User talk:RJHall

These are archive links to copies of my talk page just prior to a cleanup. 03/18/05 07/03/05 12/14/05 05/14/06 07/13/06 10/21/06 04/05/07 09/06/07 11/11/07

float

Friendly messages are much appreciated! Please add new conversations below. Thanks! —RJH

P.S. Obviously uncivil comments will be expunged with extreme prejudice.

ACID Atom

The article Atom, which you voted for the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive on August 30, and was removed on September 11, because on one got around to choosing it as the winner, has been renominated and needs votes. Zginder 16:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks. -RJH (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Atom as this week's WP:ACID winner

Zginder 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Shades of Chicxulub Crater

Hey, I've renom'd it at WP:FAC here... so now that the peer review's done ;), mind giving your opinion? David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your concerns... David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Cc etrusca.gif

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cc etrusca.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Vega

I meant exactly that the luminosity as viewed from poles is twice the luminosity as viewd from equator. Aufdenberg et al (2006) say that the (apparent) pole luminosity of Vega is 57 Solar (p. 670). This overluminosity of of Vega was a big problem in the past. They resolved it. The true luminosity of Vega is about 37 solar, which is the same as luminosity of a non-rotating main sequence star with the same mass. In fact Aufdenberg et al (2006) say "Here we assume Vega’s rapid rotation has no significant effect on its interior in relation to the luminosity from nuclear reactions in its core." (see the last paragraph on p.670 in the left column). They actually use luminosity-mass relation for slowly rotating Sirius to derive mass estimate for Vega.

Unfortunatly they did not calculate the value for equator luminosity. However the temperature at the equatot is 25% less than at poles therefore the difference is 1.25⁴=2.3 times. Taking into account 20 % decrease in the surface area we arrive at the value aroung 2.8 times. This value is an upper limit. As for the real value, my reasonable guess is 2 times, which is compatible with their figure 9. This estimate gives equator luminosity about 30 solar. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to calculate the equator luminosity using model from Aufdenberg et al (2006). I may do this in the future but not now. I am too busy with other activities. Ruslik (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again. It's one of those pieces of information that would be nice to have, but I think the article can get by without it at the moment. I temporarily moved the paragraph on the topic to the article's talk page. — RJH (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Carbon as this week's WP:ACID winner

Zginder (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Asteroid belt

Hi RJ. I don't know if you noticed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asteroid belt. It's Serendip's nom. I did a ce but it's still in limbo after a few weeks on FAC. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marskell. Although it has undergone a lot of changes recently, I did a fair amount of work on the original article in order to get it up to GA. So I think I may be a little biased. — RJH (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Bernard

I've translated this article from French, per your request... just a couple of archaic titles which I need to make sure I translated correctly. Please proofread and make any corrections as you see fit :-) ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. It looks good to me. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this one was pretty straightforward and mercifully short compared to many of the French biographical articles. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 23:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mechanisms and processes of evolution

i think the lead is perfect. the length is enough. Jogaila is a recently featured article. don't you think it needs a proper lead. their are hundered of articles which don't have sufficient lead. i think that lead should not be touched since all the imp. aspects are already discussed in the lead. i have addressed some of the points. though i don't agree with your one more point. anyway i have replied on nomination page only. thanks a lot for reviewing the article, i highly appriciate your efforts, Sushant gupta 14:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

i have addressed all the points. kindly give your opinion please. thanks, Sushant gupta 14:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the FAC page. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry, Sushant gupta 06:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Main sequence

Hi Bob. The article on the main sequence is in need of fixing up. You have done such a great job on other astronomy pages, do you have time for that one? I can't spend much time on it, but am happy to pitch in or offer advice if needed. Timb66 10:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for the suggestion. Yes I can try to expand it. — RJH (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay I have expanded it. There's still some references needed and I'll work on that. When you have a moment, could you look through it and see what needs expanding, clarifying or even removing? I'm sure there may be some corrections needed and a bit of fine tuning. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

You voted for and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 13:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Scorcher

