User talk:Mhardcastle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Mhardcastle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- ALoan (Talk) 01:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Would you know what I meant if I said "MJH22"? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, google finds the odd one or two who are not you. Appearances can be deceptive: there is a User:Psb777 who has nothing to do with Cambridge. Marnanel has gone for now, but Francis Davey is around.
I see you (as (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), and (talk · contribs)) have concentrated so far on astronomy and academia, with a dash of Tolkien and other stuff. Do you know Worldtraveller? He is a (mostly galactic) postdoc at UCL (PhD thesis on metal abundances in planetary nebulae) who has written or polished a bunch of astronomy-related Featured articles, but further assistance (copyediting, new information, etc.) is always welcome.
You may be aware that there is a process to select "featured" material at Featured article candidates and Featured list candidates. Polishing up someone else's work is generally a quicker win that contributing something new. The Wikipedia:Goings-on and the Wikipedia Signpost are good ways to keep track of what is happening on the community side.
Happy editing. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Square degree[edit]

Thanks - how is a lawyer meant to remember the difference between 4π steradians in a sphere and 2π radians in a circle (especially when it intuitively feels a bit like it ought to be (2π)² rather than 2×2π...). Within an order of magnitude should be good enough, I should think. ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor[edit]

Are you able to add inline citations to the Lord Chancellor article? If you cannot then the article will be removed from its featured status. Joelito (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Brympton d'Evercy[edit]

Thanks for the copy edit, it needs it. I was going to make it a FA, but have never got arownd to finishing it or more polishing it. Thanks. Giano | talk 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


I will create at least a short page on LINERs in the moderate future; I have professional experience with the objects. 13:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have now created a small page for low ionization nuclear emission regions. This page will grow substantially; I still have a lot of information from a couple of my scientific papers that I can copy into the article. (Having written on this topic before makes it easy to write a Wikipedia article on it.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Footnote-style reference[edit]

You may want to consider using footnote-style references in active galactic nucleus. Although what you did with active galactic nucleus was still very good, the footnotes indicate more clearly where information comes from, thus avoiding disputes or ambiguities over the origins of content. They can also be reused throughout an article. (I also prefer them because they work like journal referneces in some ways.) Please let me know if you would like more information. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject: University of Cambridge[edit]


Have you considered joining the University of Cambridge WikiProject? Thanks for your comments about the academical dress article, to which you have made quite a few contributions.

A.C. Norman (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Article rating[edit]

Hello Mhardcastle, articles are rated on an assessment scale - no big deal really. From 2006 onwards, there has been a real push towoards inline citations - a good example is White dwarf, so that individual facts can be verified if someone were very keen. B-class and higher require inline citations. This would be pretty simple for Radio galaxy, either you can put them in yourself or I am happy to. For books, pagenumbers are highly desirable. An example is Superb Fairy-wren, which has a monograph/book at the bottom and individual inline refs with page numbers. I have done one and I cnan do the rest of those there in the next day or two. With not too much work this could be a Good or Featured Article, I'll give some feedback later but have to run. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To update, I am steadily working through the article, as most are straightforward conversions. Inline citations makes it very easy to flip back and forth. I am happy to do some more gruntwork and leave the tricky stuff to an expert (I am very happy there are experts on WP - I am a psychiatrist in real-life and am in the midst of a majore overhaul of major depressive disorder myself but a bit of respite is quite handy. One thing I am unclear about upon reading the article is what is actually in radio galaxies. Stars? different stars? It is often the case that experts tend to 'jump in' and occasionally need to take a step back to explain some basic material for laypeople. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Robert of Lexinton[edit]

Hey, i've replied to your comments here. Ironholds 12:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:stevew316 in re Academic Dress[edit]

Hi, Mhardcastle. In the U.S. copyright claims endure for twenty-some years unless the copyright holder re-asserts its claim. The illustration you're referring to would have lost its copyright protection in the 1970s. If you insist, I would be happy to telephone Columbia to ask if it re-asserted its right. At any rate, whether or not I am correct is beside the point: Wikipedia prohibits original research. I merely repeat the claim of the Public Archivist of the university, who is rather familiar with Columbia's history, and maintains dated copies of the illustration in the archives with provenance appended. Stevew316 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding comment added by Stevew316 (talkcontribs) 21:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Specific infinitive in Ancient Greek[edit]

You may be interested in my comment. --macrakis (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Catherine of Valois[edit]

Hi there. You put a "contradict" template on the Catherine of Valois article without specifying what the problem was. If you could specify using the "about" parameter (see the template page), that would be very helpful. Thanks. —tktktk 00:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the article when you put the template on, and it seems that the number of children was inconsistant at the time. This has been rectified, so I've removed the template. Let me know if there's still a problem. -- WORMMЯOW  07:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

PGP Keys[edit]

Hello. I noticed a few things: (a) you added a photo to the Bayfordbury page, you have contributed from a 147.197/16 address, and you are interested in identity. I was wondering if you had a PGP key and were still living or working in Hatfield. If so, would you be interested in exchanging signatures? — Nicholas (reply) @ 12:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Bayfordbury.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Reversions of my edits[edit]

I have the impression you are reverting my edits for no real good reason. The most recent edit I made improved the grammar of the writing and you used the specious reason of reversion "change breaks sense". I think you need to show more common sense in your reversion of other people's work. My edits are directed toward an effort to improve the readability of articles on WP. I see clunky writing everywhere and I will not hesitate to straighten it out. I don't think I an changing the sense of the articles at all. If you persist in your behavior I guess I will have to bring in someone else to mediate this. Sincerely Zedshort (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I left a response to your post on my talk page in case you did not see it.Zedshort (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)