User talk:StringTheory11

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

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup![edit]

Hello StringTheory11, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 10 Persei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emission-line 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) 09:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Think we oughtta have a new category of WP:ELEM participants[edit]

We should have a special section for those that have been with the project for under a month. Currently they get dumped into "Inactive within the project", which while literally is certainly correct, somehow doesn't seem quite right... Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I like the idea of "periodic activity" (ba dum tsss) for those who have demonstrated a pattern of sporadic activity but don't really disappear completely. Thoughts? StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Metal[edit]

Hello, I'm StringTheory11. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Metal because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentence I changed didn't (and doesn't) make sense to me. I thought there had been a mistake editing it and made a guess about the intended meaning. Can you think of another wording that makes the meaning clearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.173.6 (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is, the sentence doesn't really have anything to do with food, and instead is a general demonstration saying that metals are useful for a variety of tasks. There's not a specific reason to mention only food when we can mention a much broader variety of tools with "their". StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you think you could rephrase the sentence in another way? Not necessarily in the article but just so I can understand what it is supposed to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.227.94 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I personally think it's fine as is, but if you want to, you can add a referenced sentence that states how metals were used for food production. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014[edit]

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm rather indiffirent or don't have the knowledge to vote on most of the later proposals, but I will oppose #4. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Request: peer review[edit]

Could you please help me out? I need someone who is an expert in chemistry and physics to help review an article on xenon monochloride?. I do appreciate your kindest help. Thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not really an expert, but I'll try to remember to give it a look when I get a chance. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations[edit]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Perseus (constellation) to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,324 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 10:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nova Ophiuchi 1993 name[edit]

Hi, V2295 is called Nova Ophiuchi 1993 indeed, but so is called V2293 in some papers. Then, V2293 is also frequently called X-Ray Nova Ophiuchi 1993. Thus, I added "X-Ray Nova Ophiuchi 1993" as an alternate name to V2293, with the "X-Ray" prefix to distinguish it from V2295. Also, I added "This article is about" to both V2293 and V2295, given that in some places the name of V2295 refers in fact to to V2293. Keleste (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea, thank you for doing that! StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Perseus (constellation)[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Perseus (constellation) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 11, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 11, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Perseus

Perseus is a constellation in the northern sky named after the Greek mythological hero Perseus. It was one of 48 listed by the 2nd-century astronomer Ptolemy and is among the 88 modern constellations defined by the International Astronomical Union. It is located in the northern celestial hemisphere near several other constellations named after legends surrounding Perseus, including Andromeda and Cassiopeia. The galactic plane of the Milky Way passes through Perseus but is mostly obscured by molecular clouds. The constellation's brightest star is the yellow-white supergiant Alpha Persei, which shines at magnitude 1.79. It and many surrounding stars are members of the Alpha Persei Cluster. The best-known star is Algol, an eclipsing binary linked with ominous legends because of its variability, which is noticeable to the naked eye. Other notable features in Perseus include X Persei (a binary system containing a neutron star), GK Persei (a nova that peaked at magnitude 0.2 in 1901), the Double Cluster (comprised of two open clusters near each other in the sky), and the Perseus Cluster (a massive galaxy cluster). Perseus also hosts the radiant of the annual Perseids meteor shower. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

American yellow mustard
Cheeseburger.png I admire your commitment to scientifically oriented articles. Thanks Stringtheory11. Aurora (talk | contribs) 05:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Now where's the mustard to go with this...a burger is nothing without it! StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done :-) Double sharp (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caelum[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Caelum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ТимофейЛееСуда -- ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter[edit]

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caelum[edit]

The article Caelum you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Caelum for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ТимофейЛееСуда -- ТимофейЛееСуда (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


DYK for Caelum[edit]

Orlady (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

elements and constellations
Thank you for quality articles in astronomy and chemistry, from elements such as Periodic table to constellations such as faint Caelum and Perseus, often done in collaboration, for gnomish work in the field as an article guardian with caution, and for listing "to do" before achievements on your user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HD 895, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andromeda (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) 09:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter[edit]

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
  2. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
  3. United States WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of stars in Norma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emission-line 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) 08:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

FA review?[edit]

Hello StringTheory11,

I wanted to let you know that the article mirror symmetry (string theory) is currently a featured article candidate. Back in October, you gave a very helpful review of the article on the AdS/CFT correspondence, so I thought you might be interested in reviewing this one as well.

