User talk:Looxix~enwiki/archive

Hello and Welcome! I hope you like the place. --mav

Hi, Looxix. Nice work on Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky. This article was wainting for someone to start it. I'll try to tide up a bit more your quite huge stub - when I find a time. Shall we use naming of Lobachevsky instead of Lobachevskii in it? Check out also other great Russian mathematicians (e.g. Pafnuty Lvovich Chebyshev and his most talented student Aleksandr Mikhailovich Lyapunov...) Best regards. --XJamRastafire

Hi there. I see you've just created Gravitational lense -- however there's already Gravitational lens; you'll need to merge your material in to the Gravitational lens page. -- Tarquin 00:41 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

---

DES probably doesn't have much to do with astronomy, but data compression does. It is useful to be able to use non-lossy compression when receiving data from, for example, probes launched in the solar system. Also, in the releasen of the Palomar digitized Sky Survey, they had to use data compression to fit the sky in just a few tens of CD-ROMS. Just a couple of examples.--AN 20:26 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, but is this an astronomical topic?
 * a lot of things are usefull for astro: for example everything vaguely related to electronic have probably an use for something related to astronomy.
 * --Looxix 20:40 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

The list is supposed to be inclusive. The idea is not that someone looks for his astronomical topics to study there, but that anyone interested in keeping and eye on everything astronomy can go to that page and do a "Related Changes". In case of doubt, I'd say include. The page is already illegible, you are not going to improve much taking stuff out of there.

Thanks for your work on the List of physics topics page!!! Chas zzz brown 18:41 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, your electrodynamics article had me a bit riled at first, but this certainly makes up for it. Well done Looxix! -- Tim Starling 01:40 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)
 * Sorry for electrodynamics, I was tired and I should stop to write something I know nothing about.
 * --Looxix

I hate to inflict him on you, but can you check User:FWappler's edits to Uncertainty principle? My advice is just to revert - I've posted on the mailing list about his contributions. Cheers Chas zzz brown 21:04 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your change since you broke one of the "compatibility"-links. Those redirects into the User-namespace were set up during transition to the phase 2 software. Before, every user had its user page in the main namespace. While moving all user pages these redirects have been set up to keep links and google searches etc working. -- JeLuF 19:26 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Yeh. I didn't see that there. Thx --PY

Hi, nice job on Cassiopeia and Crux! The project has been going a little bit slow lately, so I am glad to see you're participating in WikiProject Constellations. I see you're adding linking to deep sky object with the header, that link is necessary for sure, but according to the Manual of Style, we better avoid link withing headers, as this may cause problem for some viewers, so I guess the link to deep sky object should be moved into the paragraph like Andromeda and Canis Major. Happy editing! --Lorenzarius 19:30 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. --Lorenzarius

Note, personal subpages to be deleted can be listed at the appropriately named Personal subpages to be deleted.
 * noted, thanks. -- looxix 19:38 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

That was such a stupid mistake, with the hadron. Thanks for fixing it.LittleDan

-

Please see my reply on my talk page regarding the NASA dictionary -- please let me know if this is OK for the public domain criteria -- otherwise, the entries from there will have to be paraphrased/rewritten.

The entries in question are:
 * diffuse sky radiation
 * Mie scattering
 * Rayleigh scattering
 * Ballistics
 * ... and a bit of text inserted into scattering

If you feel the source does not meet the PD criteria, you will probably also want to remove it from public domain resources.

-- Karada 09:07 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

-

Message for you at Talk:Angular momentum -- Tim Starling 01:52 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Hi :-), About ultimate fate of the Universe I'm wondering why you changed endless cosmic expansion back to endless cosmic inflation? As far as I am aware, inflation is only used for the early negative gravity, exponential rate of expansion that occured in the early universe. Theresa knott 08:17 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)