Hey RJ, given I am a neophyte when it comes to astronomy, are you happy that everything possibly technical and star-related has been added to the Sirius article? Have you seen the book by Holberg? It's got good background and analysis on the 'red sirius' and the issue of a 3rd body as well as some nifty stuff on the heliacal rising and I can play with all that. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yes I think the article covers the salient details about Sirius reasonably well. I haven't been able to find anything else worth mentioning with regards to astronomical details. I think the page compares well with the accessible articles by Prof. Jim Kaler and the SolStation page. Unfortunately no I haven't read the book by Holberg. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a fantastic read, borrowed it from uni library but may buy a copy one day. Just thought of something - maybe a sentence or two about the Sirius Supercluster may be good but I don't have any book refs or anything. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You got it. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I just thought - it may be good to note how high it gets from some average northern cities such as London or New York as I have a note from St Petersburg (Russia not Florida!) in, but couldn't find it webwise. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's actually pretty easy to calculate. The maximum altitude of a star at culmination is equal to 90° + the star's declination − the city's latitude.[1] So (if I did my math right) the maximum altitude of Sirius is 73.3° − N. latitude. For London (+50.5°), this would be 22.3°.—RJH (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for that (should have remembered from years ago..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tireless contributor barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your endless efforts in space-related topics, such as Planet and asteroid belt, I think you deserve a tireless contributor barnstar :) Serendipodous 13:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceres is on the way up (Tony opened with support! That has never happened to me in ten featured articles). Neptune is going to need some SERIOUS work. I'm not really in a position to get a hold of the right data at the moment, but it needs to triple its citation level, at least. Serendi^podous 16:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Star

Hello RJ, I think the reference I had given for Sanskrit etymology of star already states that star derives from Sanskrit although it doesnt mention Sitara explicitly. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello FMT. If the sentence had only said it was derived from Sanskrit then I wouldn't have a concern. But I can't be sure that it, historically, was derived from "sitara". That's why I'd like to see a reference for that point. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

An Engraved Invitation

Hello RJHall, based upon your work and interest related to space manufacturing and role playing games I hearby extend an invitation to you to check out v:Lunar Boom Town at Wikiversity. We intend to support a range of educational, planning and venture related activities such as electronic games, tech paper review, venture planning, etc. to learn more about space tech and settlement issues and how to get profitably involved with them. I hope you will find time to stop by and at least comment at some area of interest. It is a pretty rough lump of coal at the moment but I think some aspects of diamond facets may become visible soon. I did some role playing with my nephew using and creating materials there and he is now persistently looking for more. This has led to dialogues regarding chemisty, life support systems, mass and metrics, and long practice sessions on lunar lander and asteroids improving his understanding of what airless maneuvering requires with and without a large g-field. In v:Lunar Boom Town/Cargo Imports we are preparing to do a little green sand casting to create physical rocket models of our own design. I hope you can visualize how this might grow some individuals, organizations, and activities beneficial to private ventures in space. Remember both Goddard and Braun started with small model rocketry. Thanks for your time and effort here at Wikipedia. We shall be utilizing your efforts even if you do not choose to stop by v:Lunar Boom Town! Lazyquasar (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Open your card >> >> >>

Happy Holidays from V's Shop.

Send an E-card to someone else

Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop

Alnitak, sorry Zeta Orionis on the main page...

If you're on in the next 4 hours you'll see Zeta Orionis in the DYK section of the main page.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Censorship and talk pages

Please don't cry "censorship" when people try to keep talk page discussions on track. It's every editor's job to make sure talk pages are for useful discussion of how to improve the article. Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech, it's an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments, "Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission." This is exactly what was done; repeatedly. To censor is defined as removal of objectionable content. I believe the verb correctly matches the action performed. In future, please respect the talk page guidelines.—RJH (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look further down, you'll see that removing material not related to improving the article is specifically mentioned as a case where it's OK to edit someone else's comments. Friday (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, and to me the discussion as relevant to the article content. It was not off topic, and concerned the content of the lead paragraph. So that case doesn't apply. Frankly this is the first time since I've joined Wikipedia that I've seen somebody out and out yank an entire on-topic discussion out of an article talk page. It was unnecessary and, to me, antagonistic. My preference would be to archive the discussion and let those who want to read it do so. But we clearly disagree completely on this topic, so lets leave it at that.—RJH (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747

Thank you for your comment. We or I am working on this and hope you will change your oppose in the near future. I began a lengthy discussion on reference formatting but see that it's not quite there despite a vast improvment from the past. Archtransit (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to remove my opposition to this article's promotion once that is done. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

After an extended discussion, the editors in the article decided not to use reference templates. WP guidelines makes the style of references up to the editors.

