User talk:Modest Genius/Archive 3

Additional images for James E. Boyd (scientist)
I came across a couple more images and put them online. I'm guessing they're contemporaneous with the image of Boyd at the podium. Do you like either of these? File:James Boyd microphones 1.jpg and File:James Boyd microphones 2.jpg. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good, especially the second one. Don't mind me, I'm just glancing at the FA nom because that article is still on my watchlist - I'm not familiar enough with the FA criteria to cast an informed !vote. Modest Genius talk 21:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, you made an excellent reviewer and in the end the article is that much better thanks to you :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you noticed that he's main page-bound :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, congrats. I'll have a proper read through at some point before he gets there. Modest Genius talk 18:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, albeit with only a few hours to spare. I've also left an enquiry on the talk page. Modest Genius talk 21:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Hey MG, At ITN/C We have a nomination that we agree needs to be posted about a Quasar. We have no idea what article to update or whether it deserves it's own article. You expertise would be appreciated. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey MG, ITN again needs you expertise for evaluating NASA press conference on Mars. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

ITN apple/jobs
Hi Modest Genius,

I used to be a registered editor, but retired and now only occasionally post as an anonymous IP. That choice has left me being labelled troll/vandal, something which I accept despite the difficulties. I truly appreciate your taking the time to reply, especially now that I see how ITN items are selected.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.132.92.8 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Modest Genius talk 12:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Text changes to Simon de Montfort (6th Earl of Leicester) article
Modest, I was looking over some of my Ancestry database information, and comparing it to what's here on Wiki. I ran across the "CN" tag on the Simon de Montfort article, and ran that "fourth cousin, once removed" statement through my relationship examiner software. Seems that might be a bit incorrect, it actually comes up as "3C2R." They (de Montfort and Henry III) also come up 5C1R, 6C1R, 6C and 7C1R. This kind of multiple result seems to be the norm where the royal families of Britain and France are concerned.

One question that piques my curiosity is if, at the time of the Provisions of Oxford, either Simon de Montfort or Edward I knew they were cousins...Edit Centric (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting, I'm glad you checked. But could you add a citation to that database, just so it's obvious where the information comes from? Modest Genius talk 09:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wish I could cite the database, but unfortunately the only copy that exists is here on my local terminal. It's composed of information that I've gleaned and cross-checked from several sources across the internet though, so I MIGHT be able to figure out a way to do it. Otherwise, the database is just the product of my own curiosity, fleshed out in an Ancestry Family Tree format. (To see if I could build a family tree of the English monarchs, going all the way back to at least William of Normandy.)


 * I've actually come up with a few interesting products though! For instance: Oliver Cromwell is descended from Charles VI of France, through Catherine of Valois. Also, Anne Boleyn was a descendant of Edward I (Longshanks), the latter being the 7th great-grandfather of the former. Even more intriguing, Cromwell, Boleyn and Longshanks all trace back to....(wait for it)....Hugh Capet! (You probably knew all this though...) Edit Centric (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ada Bridge
Hi. I'm reading news candidates, but, i'm not sure what should i do. Official opening is scheduled to take place for approximately eighth hours. Can you do it instead of me? Is opening of world largest single pylon bridge event for ITN? -- Bojan   Talk  15:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Modest Genius talk 15:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again and happy new year. -- Bojan   Talk  16:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Red Bull GmbH, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Prix (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) 11:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why on earth is that a dab page? The motor racing usage is clearly the dominant one. Anyway, I've disambiguated it. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dynasty (sports)
Back in 2010 you tagged this article as needing internationalisation to reflect a more world-wide view. Would you be so kind as to take a fresh look at the article and either remove the tag or suggest specific ways in which you feel the article could be further improved? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that was a long time ago. I think I was concerned about
 * The lead, which discusses the concept from a North American point of view. It also doesn't mention that the term 'dynasty' is relatively uncommon in e.g. Europe, but the concept exists under different names.
 * The geographic range of examples in the list, which was heavily biased towards North American leagues, light on European leagues, and almost non-existent for sport in any other location
 * The relative coverage of different sports e.g. there's only one entry for cricket, which isn't even the Australian team of the late 90s, whilst college american football has a huge section which is actually longer than that for the NFL! Rugby has only one entry, despite being one of the world's most popular sports. Some sports are missing entirely e.g. darts, snooker (admittedly those are individual sports where the term 'dynasty' probably isn't used much, but again the concept exists under different names)
 * At the time, there was sectioning out of 'European teams', as if they were an afterthought (this has now gone)
 * There's a section on 'indoor football', which actually refers to indoor american football, which is a very different sport to what 90% of the world would use that term to refer to.
 * I could go on, but that's enough to deserve keeping the tag IMO. Feel free to copy this to the talk page if you think that would be useful. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, copied to the article talk page. cmadler (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You mentioned that the concept exists under different names in Europe (and other parts of the world?) and in some individual sports. What other terms are you aware of with the same (or a closely similar) meaning? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly in the UK they're usually described with phrases such as the "great United team of the 1990s", "all-star West Indies sides of the 80s", "Steve Davis' dominance of the 80s" etc. There's not one particular word that gets used like "dynasty" is in North America, but the concept is the same. I'm sure the same applies to other locations as well. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

