User talk:Starstriker7/Archive VII

&larr; &mdash; Archive VI &mdash; Archive VII &mdash; Archive VIII &rarr;

This is the Seventh Archive, which was generated from User:Starstriker7's talk page. As each archive contains thirty individual commentaries, the Seventh Archive contains commentaries 181-210.

The date span for this archive spreads from 10 June 2011 to 25 November 2011.

DYK for WASP-44
Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for WASP-44b
Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 16113 Ahmed
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for WASP-13
-- Calmer  Waters  19:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Just the GAN result. Ankit Maity  Talk •  contribs 16:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey can you edit your Brewster NY page? you forgot to include a dollar amount. Thanks.

Hello. Please fix this line. Someone forgot to put a number after the $. Thanks. ~ ~ ~ ~ Giovanni

'The median income for a household in the village was $,750, ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.81.88 (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of WASP-43b
The article WASP-43b you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:WASP-43b for comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of WASP-15b
The article WASP-15b you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:WASP-15b for comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: GBED
I believe the plan is to do the next drive in October, since the last one was in April. Hopefully the page doesn't implode before then. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're always welcome to do a few reviews in the meantime, of course. In fact that may make it more likely for your noms to be reviewed in a timely manner. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

re: Nora
Hey, I replied and addressed your comments for Nora 03. Thanks a lot for the great review! I haven't had a GA review that thorough in a long time. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I replied to Linda's review. It's nice having someone so thorough in their reviews! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I got that last spelling error. I still feel strongly about the current wording of the first sentence. I just hope that doesn't affect the GA review. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

NGC 32 and NGC 33
How to create a new article to check interwiki. Objects NGC Catalogue have many languages version. This is a search engine - John Belushi (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Polish translations
Yeah, I can help you - what would you like me to translate?  Kubek15  write / sign 20:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you could communicate with him regarding the machine-translated comment I had so hopefully we can understand what the other is saying. --Starstriker7(Talk) 15:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Star article criteria
I notice there are a number of star articles at WP:GAN, and creating these articles seems to be an area of interest for you. I was wondering what your philosophy is for deciding whether a star is notable enough for an article. (I'll be looking for your answer on this page.) Jc3s5h (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It all comes down to the notability guideline. When I look at the general notability one, it seems to fulfill many of its requirements. The stars are significantly covered in its cited sources, these sources are credible, and are not "self-published" (generally noted either in refereed papers and in online encyclopediae that are maintained by professional astronomers that have read up on the topic). The only two points of question that I see are that of having secondary sources and of the "presumed" guideline, as the former is covered substantially by tertiary sources, and that editors have not established a consensus on whether such articles belong on Wikipedia or not. In a way, I've taken a leap of faith in creating these articles with the hope that editors may see these as valuable additions to the encyclopedia, and not something to be removed. It is ultimately not a matter of my philosophy, but the philosophy of the community as a whole. --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think everyone would agree that the more famous stars, and stars that are unusual in some way, should have articles. I imagine many editors would not be in favor of including every star that is listed in any star catalog. Appearing in refereed papers seems like a promising guide; appearing in online astronomy encyclopedias might be ok as long as the encyclopedia isn't just a reformatted star catalog. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HD 154672 b
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article HD 154672 b you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. – Quadell (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, this review is now on-hold, waiting for questions to be answered and a few issues to be dealt with. – Quadell (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It passed! Well done, and it was good working with you. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was good working with you as well. Again, thanks for taking up the review. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 16:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:HD 154672 b orbit.png


A tag has been placed on File:HD 154672 b orbit.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well, live and learn. [[Image:Symb_Glad.svg|30px]] – Quadell (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely. :P --Starstriker7(Talk) 16:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of MOA-2009-BLG-387L
The article MOA-2009-BLG-387L you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:MOA-2009-BLG-387L for things which need to be addressed. – Quadell (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I am worried about accurateness of using the name Natiso in the Aquileia article, of which, as I understand, you are an admin. Apparently, there is a river called Natisone (on the border of Slovenia and Italy) and there is an entirely different river Natissa, which flows past the ancient Aquileia site. Am I wrong? Respectfully, Romanus451.Romanus451 (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Starstriker, just one addition: the name Natissa is ancient, too - it is mentioned by Jordanes (Getica 219), who lived in the 6th century CE. Thanks for your care!Romanus451 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I refer of course to Jordanes and his Getica. You may need this link: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html#XLII Thanks again! Romanus451 (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Lists of extrasolar planets
Number of discovered extrasolar planets is reached 573. If you create article about new (recently discovered) extrasolar planet, would desirable insert info in this articles:


 * List of extrasolar planets detected by timing


 * List of extrasolar planets directly imaged


 * List of extrasolar planets detected by microlensing


 * List of transiting extrasolar planets


 * List of extrasolar planets detected by radial velocity

--Lacpurnis3 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Kepler-14b
Hello again. I have taken up the review of Kepler-14b at Talk:Kepler-14b/GA1. I expect I'll have the review done in the next few days. – Quadell (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...or sooner. And it is now on hold, awaiting changes and replies. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

 * Yours is as well. Thank you for the review! --Starstriker7(Talk) 21:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Blucher review
Well, I think one of the biggest things is having a concrete goal you're working to. This was my long term project since May 2007, and I just finished it this summer. A list like this helped to keep me focused, because seeing the little red and orange boxes turn green and blue made me want to finish more of them. And to be honest, you do need breaks from doing the same things over and over. Sometimes, you have to branch out and edit articles on various things outside your normal area to keep things fresh. For me, this just meant ships from other navies :) Sometimes those breaks come in the form of more or less total breaks from Wikipedia in general. For me, I knew that if I took a week or two away from editing, I'd come back when I was ready and get work done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for all of that. This is a lesson that I really do need practice applying, and Wikipedia might just be the perfect place to start. I think I'll give the list a try, and perhaps the break too once the remainder of my own articles are reviewed. It feels like I could really use one. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

HAT-P-33b
I signed up to review HAT-P-33b, so I'll get on that soon. It looks like you're staying one step ahead of me. – Quadell (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you noticed. XD Thanks for taking on this review. You make my Wikipedia life go, like, ten thousand times faster. :P --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Light speed, Mr. Sulu. (It's now on hold, by the way.) – Quadell (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We have arrived safely at our destination. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

WASP-44 and its planet
The reviews Talk:WASP-44/GA1 and Talk:WASP-44b/GA1 are both currently on hold. Go get 'em. – Quadell (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review of WASP-13
Is now on hold, pending your action. See Talk:WASP-13/GA1. Good work on the article! Tyrol5  [Talk]  21:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ex post facto: I've resolved the issue I was having with ref 1 (not locating article) and added a direct url to the article. The nomination has Passed. Congratulations and keep up the good work!  Tyrol5   [Talk]  21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hadley–Apennine (lunar region)
I've addressed your concerns raised at your GA review. Thanks for reviewing the article, I appreciate it! Tyrol5  [Talk]  11:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you passed the article and just dropped by to express by appreciation. Thank you! Regards, Tyrol5   [Talk]  00:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Noms
I have just provided a GA review of WASP-24, and it did not pass. I appreciate your contributions to exoplanet articles, but I am concerned that you are nominating these WASP and Kepler articles prematurely for GA status. Please see my comments in the GA review for details about how these articles can be improved generally. My recommendation is to withdraw the GA nominations until they meet the Good Article Criteria. GA reviews are not for peer review or to help give you advice on how to turn start-class articles into GAs. If the related WASP and Kepler article nominations are not withdrawn, I will be likely failing their nominations. These can all be nominated in the future, however. Good luck! AstroCog (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want me to look at them in the future, just send me a message on my talk page. I don't mind giving feedback or helping track down a source...if I have time ;-) AstroCog (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Stealing this header since it's applicable. I was about to review WASP-24b for GA, but I saw that you withdrew the nomination today. If you still want to withdraw it, that's fine, but I'll be glad to run it over and offer any help you need. I'm a believer in holding GA reviews for a while to address problems, and don't mind working with editors on articles that might be 100% there yet. If you are withdrawing the noms, though, just drop me a line any time you stick them back up and I'll try to review some of them promptly for you. GRAPPLE  X  23:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

TB
 Imzadi 1979  →   02:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Katniss at PR
I'm glad you want to work on the article...I sort of thought it had fallen into the hands of the IPs. I did create the article and will love to make a few comments on the PR, but it may also be useful to get someone who knows nothing about the character. I suggest posting a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters. Glimmer721 talk  17:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) Glimmer721  talk  19:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)