Can you help us? What is the correct way to do references. Either that or point to a certain one in the article that is 100% correct and we'll copy it. Help! Archtransit (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Archtransit: In theory, all of the FA'd articles should have satisfactory citations. The format varies depending on whether it is a web page, news story, book, journal article, &c.I prefer using the cite templates as they give consistent results and remind me about missing information. Information on citing sources is available at Wikipedia:Citing sources.—RJH (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you look at citation #1 Boeing 747 and let me know if this is acceptable? Having to do 180 citations over and over and repeatedly correcting them is wasted effort.Archtransit (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As a web page, I normally format it to look like this using a cite web template:

Staff (2007). "747 Program Milestones". The Boeing Company. Retrieved 2007-12-17.

—RJH (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What if The Boeing Company is in italics. There was an extended discussion and the result was to use dates like "Retrieved 17 December 2007." not the 2007-12-17 convention. Do you find these style choices acceptable? I'd prefer not to fix 180 references incorrectly!Archtransit (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The cite web template uses italics to designate a work, rather than a publisher. (Some examples here: Template:Cite_web#Examples.) There are some people who are sticklers for the date format, and I think the linked dates had something to with the display based on an individual's date formatting preferences: Help:Preferences#Date_format. But personally I only care about consistency.—RJH (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of our references are webpages. Anyway, the job is tentatively completed. I really feel unqualified to do references so please look it over and let me know if the job is done. Thanks. Archtransit (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay I took a look through the references and came up with a few suggestions:

• I was able to find an author for notes 3, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17, 28, 33, 35, 60, 65, 66, 73, 80, 85, 141, 146, 149, 151, 157, 166, 169. Those should be added.
• Note 20 (a book) is missing an author and ISBN number.
• Note 102 doesn't give a publisher.
• URL to note 127 (Interiors, Airchive.com. Retrieved 17 December 2007) wasn't found.
• URL to 150 is just a google search.
• Note 173 includes a link to a URL but no indication of what is being accessed. The "see also" should be properly formatted as a reference.
• By the way, the "External links" section should be at the end of the article, rather than before "Related content".

Thanks—RJH (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done All done! Please give your stamp of approval before we become insane from these references. It has been a learning experience. I used to be clueless about refs (except that I knew to get references) but now I know a little. Archtransit (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Calculus - Thanks

Hello RJHall. I want to thank you for your work on Granville's Calculus. I am doing some further work on it, uncluding posting some typos in the discussion of those pages. I don't know your email but if you want to communicate, my email is on http://www.opensourcemath.org/. Thanks again.

more thanks

Hi -- I, too, want to thank you for digitizing Granville's calculus. I've grabbed a few of Granville's problems for use (with credit to Granville) in my own free-as-in-speech calculus textbook at lightandmatter.com. -- Ben Crowell, --76.93.42.50 (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately it is going to take some time to complete the digitization. I try to do a few pages each week.—RJH (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Pulling out all me old white dwarves...

(sneezing from dusty mags)....the magazine kind to bolster independent refs for D&D/Runequest material. You've seen this here and on the talk page? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got a copy of the "Heroic Worlds" book, which I use for referencing old modules and such.—RJH (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Midway box cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Midway box cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressed.—RJH (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Old empires box cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Old empires box cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressed.—RJH (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Neverwhere.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Neverwhere.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressed.—RJH (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

File:Chemistry-stub.png

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is . You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse _work 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for dealing with Tony1 over at Europa. I've had little access to a computer over the last few days so I was afraid that Tony's curse would doom the FA. I owe ya one. :-) Serendi^podous 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Ruslik did most of the work. I actually no longer mind giving or receiving negative feedback during the FAC process because the end result is usually a better article, and I often learn something in the process. But sure, glad I could be of some help.—RJH (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Award

I Cas Liber, hereby award RJHall the Flaming Joel-wiki for raising our collective consciousness for work on a Featured Article highlighted by the Übermuse Billy Joel in his great song We Didn't Start the Fire...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Err... thanks, I think...? :-) —RJH (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For earth - have a look at the lyrics and what they link to. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hilary Duff Peer review

Thanx for ur comments on the peer review page...did u mean that citation formats need to be uniform throughout the article?? like either <ref></ref> or {{cite}} throughout the article??....can u elaborate on this a little more and be a bit more specific.....thanx ???? Gprince007 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to take an example, the first reference "Forbes Magazine's Richest People Under 25" should probably look like this:

Mimon, Diana (2005). "Forbes Magazine's Richest People Under 25". About.com. Retrieved 2008-01-13.