LARES (satellite) is getting hot! Please, check
Dear Modest Genius, I permit to let you know that an editing war may soon start about the article LARES (satellite) because an editor, Cricecio, declared that he wants to delete the references to the papers by Lorenzo Iorio, published in peer-review journals, in which criticisms have been raised about some aspects of such a mission. For the moment, the article seems good and rather impartial in the tone and the content, but it may soon change. Probably, you will easily recognize the identity of Cricecio, who is not neutral since he is involved in the LARES team (I do not add more...). Could you, please, check? Thank you.Again him! (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, uh, what makes you think I'm going to particularly care about this article? That's actually very suspicious - a brand new user almost immediately comes to speak to me. Have we interacted in the past or something? Also, you might find people react more sympathetically if you a) don't go accusing people of some sort of conspiracy and threatening them b) write in a calm neutral tone and c) weren't pushing a particular point of view yourself. Half the article is dedicated to Iorio's criticisms and the LARES team's response. That's FAR too much undue weight on the criticisms of one scientist. Yes Iorio's position should be mentioned, but not to the point where it dominates the article. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b>, thank you for your reply. Please, notice that your remark about a brand new user should hold for Cricecio as well. Moreover, I think one should be wise and careful to apply the undue weight argument as a weapon to shut unwanted voices, especially in scientific topics. In any case, my somewhat preventive action is based on what happened in the past with the article frame-dragging, when all and solely the references by Iorio were systematically removed, and on the declared intentions by Cricecio: I simply wish a similar thing does not happen here again.  At the moment, the article on LARES is fine, with all relevant pieces of information in place. I just wish it will remain so.  In case of vandalism, may I contact you to avoid another editing-war? Thank you Again him! (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

