User talk:Mike Peel/Archive 5

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
There's a picture of the Opera house in the Manchester article, see Image:Opera House, Manchester.jpg. It's a nice picture, but I'm unconvinced by its GFDL compatibility, as (1) it is certainly this picture, which has a copyright notice (2) it's for sale here (3) the original uploader stretches AGF to the limit. Do you mind adding the Opera House to your list of targets? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not bad at all. I think number 1 is the one for us, but IMHO it could do with the verticals being straightened a bit.  I'll have a go over the weekend, time permitting, and see how it looks.  I might try and clone out those bins too ... Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for the list of baryons
Hi,

I noticed that you had an interest in particle physics, so I wondered you could head over the List of baryons and Talk:List of baryons pages a give some feedback. I'm currently trying to bring that article to Featured List status, but I'm not a particle physicist so I probably made half a dozen mistakes. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Headbomb (talk · contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

MBB canal
Cool piccies, thanks for taking them :) I was down there myself just today (working in Manchester), the progress is great.  I'll upload the pics I took. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

languages and translation
Hi Mike,

I noticed your question on the talk page of Multilingual coordination. Some short answers:
 * Articles are linked together with interwiki or interlanguage links; find more information here
 * A list of all Wikipedia editions and their language codes can be found at List of Wikipedias.
 * Translation is not very common between wikipedias -- most Wikipedia editions choose to write articles from scratch. However, there is an active translation project here.
 * You might be interested in the Wikimedia Embassy system as well.

Finally, cross language issues tend to get debated on the Wikipedia-l mailing list (but more and more on Foundation-L instead).

Hope this helps! -- phoebe / (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could give a peer review to Formation and evolution of the Solar System
I noticed that your expertise is in astronomy, and that's really useful for me at the mo, as you can see. An terminology issue has arisen in the PR, and terminology issues are always a bit of a bugbear in astronomy. It concerns the definitions of the word "nebula". Should the giant molecular cloud be referred to as a nebula? Or should that term only be applied to the small fragment (the pre-solar nebula) that became our Sun? To make things even more confusing, some articles refer to the pre-solar nebula as the "solar nebula", while others give that name to the disc of gas and dust that formed the planets. I'm rather confused. Serendi pod ous  10:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove protection
Yes, it's preemptive. We have an extremely prolific pagemove vandal, User:Grawp and sockpuppets, who lately has been specializing in moving, among others, country pages (including tiny little countries and territories like Anguilla). The thinking (of me and several other admins) is that there is no legitimate reason why someone would need to move such a page without discussion. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Horrendous Space Kablooie
Indeedio.

See the piece of sequential art dated 21.06.92 by Watterson, B. for an explanation of the term. Tchernobog (talk) 11:09, 20 May 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; 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ping in re Mercury (planet)
Hi. I notice you're on the WP:PRV list for astronomy-related topics. At your convenience, could I get your take on the first section of Mercury (planet)? We're working on a Featured Article Review, and that section (Internal Structure) is one of the last items in need of work. For the life of me, I can't see a good way to expand or cleanup the section, as it's reasonably linear in that it goes in logical order from crust to core, for example. Nor can I see anything to expand the section with that isn't already covered elsewhere (such as Surface geology). Any insight you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm rather busy at present, but if I get the chance I'll have a look. Mike Peel (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Request restoration
...of Image:Michael_Q._Schmidt_at_wrap_party_for_Yesterday_Was_A_Lie.jpg. This image may have been missing an appropriate tag, but at one point I believe this image had such a tag. If missing, it was a simple oversight and can/will be corrected. . Please restore accordingly. If you won't restore it permanently, please restore it long enough to have it reviewed under WP:IfD. Thank you. — BQZip01 — talk 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reasonable way to ascertain if that account is actually the person who owns the rights to the photo. The photo was already reviewed once under IFD and deleted. It was properly deleted and should remain so. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Restoration and an IfD discussion was all I requested. Thanks! — BQZip01 —  talk 20:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it serve Wiki better for CC to prove that I don't have the rights to my own image (used by me on my website and my IMDB profile), than for me to spend time defending against his spurious accusations? Or for him to prove I am not Michael Q. Schmidt than for me to prove I am? Where would Wiki be if no one ever assumed good faith? Isn't that one of Wiki's most sacrosanct principles?

Look... anyone who goes to my IMDB profile can get a link to my website and thus my email address. I will gladly write back to any who write me... from my website, from my email, as myself. I am exactly who I am. I am certainly not here under the guise of an anonymous user name.

