Reading (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC) L-Price LED-Lamp

For universal use in other wiki-projects i uploaded your photo to the wikipedia commons with same comments and creator marks as you did. I hope you agree with that. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Philips_LED_bulbs.jpg Angerdan (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

sure, put it anywhere you want it. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Cajun Sushi Hamsters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cajun Sushi Hamsters 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/Cajun Sushi Hamsters 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 template from the top of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Cajun Sushi Hamsters

While the AfD decision was 'delete', I'm betting that with some expansion and clearer sourcing from reliable third-party publications that this article could be improved enough to return to the encyclopedia. To that end, I've moved it to User:Geoffrey.landis/sandbox/Cajun Sushi Hamsters to allow you to work on it in your own time. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. - Dravecky (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Post and Pair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marmion (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) 12:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC) BP

Geoffrey, I sympathize with your interest in placing the Wikipedia controversy in the BP article. However, I have to agree that it is prohibited by the rule against undue emphasis. There are far, far, far worse problems with that article, omissions of criminal proceedings, and other general issues caused by a BP editor and his friends. Given the technical background described on your user page, any help you can offer on the talk page and in the article would be greatly appreciated, as independent editors who are trying to improve that article have been simply overwhelmed. Also there are active discussions underway at various places on Wikipedia concerning the problem of PR reps and corporate employees on Wikipedia, and I am sure your input in those forums would be welcomed there as well. I only became aware of the BP situation and I personally think it is horrid that Wiki readers do not know that such activity is going on. So one thing that I have done is to propose a tag that can be placed on such article when corporate editors are running amok. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice that an editor, a very good one, disagrees with me and has placed the text back in the article. Still, I hope you expand your contributions beyond that issue. Coretheapple (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

There may be problems with putting the material in the article. However, WP:UNDUE is a subset of NPOV. The material added (not the material cited, but the text of the article added) does not violate neutral point of view (or, I tried not to violate NPOV), so I think that it's a incorrect reason for deleting it. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Space Services Inc. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. |}Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Frederik Pohl - ITN Current events globe 	On 3 September 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Frederik Pohl, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Thank you for your work on this article. BencherliteTalk 22:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC) December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iodine pentoxide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

ved=0CEsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=decomposition%20of%20iodine%20pentoxide Google Books])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Helium-3 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

/sup>1H + 32He fusion are much higher than those of conventional [D-T fusion. Moreover, since both reactants need to be mixed together to fuse, reactions between L'''=0 (vector addition). Excited states are possible with non-zero total angular momentum, J>0, which are excited pair collective modes. Because of the extreme purity of superfluid 3

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Standard asteroid physical characteristics may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

//arxiv.org/abs/1203.4336 Density of asteroids], Planetary & Space Science to be published (accessed Dec. 20, 2013 for a summary.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC) RFC naked singularities in fiction

Good day, Dr. Landis:

I have enjoyed your work in Analog, so took note when I saw your name as an editor on some articles I've been editing in the last few weeks.

I've been on a personal quest to improve the listings of fiction about wormholes, black holes, White holes, and related unusual objects. I most recently noticed your name on the talk page for Naked singularities, commenting about a fiction listing there. I have added a question to that page about cross-linking fiction content, and if you are willing and have one, I would like to have your opinion on it. The question can be found here.

Best regards, Tacticus (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! seems like naked singularity ought to be a subset of the black hole article, since it doesn't discuss anything other than spinning and charged black holes. But it would be reasonable to have a section on fiction, I'd think. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Calica-ship.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Another one of your uploads, File:Coral snake1.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Magnetic levitation

It looks like you've essentially rewritten it to imply that diamagnetic levitation is the only, or most important type of lift in magnetic levitation.

No, I haven't. I didn't remove any text from the article. If other types of lift are missing, that's because they were missing in the original version.

I rewrote it to make it clearer. Now that it is more clearly written, you can see that diamagnetic levitation is the only kind of lift discussed in the article. That's not new, though-- it was also true in the previous version, but just harder to notice because the article jumped so quickly away from lift that the reader didn't notice.

Actually most practical systems are electromagnetic levitation which use permanent magnets for the lift and don't have any diamagnetism at all.

good idea. Why don't you add it?

Also if you look at the table of contents it looks really strange now.GliderMaven (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. The fact that a lot of topics are missing is now manifest, instead of hidden. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Comparison of orbital launchers families may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. [show] List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Hargitai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Wallace. 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) 09:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC) December 2014 Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC) December 2014 Stop icon with clock You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Oseltamivir. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Category:Clarion Workshop

(Moved from Category talk:Clarion Workshop)

It seems peculiar to delete this category with no notification and almost no discussion. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 30, the notification was on the category page. If you have linkclassifier enabled, User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js, links to pages up for deletion are highlighted, and that was visible on every page the category appeared on, a couple of hundred of them if I recall correctly. There are various other places that categories for deletion are listed, such as their daily logs, as well as in the watchlist of anyone who chooses to watch it (which usually includes anyone who has edited it).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The "discussion" comprised two entries, one saying "why don't we delete this" and the second saying, basically, "sure, why not", with, as far as I can tell, neither of them knowing anything about the subject nor attempting to learn. 14:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It was more 'we should delete this because...', giving the policy based reasons for it. If you feel the decision was made incorrectly the proper venue is Deletion review, as noted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 30.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

from the link given: "...Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page..." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The talk page of a deleted page shouldn't normally exist, and if created should be deleted (which is why I moved the discussion here). The problem is once the page is deleted no-one is likely paying attention to the talk page. Deletion review is a much better venue, and the only place really for getting the decision overturned.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

And the talk page has now been deleted.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"The talk page of a deleted page shouldn't normally exist, and if created should be deleted." In that case, the deletion discussion page shouldn't say "comments should be made on the talk page." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It says "such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review", so whichever is more appropriate. The talk page of a category/article/template is often used if the deletion discussion is inconclusive, or if the result is one that requires further work such as merging, moving, so the page has not been deleted. Deletion review is for reviewing deletions, so is the place to go when there's no talk page.

There are other possibilities (implied by the "such as..."). If the discussion involves more than one page then one may have to be selected for the discussion, or it may take place on a noticeboard such as a project talk page or the village pump. If the problem is one of editor behaviour, such as disruptive behaviour in a discussion, you can raise it with them or take it to one of the noticeboards that focus on editor behaviour.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 14 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Triton (moon) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)