User talk:James McBride/Archive 1

DYK nomination of Prestige (sociolinguistics)
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.
 * Responded there; thanks for pointing that out. Everything looks good, the one last little thing is that it would be nice if you could also briefly mention the fact in the article's intro paragraph. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 02:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah...we're a bit backlogged right now (and I have barely been reviewing hooks at all, even though I used to be one of the big reviewers), but we definitely get linuistic-y hooks through a lot. I have written 4 or 5 linguistic DYKs that I thought would be dreadfully boring, but most did ok...in fact, my most-clicked DYK hook ever happened to be for the article Phonological rule, which even I thought was not that exciting!  I guess you never know... r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for Prestige (sociolinguistics)
I've added some suggestions at Talk:Prestige (sociolinguistics)/Comments. I hope they are helpful. Cnilep (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied
I've replied to your message on my talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That was a great source
so no need to thank me :)  Serendi pod ous  10:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

PSR B1937+21
I replied on the peer review page - as noted I am not sure what the Astronomy conventions are here, so if it is OK not to include access date for online journal articles, or only include the first author's name then et al., I am OK with that too. I think this could be a FA without too much more work, might want to see what the GA review says too. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help - a model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. GRB 970508 is an astronomy FA and seems like it would be a good model (and it gives access dates ;-) ) Let me know when you nominate this at FAC. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the access date is to help identify which version of a web page was accessed as a ref. Assuming all the links work (and the link checker tool indicated that they do), I think it owuld be fine to use today's date. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK alt for Recombination (cosmology)
The article looks great, good work. The hook may fly over many people's heads, so I proposed an ALT, thought you'd like to comment: Template talk:Did you know.  Jujutacular  T · C 02:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Stubs for KOI-81b and KOI-74b
Is the change you made for KOI-81b and KOI-74b from the "extrasolar planet related" stub to the general astronomy stub correct? I've always assumed the exoplanet stub was appropriate for things related to exoplanets, and that actually being an exoplanet wasn't required. The stub template is to help attract editors, and the ones you want to attract to these articles are more exoplanet folks, no? — Aldaron • T/C 05:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think so. Though the main purpose of Kepler is to find exoplanets does not mean to me that because Kepler found these objects, they are exoplanet related. For that reason, I felt like the exoplanet stub on an object would give the impression that they actually are extrasolar planets, when in fact KOI-74b and KOI-81b are almost certainly white dwarfs. If you think the exoplanet stub will be likelier to help them get developed though, I have no problems with you reverting my edits. James McBride (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Earth
Hi, I'm unable to locate the numbers you attributed to the Earth Fact Sheet in this edit on the fact sheet. Is there a conversion involved, or are different names used, or what? --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
As an extra addendum to Articles for deletion/Eccentric Jupiter: what I'm trying to do there is not to "prove" (makes very believable to the astronomy academic public) that Eccentric Jupiters is a real kind. The AfD process is not scientific, it is more like a judicial process where my statement affects the thoughts of the next posting person, so, since I imagine there might be something there, I'm giving arguments for that "here might be a natural kind", so that there might be doubts about the combination of "eccentric" and "Jupiters" is a WP:NEO. The next posters then become unsecure, and the decision will in the end be to salvage the article in case the content might actually reflect a real existing phenomenon. I've been in the AfD process for some few times, and it is not easy to shoot them: in case of doubts, the article is generally saved, and in order to really get rid of an article that shouldn't exist one must be sure, and one must find two or more WP:DEL criteria that the article fulfills, and those criteria must generally be researched somewhat. So, whatever the rumors and the reputations of Wikipedia, the processes are somewhat predictable and not very arbitrary. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ping!
Answering your post to me here. Best wishes! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Friend of a friend?
Hey mate, I happened to notice that you're studying astronomy at UC Berkeley. A while back I worked with User:Daniel Perley, who is (or was) also studying astronomy there. Would you happen to know him? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. There are only about 40 grad students (which is actually a fairly big department, but astronomy is kind of a small field overall), so most of us each other pretty well. Next time I see him, I'll remind him for you that his expertise is appreciated here. James McBride (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool! There are three messages to be conveyed to him (and also to Joshua Bloom if he's around):
 * Individual light curve images like those found in this image would be very helpful for the more notable bursts.
 * Any suggestions for notable bursts to be included in this project?
 * Want to take a look at GRB 970228 which (as you know) is currently at FAC?
 * Thanks a bunch, mate. Feel free to hit me up for a collaboration or review any time. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Kramers&
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kramers&, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://luna.tau.ac.il/~tomer/staff/dina/StEvol.ps. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

PSR J1614–2230
Hi James, nice work on this article. Have you considered nominating it for the "did you know?" part of the main page? I can help you write a hook if you like. SmartSE (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As I noticed that you aren't particularly active, I gone ahead and nominated it, you can view the nomination at T:TDYK. Feel free to suggest a different hook if you wish. SmartSE (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually check wikipedia once or twice a day to monitor edits to the pages on my watchlist, but I usually don't make edits unless I have a large enough block of time to make a substantive contribution. Anyway, thanks for nominating the article for DYK. I was going to do that soon, since it did not seem to get noticed on the ITN page. Regarding the ITN nomination, was there anything in particular that I ought to have done differently? I was sort of surprised that no one even chimed in to say they opposed it being featured. James McBride (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, just didn't want it to run over the five day limit. I don't have any experience at ITN, but it may have been overlooked, just because it is at the bottom of the page. If you nominate an article there again, I think you're supposed to bold the article title as well. I agree that it is a bit strange that nobody said anything about it though. SmartSE (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Planet of the dwarfs
Do you feel like giving this a once over? This and this seem fairly relevant. Uncle G (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Megamaser
Hello! Your submission of Megamaser at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! KimChee (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg All clear now. Good work! KimChee (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)