Though he could have, CC has never written me. He knows who I am and where I live. He has my e-mail. He has my home address. He has the proof of my existence... all the while alleging that I am not me. He ignores all proofs and verifications. He ignores facts and truths and repeatedly twists things to meet his own agenda. It is apparent that CC has done no reserach to prove anything he claims about me or my life.... he just deconstructs me to make me as insignificant as he wishes... then deletes me.

Thank you for returning the image he so detests... but history has shown that he does not believe in consensus... absolutely does not believe in it... unless it supports his own POV. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Strömgren sphere
Hi, Mike!

I've read the Strömgren sphere article and found a mistake in definition of J flux, it had wrong physical dimension. Maybe it'll be better to define this quantity accurate since it's not clear for the newbie to understand connection of J and inverse square law. I 'd think on it if you'er busy. :)

Greetings, Evgeny Kurbatov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evgeny Kurbatov (talk • contribs) 12:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics Poll
There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at my sandbox?
Hey Mike,

I've been written a generic WikiProject Banner template that would support new parameters etc... I'm having a minor problem where I can't align some text in a cell. You can take a look at Village_pump_(technical) for a greater description of the problem, and some links that might prove usefull.

The template code is located in my sandbox User:Headbomb/Sandbox

Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, problem was solved by the kind folks of the village pump. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

auto-dud
Hi Mike. I'm interested in why you see this as a regressive move. No doubt you cope well with colour/or and ise/ize differences. It seems to most people that whether month or day comes first is rather trivial, and we're all exposed to both date formats in our reading, whether on the Internet or in other publications in English. Why is it such a big deal?

MOSNUM: well ... it doesn't actually encourage autoformatting: "Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text." Sounds like anything but. It has moved from compulsion (earlier last year) to optional to very cautious, a trend I see as inevitable.

There are two big technical issues: autoformatting was from the start an indulgent in-house programmer's toy that somehow caught on at WP. It conceals within-article inconsistencies in the raw format that everyone else sees; it forces bright blue on dates, which outsiders find very strange (especially since they don't see the formatted version); it clutters the text with blue, when we want readers to go to high-value links—why dilute them? And it makes the page slightly harder to read. Another issue is that a surprisingly large proportion of autoformatted dates have been incorrectly keyed in, resulting in broken links. Ask Lightmouse about that, since he has surveyed the issue.

Pleased to hear your response. No one else at featured-content pages has complained. A few people have reacted very positively to the improved appearance. TONY  (talk)  09:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike: have you ever tried to get the developers at MediaWiki to make changes? It's like trying to move an ocean liner with a rowing boat. Fixing the autoformatting issue—both its exclusive in-house function and it's entanglement with the linking mechanism—is a big deal: technically, it's not simple. What kind of code to use in place of the double square brackets, what things can go wrong with some country-based ISP default preference; many countries use more than one format (Canada, for example; and here in Sydney, the major daily newspaper uses US date formatting). Politically, the developers would have to negotiate sensitivities and take risks, and they hate doing that. All but ?two of MediaWiki's developers are volunteers, and those two are part-time employed and probably not well remunerated, I suspect. It's hard to get anyone to take responsibility for change, which is one reason the organisation is so static. And remember that it serves not just WP, but lots of other users around the world.

Take a look at the long-running, painful Bugzilla page where we presented a huge petition of WPians in Jan 07, I think it was, asking for a parallel syntax to be created for date autformatting that would allow its decoupling from the linking mechanism. Nothing, niente, zero, zilch, and the process tended to get bogged down in queries and dead-ends (developers hate that, too).

I think it's just too big and complex a job, unless MediaWiki devotes serious energy to it, which I don't see happening no matter how much WPians huff and puff. So in frustration, there's a growing movement against the use of autoformatting. In the past few weeks, given the option now not to use it and proper guidelines for which format to use where, I've done a turnabout: I see no reason to retain it, since almost every English-speaker is exposed to both formats, at least some of the time. I think the psychological issue of "feeling more comfortable with your own formatting" is vastly overstated; in fact, I think WP handles the variety-of-English issue remarkably well, and I find the fixation with seeing some kind of preferred month–day or day–month all rather trivial. More important to me is within-article consistency.