MK
How would you prefer it phrased? "Largest complex of >2m-class telescopes?" (Out of interest, which complex were you thinking of which has more telescopes? I don't think La Silla or Paranal were that big last time I looked. Kitt Peak? Hey, even SSO probably has 13 with all the tiny little scopes that keep going in). Iridia (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * By my count, MKO currently has 12 regularly-operated telescopes (UH36 isn't used that much). SAAO currently have 14 telescopes operating, plus several other site-testing telescopes. La Palma has 13 operating, plus 2 others which are used infrequently, plus several site testing telescopes. Teide has 13/14/16 (depending which source you believe), though how many are operating I don't know. La Silla has either 15 or 17, though a bunch of them have been decommissioned, I'm not sure how many. Kitt Peak is impossible to find a decent number for, because they're all run by different people, but might be as low as 9 or as high as 21. Even Haleakala Observatory has 12 telescopes, though the details of many (including how often they're operated) are classified.
 * Only counting telescopes above a certain size would be a bit disingenuous, because a) by picking different sizes you could make lots of different observatories the 'largest', b) it favours observatories with radio/sub-mm/Cerenkov telescopes, like MKO and La Palma and c) some top-quality science comes from small telescopes, such as those used for exoplanet and microlensing searches, or solar telescopes.
 * MKO is clearly one of the worlds premier observatories, but I don't think it can be correctly described as the 'largest'. UH does claim this on their website, but I think that is both dubious and out of date (three of the SAAO telescopes were commissioned in the last 12 months or so). Besides, we shouldn't be relying on the owners themselves for such a distinction. Obviously this doesn't just affect the Mauna Kea article, but Mauna Kea Observatory and any other articles which claim to identify the 'largest' observatory. Maybe this discussion should be taken to WT:ASTRO? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oop sorry, missed your reply. Thank you for the details. We'll definitely have to decouple all the observatory articles from such precise phrasing; even keeping track of the telescope numbers to keep the articles up to date will be problematic. I might just swap the wording to "premier", which as you say should be uncontroversial enough. Iridia (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be uncontroversial to say 'one of the premier observatories', but just 'premier' would certainly be arguable. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead now has "comprise one of the world's largest facilities of their type"; body has "It is one of the world's premier observatories for optical, infrared, and submillimeter astronomy, and in 2009 was the largest measured by light gathering power.[56]".
 * (So many of the observatory articles could be better...ESO for example really needs some solid pruning. One day.) Iridia (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks! On the other observatory articles - the problem is that they're either stubs, or been written by people who work at the observatory. The ESO article was mostly written by people in the ESO press office, for example. With a few good eyes to ensure a reasonably balanced coverage, that's clearly preferable to having only a stub. It's also hard to find third-party sources for a lot of them, unless you're already very familiar with the observatory. I wish I had time to improve those articles myself. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Dawn Neesom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Star (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) 11:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for tagging dead links in James E. Boyd (scientist). I took care of them right away :) Disavian (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you'd find them; I was just learning how to use Checklinks! <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad Grammer!!!!!
I have come to notice that their is some bad grammar on you're user page. THe 4th box down on the right hand side has the terrible sentence "This user has many much edits" this was most distressing to me and my children who will know not sleep tonight for fear of the the bad grammer monster comeing to consume there souls. please if you can rectify this asap. 128.243.253.104 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)theredrectangle
 * That's a deliberate in joke. I find it rather suspicious that you're posting from a Uni Nottingham IP address using the tag 'theredrectangle', and somewhat ironic that you would complain about it using very poor English yourself... <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology
Hi Modest Genius, you've removed some wikilinks I'd written. They linked to plasma cosmology and were all in the "see also" section of the pages. You gave as your reason that the links were "not relevant". Since plasma cosmology has an alternative take on the articles in question the links were clearly relevant - the plasma cosmology page discusses things in all the articles linked to. Also, since plasma cosmology is not mainstream I specifically avoided putting the links in the main body of the articles and only in the "see also" section. I think the links are relevant and in the appropriate section and I can't see any reason not to have them. What do you think? Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any value in adding a link to a fringe theory on pages which are otherwise utterly unrelated to the subject. Flat earth cosmology has a different interpretation of the planets, but that doesn't mean it should be in the see also section of all the article on planets. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I take it your reason for removing the links is therefore that plasma cosmology is a fringe theory, not that the links are not relevant? Could you explain why you think it is a fringe theory. Actually I would expect to see a link of some sort to the idea of a flat Earth on a page about the shape of the Earth, and indeed you can see Flat Earth on the page Spherical Earth! Cheers Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Both: a) It's not relevant to topics like radio galaxy, which has absolutely nothing to do with plasma cosmology, but would be relevant on pages like non-standard cosmology or indeed cosmology. Both already link to it. b) It's a fringe theory, with essentially zero support among professional astronomers (as the article itself notes). It therefore has no place on articles discussing astronomy as it is currently understood. Both of those make the link inappropriate for the pages I removed it from. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's some further discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Shall we AGF?
Modest Genius, I hope you're available to promptly address the comments I've added to your recent actions on my OTD error query. Perhaps you would go on to apply your scrutiny fairly and in good faith to all pages you deem inadequate... or perhaps just the one I helpfully mention, since you evidently want to keep inadequate articles off the On this day - Selected Anniversaries section of the Main Page. Thank you, Deborahjay (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied on WP:ERRORS. But I think you should refrain from making assumptions about other users motivations. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed
Hello Modest Genius,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! WorldsApart (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

MNRAS
Hello. The odd list you removed is indexing information for the MNRAS. The list is referenced here and you'll need to scroll down to see it. These indexes serve as more information about the journal. So, you may or may not be able to see that there are 13 databases (or indexes) contained within CSA indexes on this journal's page. Rather than list them I shortened it to "CSA Illumina (13 databases)". with a link to the CSA article (for further explanation to help the reader). Furthermore, maybe it will be helpful to understand what these services are. Please see this article and this article. As you can see from the second link, we (wikipedia) have articles that describe these databases, which are also part of the WikiProject Acadmeics effort on Wikipedia. For example, also see Science Citation Index.

