User talk:Mollwollfumble

Alternatives to General Relativity
I would just like to point out to you that what you are doing (cut and pasting) is not moving the page. In fact, it violates the license Wikipedia has on the page. If you want, you can tag the page that you want to move it to (Alternatives to general relativity) with a deletion tag (db-author will suffice) and I will perform the right sort of move for you. Ryūlóng 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm totally new to this. I acidentally input the stuff on "Alternatives to General Relativity" without being aware of wikipedia's policy of using lower case in headings for everything except names. So now know that it must go on "Alternatives to general relativity" with a redirect from "Alternatives to General Relativity" to "Alternatives to general relativity". I want to be absolutely certain that I don't lose the contents in the process. So please explain what a "deletion tag" does? Mollwollfumble 03:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By placing on Alternatives to general relativity and its talk page (the ones without capital letters) it will be listed in a category of pages that are to be deleted. Since you are the original author, these pages will be deleted, and then, one of us can move the page to its new location. Ryūlóng 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice addition of the empirical formula for nuclear binding energy
We're developing enough info on that topic to perhaps warrant a subarticle, at some point. Meanwhile, could you give an example of the formula in use? For example, calculate the per-nucleon binding energy for carbon or tin or gold using the formula, then compare with the real value? S B Harris 00:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, will do (Mollwollfumble 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Hello, whose fair (not nescient, Sbharris) formula is that? Is it yours, or is it from a book or paper? -lysdexia 15:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The formula is from Liverhant's book. Mollwollfumble 05:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

List of sequenced eukaryotic genomes
Nice work updating that page!

I just wanted to check – are the genomes you're adding all annotated? That's listed in the first paragraph as a criterion for inclusion on that page. Having said that, it would be great if there was a place in Wikipedia for unannotated genomes.

Keep up the good work :-)   Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Coelurosauria
Hi Moll,

Thanks so much for your recent additions to Coelurosauria. As this page is on my watchlist, it's been quite interesting to see the page expand over the past few days. Keep it up! :) Firsfron of Ronchester  04:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Dino evol 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dino evol 1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Age of Euhelopus
Hi, Mollwollfumble;

You might want to tweak your sauropod diagrams, as Euhelopus is now dated to the Early Cretaceous (some time between 130-112 million years). J. Spencer (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'll see if there's anything I can do.(Mollwollfumble (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Perhaps it's too early to say Early Cretaceous. Wilson & Upchurch of May 2009 suggest this but also give a range of possibilities. "The Mengyin Formation was originally considered to be Early Cretaceous (?Neocomian) in age by Wiman (1929). Subsequently, a Late Jurassic age (early Tithonian) was suggested on the basis of the dinosaurian fauna (Young 1958; Mateer & McIntosh 1985; Dong 1992) and conchostrachans (Chen et al. 1982), which has been accepted by most authors (e.g. Weishampel 1990; Barrett et al. 2002; Weishampel et al. 2004). However, X.-C. Wu et al. (1994:227) considered the co-occurrence of the crocodyliform Shantungosaurus and the turtle Sinemys as evidence that the Mengyin Formation was correlated with Early Cretaceous deposits in the Luohandong Formation of Inner Mongolia, which is considered Barremian in age (ca. 130–125 Ma; Averianov & Skutschas 2000). Dong (1995:94) likewise referred the Mengyin Group to the Early Cretaceous Psittacosaurus Complex (ca. 120 Ma; H.-Y. He et al. 2004). More recently, Barrett &Wang (2007) described Euhelopus-like teeth from the Yixian Formation that led them to infer a possible Aptian age for the Mengyin Formation. There is a growing consensus that the Mengyin Formation is Early Cretaceous, rather than Late Jurassic in age, although more specific determination is not yet possible. Accordingly, we ascribe an age range of Barremian–Aptian (ca. 130–112 Ma) to Euhelopus zdanskyi." I think (hope) I was using the Weishampel et al. (2004) early Tithonian age. (Mollwollfumble (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
 * It looks like Tithonian on the graphs. Perhaps two dots for Euhelopus would be warranted, given the large difference in proposed ages? J. Spencer (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Rocket Lab add
I caught that news item and had it on my much-delayed to-do list for Pirvate Spaceflight Companies. You beat me to it. aremisasling (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I happened across the NZ rocket by accident about a week ago, then waited until the maiden flight to add it. The colours on that table are wildly wrong, but I don't know how to fix them.
 * I think I got them sorted out. There were only a few that needed changing; all successful flights.  I also changed it to operational (1/1) indicating one successful flight. aremisasling (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Goldfield water supply scheme
Hi we always put new talk items at the 'bottom of the talk page' - cheers SatuSuro 00:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to know someone's watching. Mollwollfumble (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Cauchy's functional equation
Hi, your edit, along with some improvements, introduced a mistake, changing $$f(x) = cx\ $$ to $$f(cx) = cx\ $$ (which would mean the same as $$f(x) = x$$, which is not what was intended). I've fixed it. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right and that means that what I've said a couple of lines later is also wrong. I didn't mean to say $$f(x) \ne cx$$ but $$f(cx) \ne cf(x)$$