Might I suggest that US date formatting for an article about NASA is entirely appropriate. Have you read through it enough to start ignoring the order of month and day, in smooth, unobstructive black? It actually matters more in otherwise overlinked articles: there are some corkers at FAC that are much less cluttered with the dud. TONY  (talk)  16:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, VP is pretty useless—one's post is soon covered up, usually without response. The issue is known among aficionados at MOS, FAC and FLC, but it will take a while to filter through to the troops. When I have more time from Monday next onwards, I'll have a good go at engaging nominators on the matter. TONY   (talk)  12:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Method of Images
I have a question and I know you may not be so inclined but if you would help it would be greatly appreciated, since this is unclear to me. In the expression for the electric field, if you look at a diagram of the vectors for the elctric field from the charge and from it's image charge, it looks like the components normal to the conducting plane cancel, while the radial (or parallel) components add. The radial components would involve a factor of the sine of the angle which would be ρ/a, not a/whatever. So, can you explain the factor of a/R in the surface charge density expression please? ThanksKissnmakeup (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just figured it out. My bad. So sorry. (It usually takes me longer.) Thank you. Kissnmakeup (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Eclipses
Hi. I think if the 21st century is split, it should include the future eclipses somewhere, because some are quite significant. Either include them in the main 21st century article, or put them in a separate article like "List of future solar eclipses". Also, when you move the article, please keep the ref from the book I added onto the main solar eclipse article several months ago, unless you can find a more accurate source such as NASA that will provide a detailed and enlargeable map, if you are willing to add the locations yourself. If you do use that ref, please use the new cite tag format I added, and add any more info to the ref if possible. Also, my computer is on the slow side, so it might not be as easy for me to add new information where applicable to the list articles. As for antiquity, I doubt it will be possible to include a full list, so maybe historicly significant eclipses would go in that list, and likewise for 19th century if such a list is made, although the coverage of that list is rather incomplete in the ref I added which is at the library, although it might be possible to get one from NASA. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 20:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nutation article.
I am a bit concerned about the Nutation article. I wonder if a slight clarification might be added related to the difference between Nutation and Wobble/Polar motion.

The motion of the Earth's rotation axis on the celestial sphere is given by Precession, Nutation PLUS a smaller remainder called the "celestial pole offset". http://www.iers.org/MainDisp.csl?pid=95-93

It is very common to mix up "celestial pole offset" with the geographic motion of the pole on the surface of the earth, known as "Polar Motion" or "wobble".

The IERS monitors both Polar Motion (GPS & VLBI) and the celestial pole offset (VLBI).

Imagine that polaris is exactly at the north celestial pole and we experience 1m of Polar Motion/Wobble. This would mean that:

- My apparent latitude and longitude would change as I view the stars. Polaris would be at a slightly different position in the sky at a fixed location. - Polaris would remain at exactly at the north celestial pole.

Now imagine that polaris is exactly at the north celestial pole and we experience a 1m offset of the celestial pole. This would mean that:

- My apparent latitude and longitude would be unchange as I view the stars. The north rotation pole would be unchanged.

- Polaris would no longer be exactly at the north celestial pole.

132.156.28.88 (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Eclipse pages and animations
I was adding the category Solar eclipse animations to the existing eclipse animations (see my talk page for a full list) and I noticed that you appear to have deleted existing information. Before I add more categories, I would like to know if it is safe to do this, or if there are plans to delete these eclipse images at some point.

I have a complete lists of eclipse animations that are available (again, see my talk page). The eclipse animations cover the period 1991 to 2050 and are sourced from here: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat/SEdecade2001.html. The only eclipse animations that are not available in that time period are those that are missing from the source reference. These need to be uploaded and renamed, and may also need to be edited as discussed here: Picture peer review/Solar eclipse animate (2008-Aug-01).

I really like the infobox that you have added to Solar eclipse of October 3, 2005. However, the terminology used in the infobox may need correction. The partial phase is not called the "general eclipse", it is the "partial eclipse" or something similar. I think the infobox should be made into a template that can be applied to all eclipse pages. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 23:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hey Mike,