Additionally, having an "abstracting and indexing" section is common enough in Wikipedia journal articles. Please see these examples:
 * Nature Communications
 * Advances in Physics
 * and for Annalen der Physik please scroll down to the section entitled "indexing".

So I could use this page as a reference even if it may not be necessary, but it may be helpful --- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I just don't see how the list is relevant. Being included in a bunch of random databases is hardly important information, especially since the only one which actually matters (NASA ADS) isn't included. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The indexes are not random. Journals are selected by these databases. Such a process helps define the notability of a given journal. The more selective databases choose journals that have a signifigant impact in their field. Also, NASA ADS is not really a selective database like some of the others. However if I didn't inlcude that it was an oversight. That is usually part of the indexing informaiton in a journal article. Also, if you read the links I provided it may help understand what I am talking about rather than refering to these as a "bunch of random databases". Steve Quinn (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did read them. I just still don't see the relevance of the journal being listed in some catalogues that no-one uses, regardless of how 'selective' they are. Journal Citation Reports does matter because of the impact factor. But the others? I've been working in astronomy for many years, and never heard of anyone using any of them. Btw, this conversation should probably be on the talk page of the article; it might also be worth asking WP:AST what they think of it. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again your characterization is in error. These "catalogs", or databases, are used and referred to, and considered quite useful. Also, apparently the journal thinks that listing of indexes are relevant because it is right there on the page that has the overview, aims & scope, along with impact factor, editor in chief, the journal ranking, etc. etc. This is part of the journal's description. So the artcile's talk page is probably a better idea so I am going to copy this and place it over there. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Per your suggestions
I copied the above conversation on to the article's talk page. I also left a message over at Talk:AST and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

RAS Presidents
There's a full list of the Presidents of the RAS in the History of the Royal Astronomical Society (1923) (available here which seems to tally with the RAS web page, although I haven't had a chance to double-check yet. The list of Presidents is in the Appendix, which starts at page 250 -  page 284 if you are looking at the PDF version  I had been double-checking against various online archived editions of the The Observatory and reports of RAS meetings, which was getting a tad wearying. I did find one error on the RAS page, where John Russell Hind and Edward James Stone overlap, but that's just a typo in the page in the Stone entry. However, (errr),  quite a few of the bio articles have got the dates wrong, which I have been correcting as I go. <font face="monospace" color="#004080"> FlowerpotmaN &middot;(t) 20:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful. The RAS website listing for Stone has now been corrected, though the list would be more useful if it was in chronological order and included full names (not just initials). But that's a job for another time. The other thing I've been looking for without much success is a list of editors-in-chief of MNRAS and GJI; I might have a look in the official history to see if there's anything there. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Open access
If there is no consensus on marking articles OA, why is there a template? Just curious. Speciate (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a push for a whole bunch of OA-related things when WikiProject Open Access started. Amongst other things, they started putting categories onto every single article that cited an OA source, tagging references with open access etc. They defined their scope not by articles about open access, but any article which cited an OA source. There was never any discussion outside that wikiproject, they just did it. As far as I'm aware there was never any guideline or policy discussion either. This annoyed various people so they stopped after a while; I've no idea if that's permanent or not. I'm all in favour of OA, but tagging particular subsets of references with it is a pretty bad idea, especially when no-one can even agree what exactly constitutes Open Access (is a newspaper open access? New Scientist? A paper which is on arXiv?). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The template should be nominated for deletion, look at the weird (and small) collection of articles in which it is used, mostly frogs. Speciate (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably should. But I'm unwilling to open that particular can of worms right now. If you want to do it then I'll happily add my support. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

ITN Lincoln Alexander
I've responded to both RJFF and your opposition to posting this as ITN on the candidacy page. It would be great if you could look over my comments. If it results in a change of heart, great; if not, no worries, no hard feelings. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

University of Nottingham Students' Union Council
Hi, I'm writing up a motion to the UoN SU Council to promote the use and publication of media under free licences. As a UoN student/alumnus, I was wondering if you'd like to give your input.