Another example is the Hilary Duff Lines Up 32 Summer Dates references:

Harris, Chris (May 20, 2005). "Hilary Duff Lines Up 32 Summer Dates". MTV. Retrieved 2006-08-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I.e. wherever possible it's a good idea to list the author, date published, the publisher and an access date for the link. That way the reader knows more about the source, and also if the link goes away you have a better chance of retrieval. It also looks a little more polished. The "cite" templates are not manditory (between the <ref>{{cite ... }}<\ref> tags), but they do help give a consistent appearance. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nepal's Rivers

At some stage you have contributed to Nepal's river pages. I have added substantial texts to the Gandaki River, Mahakali River and the Kosi River. But nobody seems to be interested in these pages. I have not seen any comments on the additions made by me. May I request you to have a look at them?--Nvvchar (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that was in support of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. Thank you for adding more content. If you are in need of further comments, you might try Wikipedia:Requests for feedback.—RJH (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC: Ununoctium

Thanks for the suggestions on ununoctium. I have tried to incorporate them into the article and I hope it reads better now. If you have time, you can go through this newer version and let me know what you think. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Atom

I was going to peer review Atom, but before doing so, I wanted to ask a question. What audience are you aiming for? What background knowledge are you assuming? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably an educated adult who hasn't taken physics in college. Or possibly a knowledgable high school student. Otherwise I was expecting that the wikilinks would be used to fill in knowledge blanks. I did try to avoid formulae and heavy physics jargon. Does that sound reasonable? I think a vital article should probably address a wide audience.—RJH (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Craters on the Moon

Hallo RJHall! I’m a Swedish Wikipedian and I’m working with the translation of the articles in the List of craters on the Moon. However I’ve found some strange things in a couple of the articles and I have left a question on the talk page. The articles are Talk:Al-Biruni (crater) and Talk:Aitken (crater). I hope that you can provide the answers for me:). Thx. 81.233.181.241 (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The first (Al-Birundi) was vandalized and has been fixed. The second was an error, so I'll work on getting it corrected. Thank you for pointing out the problems and for translating these articles.—RJH (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Last lookover for Sirius content-wise

G'day RJH, I rearranged Sirius a bit - trying to put ancient observational uses of the star in the first section, and leaving the religious ones till the bottom. The only other 2 things I can think of are whether the whole Red Sirius rebuttal needs more detail, and ditto for any search of Sirius C. I also made a modern cultural bit at the bottom but will remove anything I can't find cites for. If you're happy from an astronomical point of view I'll make a start on copyediting and ask for a couple of oter folks to give it a lookover. I was planning to run it through GA but noted it has already been there. (d'oh!) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, but, compared to a star like Vega, there doesn't seem to be a lot of additional things to say about Sirius from an astronomical perspective. So I think this will have to do. Anyway, apart from awkwardness of the merged paragraphs at the start of the System section, it looks good to me.—RJH (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh there is perhaps one more thing. The following paper:

Kuchner, Marc J. (2000). "A Search for Exozodiacal Dust and Faint Companions Near Sirius, Procyon, and Altair with the NICMOS Coronagraph". Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 112: 827–832. Retrieved 2008-01-21. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

makes the suggestion (just prior to section 2) that the redness was caused by interaction with a faint companion star. You might want to mention that as another possibility, even though no third companion has yet been observed.—RJH (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: JSYK, Sirius is at FAC..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Shining south book cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shining south book cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressed.—RJH (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Little question

Hi RJ. I'm trying to give Sirius a decent review and I'm doing some comparison to Vega. When it notes "The pole of Vega—its axis of rotation—is inclined no more than five degrees from the line-of-sight to the Earth" I assume this means an inclination left/right as we view it. What about inclination toward the line-of-sight? (As always, sorry if that's silly.) I think similar info should be in Sirius. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC: Planet

I went through your comments in detail and except for the Magnetosphere, I dealt with all of them. Let me know what you think now. Nergaal (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

References for Vega article

In response to your query about Vega on my talk page, here is a more complete complete reference: Jocelyn Tomkin, Sky and Telescope, Volume 95 Number 4, April 1998, pp. 59-63. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 11:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pirates of the fallen stars book cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pirates of the fallen stars book cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Gavin Collins (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The existing fair use rationale has been replaced with a fair use rationale template. I consider this matter addressed.—RJH (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template without reasonable justification

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template from Paizo Publishing, an article which does not have any reliable secondary sources. There is no reasonable justification for removing the template which was put there to address this problem. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the explanations for removing the template are not supported by the notability guideline WP:CORP and WP:RS which applies to this topic. Unless you adding reliable secondary sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would restore the template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)