Would you consider doing a peer review for Newton's theorem of revolving orbits? I'd like to bring it to WP:GA or FA. That'd be awesome and much appreciated. Thanks, Willow (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WM UK v2.0 board
Hi! Thanks for volunteering for the Wikimedia UK v2.0 board. We've made a page for candidate statements, so please add yours here, and sign the declaration (it's quite long and scary-looking, I know, but being on a board is a serious thing!). The proposed deadline for statements is 13 September, but we'll make a final deadline soon. Good luck! --Tango (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Trudi Canavan Priestess of the White cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Trudi Canavan Priestess of the White cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK 2.0 Voting is open :-)
A warm hello to all those signed up as guarantor members of the soon-to-be-rebooted UK chapter! Voting is now open over at meta - there's tons of information online over there, and the mailing list has been very active too. Discussion, comment (and even the inevitable technical gremlins!) are most welcome at the meta pages, otherwise please do send in your vote/s, and tell a friend about the chapter too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC) I'm not actually involved in the election workings, and am just dropping these notes in to help try and spread the word :-) I welcome any or all comment too, but 'election related' stuff really is better suited to the meta pages :-)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Gerard K. O'Neill
I know you're very busy, but I was wondering if you might want to read over the article on physicist and space colonization advocate Gerard K. O'Neill. The article has grown over 5x in size in the past two months and I would really like some feedback on what I could improve further. Also, if you think it is ready, could you nominate it for 0.7? The selection bot rejected it because of the old assessment and the GA backlog is out of control. Thanks! Wronkiew (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a look sometime soon. I wouldn't worry about the delay with GA affecting its potential inclusion in version 0.7: the current nominations for that don't seem to be going anywhere... :-/ Mike Peel (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your review. You came up with several shortcomings that I had not considered. I'm looking forward to making the suggested improvements. Wronkiew (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK 2.0 Vote
Hi you signed up as being interested in being a memeber of wikimedia UK 2.0. Just a reminder the that the vote for the inital board at Wikimedia UK v2.0/Vote ends next Saturday (September 25th).Geni 03:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you review the Quark article?
I've seen that you're listed as an active participant in WikiProject physics, and particle physics is listed among your areas of interest. The article Quark is currently a featured article candidate. If you're not too busy, could you please review it and express your comments at the nomination page and/or the talk page of the article? Thanks in advance,  A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! !  16:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Mike, are you able to help out at the Quark FAC? The sourcing and the lead need sustained attention.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to have a look soon, but I think that page needs some careful reading, which I don't have time to do right now. Mike Peel (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Talk:Mott insulator
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Mott insulator, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Mott insulator is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Mott insulator, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

article which makes lots of curious claims
Hello,

I noticed your name in the PR list.

Can you take a look at this talk page, Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Islamic Golden Age/archive1 please?

The article makes lots of claims that need to be assessed.

Thank you very much.

—Cesar Tort 17:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

List of cumulative spacewalk records
Mike, thanks so much for making the list sortable! That rocks! Ariel ♥  Gold  01:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thanking me. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there :)
Can you update the colors for the space agencies in this section. List of space agencies Mickman1234 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nigeria needs to be colored yellow because they had and have satelites in space by their space agency listed on the page, List of space agencies. Mickman1234 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK: 40 foot telescope
Hey there. The hook you've suggested at T:TDYK is too long at 234 characters (it should be under 200). Thanks, — 97198 (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you! Although I'm not sure I did the hard work - I stopped editing the article before it entered FLC. :) Congratulations to you for pushing it the rest of the way. Mike Peel (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - November 2008 Issue
Summary: Wikimedians in the United Kingdom are working to set up a chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, which will aid and encourage people to collect, develop and effectively disseminate knowledge. A board of five members has been elected, and a company has now been set up. Membership applications are now invited, and will be processed as soon as we have a bank account. The organisation needs the support and involvement of people like you.

In this month's newsletter:
 * Creating a chapter
 * Elections
 * Status of Company Formation
 * Membership
 * Getting involved

''Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.''

FAR
nominated Hubble Deep Field for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. &mdash; Ceran '''[  speak  ] 14:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfect
No, that's perfect. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

James N. Gardner listed at RfD
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James N. Gardner. Since you had some involvement with the James N. Gardner redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Six (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - December 2008 Issue
Summary: You can now join Wiki UK Ltd, which hopes to become the official UK chapter of Wikimedia in January. The organisation is planning its first Annual General Meeting, where members can vote on who is on the board, and put forward and vote on resolutions. The organisation is already supporting activities such as a bid to hold Wikimania 2010 in Oxford and the exciting Wikipedia Loves Art project at the Victoria and Albert Museum. We also bring you news of the the recent Wikimeet in London.

In this month's newsletter:
 * Chapter formation
 * Membership
 * AGM
 * Wikimania 2010 - Oxford bid
 * Wikipedia Loves Art
 * London Wikimeet

''Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.''

Newsletter delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

HDF ref
I've looked into things a bit more, and the arXiv link isn't for the conference. It's an entirely different, although related, publication (hence the two different bibcodes), so they should be two different refs.

Interesting factoid, the arXiv linked publication was to appear in Nature on 27 August 2008, but that edition of Nature (394825-826) has instead an article named White dwarfs sing the blues by Harvey B. Ricther, who is not the same author as in the archiv link. I don't really know what to make of this. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Hansen paper is later on in that issue, p. 860: Mike Peel (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I _think_ that Hansen originally published in the Conference proceedings, which is the version on the arxiv and referenced on ads, and then published another version in Nature. That would make sense if someone at the conference noticed his paper and suggested that it was worthy of Nature. Mike Peel (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ... and to complete the picture, see . Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
You may be interested: Meetup/Manchester 4. Thanks,  Majorly  talk  18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

B of the Bang
Passed GA, my 2nd ever, but it seems comprehensive (which I think is the main issue).--Grahame (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  §hepBot  ( Disable )  19:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)