Please comment at commons:Commons:Village pump.

-mattbuck (Talk) 22:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Episodic mass loss
Hi Modest Genius:

After working closely with Casliber for 2.5 years on Betelgeuse we were finally able to cross the FA goal line recently. There is, however, one concern that I have and which could really use your expertise. It concerns the nature of stellar mass loss.

Where we ended up in a pickle, was we needed to reference the luminosity figure for Betelgeuse. Fortunately, we found a recent article from Mohamed 2012 which provides a little infobox on page 2 showing a mean luminosity of ~120,000L☉. But in the infobox is a mass loss rate of ~0.03M☉ every 10,000 years which sources a 2001 article from Graham Harper. In 2009, however, ESO published a Betelgeuse article referencing Ohnaka2009 which quotes ~1M☉ per 10,000 years. It seems that the discrepancy has to do with episodic mass loss (huge gas plume) vs that which is emitted by the star's stellar wind.

So my question is simply this: Is the first paragraph of Circumstellar dynamics a fair representation of the facts?

Thanks for your help on this.--Sadalsuud (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to look into this right now, but might find some over the weekend. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No rush. There's a major conference on mass loss coming up in November. We're thinking of having the article featured on the main page then.  I just want to make sure that the way we've summarized the information makes sense to an astrophysicist.  Thanks again for any insights.--Sadalsuud (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well it took a month, but here are my thoughts:
 * It's not bad, though a bit heavy going to read. You seem to have described the relevant observations quite well, though it would be nice to have a concluding paragraph to the section which sums up what all these mean, in layman's terms.
 * 1e-4 M_sol/yr is NOT the same as 1 M_sol every 10,000 years. The former is an instantaneous rate, whilst the latter is the average over a long time period. If the mass loss is episodic, the latter can be much higher than the former implies, because the star will go through periods of low- and high-mass loss rate. Don't re-write the measurements in this way. Compare 'the car was travelling at 10mph' and 'the car travelled 88,000 miles in a year' - they mean different things, despite being numerically equivalent.
 * Harper et al quote a mass loss rate of 3e-6 based on a combination of their model and earlier observations (section 8.1). I cannot see any estimate of Betelgeuse's mass loss rate in the Ohnaka paper, just a general statement about red supergiants (given as 'up to 1e-4'). Harper also references a value of 4e-6 found by Glassgold & Huggins (1986), and two other measurements of 1e-6. In the absence of any other information, I'd go with the Harper number and cite both Harper and Glassgold & Huggins. Delete the 1e-4 figure as misleading and not referring to this star.
 * I don't like the second paragraph of that section, which reads like a rehashed ESO press release. Really, what does it matter which instrument was used, or who did the study? That's technical information which is of interest to researchers in the field, but not general encyclopaedia readers.
 * There's no reason to talk up the mass loss from this particular star as somehow being massively important to the entire history of the universe. That's overblown, and belongs in the Stellar mass loss article, not Betelgeuse.
 * I hope that's helpful. Feel free to copy these comments to somewhere more useful (e.g. the article talk page). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

ITN for Solar eclipse of November 13, 2012
For the record. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

WP Astronomy in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Astronomy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henryk Górecki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czernica (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) 11:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS
!! BencherliteTalk 19:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Just trying to lighten the mood :) I thought it was worrying that anyone would see that as a bad thing to know. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Imagine the fuss that it would cause. Imagine the original research...  BencherliteTalk 19:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are hundreds of reliable sources. Or at least sources that satisfy WP:RS, which isn't quite the same thing. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited City of London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman (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) 11:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Nott logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Nott logo.gif. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That image was briefly removed from University of Nottingham during a major rewrite. It's back now. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN for Southern Sudanese independence referendum, 2011
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)‎

Orphaned non-free media (File:Nott logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Nott logo.gif. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it's been removed again. I've started a thread on the article talk page. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI
Actually, a pope is an elected monarch. But anyways, the Church uses the term resignaton. GoodDay (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow, thanks! <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe (WMF) (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 January 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Adding a timestamp so this actually archives: <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Order of the British Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mervyn King (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) 11:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)