Possibly unfree File:Syncrude Mildred Lake.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Syncrude Mildred Lake.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Automotive industry in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hongqi. 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) 08:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Help me!
Need to reinstate lost Wikipedia page "WISE 0535-7500".

This Wikipedia page used to exist, but was replaced by a redirect. I need to cancel the redirect and bring the original page back so that I can edit it. But I can't find the original page, all I can find is a translation of an earlier version of the original page into Chinese. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/WISE_0535-7500 The Chinese version is lacking at least one line of text that used to be in the English version.

The lost English version may be hidden under a synonym, possibly "WISE J053516.80-750024.9" or "WISE J0535-7500".

Please help with finding (or reconstructing by back-translation) the original English version of the this webpage. Mollwollfumble (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears this article was moved because it didn't meet Notability (astronomical objects). I suggest creating a draft and submitting it for review if you believe it now meets the notability guideline. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 01:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspected as much. But this object has a parallax of 250, and new research gives its distance as 13.0 light years, which puts it slap bang in the middle of "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars_and_brown_dwarfs", at position 31 unless other objects have the wrong distances in that list. It is closer than at least eight other brown dwarfs that do each have pages of their own. In fact it's the only one of Marsh(2012)'s 11 Y dwarfs that doesn't have it's own Wikipedia article. Even worse, the link to this Brown Dwarf from the page to which it's redirected directs back to its redirection, giving a closed loop. The "WISE 0535-7500" Wikipedia page should never have been removed in the first place. I do not wish to create an article from scratch where 90% of it must already exist somewhere. Bring it back. Mollwollfumble (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be looking for . However, this quite likely doesn't pass WP:NASTRO, so if you do recreate it, make sure you can demonstrate notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That's exactly the page I'm looking for. As for notability, I definitely shouldn't have to prove it, no astronomical pages containing a genuine starbox should ever be deleted from Wikipedia on the grounds of "notability". I say that because I would be very surprised if any such astronomical object that has been given a page on Wikipedia is not genuinely notable in an important way. This Y dwarf, WISE 0535−7500, for example, is the closest astronomical object to Earth that may support life-as-we-know-it on its surface, which makes it arguably more important than any other astronomical object.Mollwollfumble (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The standards outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO are what we go by to establish notability. You can create a 'genuine infobox' for any of the hundreds of trillions of stars and objects out there. That does not make them notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mount Vinson
Hi, I reverted your edit to Mount Vinson because, as mentioned in the Geography section, it was surveyed by GPS in 2004 and found to be 4892m. Earlier data from topographic maps and RAMP are less accurate and obsolete. Viewfinder (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was going to revert the edit myself. My information is more recent but much less accurate. I should have realised that being recent does not equate to accuracy. By the way, this discrepancy throws into doubt all the work I've been doing on Antarctic Mountains. I was going to add a new Wikipedia page about Antarctic Mountains, but now I realise that I have to be much more careful about which sources are most accurate.Mollwollfumble (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * RAMP is not recent, it has been around for about a decade. It is still probably the best complete DEM of the Antarctic, and is still the basis for the Antarctic DEM on my site, but it is not as accurate as GPS. There are other freely downloadable high resolution DEM's of the Antarctic which are more accurate in places, and I intend to use these to improve the DEM on my site, but they are not complete. These DEMs are consistent with 4892, not anything over 5000. These include ASTER, which is quite good in the the Vinson area, and ALOS, which is good in other areas but void in the Vinson area. Hope this helps. Viewfinder (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ta, that's extremely helpful, I will download ASTER and ALOS immediately. In the meantime, I've plotted calculated errors in horizontal positions and heights for RAMP data on the Sentinel range at http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o162/DavidPaterson/SSSF/Vinson%20RAMP%20error_zpswofvhkfz.jpg and http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o162/DavidPaterson/SSSF/RAMP%20error2_zpsc52qu9mf.jpg RAMP altitudes are frequently in error by as much as +-200 metres for mountains in this range. Mollwollfumble (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Super-Kamiokande
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from several different copyright journal articles. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)