Thanks for your time,

Polytope24 (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have quite a few tasks I'm currently working on right now on wiki, so it may be a while before I get around to it, but I'll try to give some feedback. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest. I really appreciate it. Polytope24 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad someone did this....[edit]

Was thinking of doing this myself at some point given the rarity I see them referenced or discussed....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure I've actually ever seen one (apart from 82 G. Eridani) used in literature. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Another great thing about removing Gould from the list is that it makes the designations go in roughly order of precedence (Bayer > Flamsteed > variable > Draper > Hipparcos). StringTheory11 (t • c)

thanks[edit]

Well, if that's the case, I'll start doing what you just did using the WP:NASTRO reason. Qzxpqbp (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated. We had a few incidents where a bot and a few users created a huge number of non-notable asteroid stubs, and the cleanup of redirecting all of them is a very long process that requires the help of lots of users. The cleanup's been going on since 2011 in on and off spurts mostly. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I have a question, though. I noticed that the entry in the list (e.g. List of minor planets: 2001–3000) links to the stub, and since I am redirecting the stub to the list, I will be creating a loop. Should I remove the link to the stub to avoid this loop? Qzxpqbp (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It's fine to have the link...no need to make extra work. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

R136a1[edit]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_dwarf_(red_dwarf_stage), a blue dwarf star is the hypothesized remnant of a red dwarf star. The universe is currently too young to have any. I changed the text to match the size of the image in the picture and to match the description on the image's page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_sizes_of_stars.jpg). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F4F0:8:925:A17A:AB0C:5B3D:3DCD (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There's two different meanings of the word "blue dwarf" in astronomy. One is the hypothetical stage you mention. However, hot B- and O-type main sequence stars are also referred to as "blue dwarfs", which is what the image is referring to. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Then the description on the image's page was wrong. I just corrected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F4F0:8:925:A17A:AB0C:5B3D:3DCD (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be more permanent if you changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F4F0:8:925:A17A:AB0C:5B3D:3DCD (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. On another note, to link to various articles, you don't have to type in the entire URL as I see you've been doing; instead, you can use notation such as [[User talk:StringTheory11]] to link to various pages onwiki. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter[edit]

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry....[edit]

For this - I think this one is notable - weird spectrum variations and some of the refs might talk of it in some detail. Corvus was a small constellation I thought of buffing for GA/FA as well...so would be definitely including it there. (I wonder how many of the 88 constellations have an R- star that is a Mira variable....)Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it is certainly borderline; there's no doubting that (of course, I'm generally more deletionist than you, so yeah). I don't think I'll pursue it any farther. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking rhe Mira variables are often mentioned in astronomy guidebooks as they vary so much in magnitude so make good objects of interest for beginner astronomers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hey, thanks for the support on the cleanup of dubious/disproven exoplanet articles. Much appreciated! 77.56.99.23 (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. If you need any more help with this type of thing, just let me know. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note to self...[edit]

Comment on Jakec's FAC. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter[edit]

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's United States ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Rhodesia Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Washington, D.C. Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Canada Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Minas Gerais Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Nepal Czar (submissions) and Indiana Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail), The ed17 (talkemail) and Miyagawa (talkemail) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek FAC[edit]

Hi. Just wondering if you were still planning on reviewing WP:Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive3? --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 01:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry; I've been really busy lately; I'll get to it later today! StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Enquirer → Inquirer[edit]

Just ran into one of your edits and looked to see who had the clever name. Then saw your Sagan quote at the top and wanted to let you know that per Wikiquote the magazine name was Skeptical Inquirer. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 03:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note! StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Reminder[edit]

Add RS Caeli to Caelum. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-05-21/Featured content[edit]

I'm just the slightest bit worried about my description of Caelum and Grus, so I thought I'd best ask you and Casliber to review my descriptions. The praise of you two stays, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing - is the Urania's Mirror illustration any use for illustrating Caelum in the Signpost, d'ye think? If the Grus historical image was a bit better photographed, I'd use that, but I kind of like to use slightly better images. I suppose there's the spare tire nebula, but that's maybe too tangental. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Your blurb looks fine to me, although admittedly I'm not a regular reader of The Signpost so I don't really know the norm. I think that the Urania's Mirror image is more focused on the other constellations on the card and thus isn't really the best for this purpose, although I think that File:Constellation Caelum.jpg would do quite well for this purpose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. If we didn't have all the other articles, I'd say yes, but as it is... Mind you, I do have a scan of the Uraniometria. Might just grab an image from that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Johann Bayer - Uraniometria - Southern Birds.jpg

...Yeah, I cheated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations (again)[edit]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Caelum to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,307 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 18:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm not proposing Caelum for TFA because it's really not that important of a constellation, and I think there's other things that are more worthy of being on the main page, although I don't mind at all if you just choose it. However, once I finish Serpens (and when I finally get started on Cygnus), I'll definitely propose it for TFA. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: MACHO-LMC-5[edit]

Hello StringTheory11. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of MACHO-LMC-5, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe that in this case, pointing to the rules to decline the nomination is not within the best interests of WP. The article is 100% wrong, plain and simple; see the discussion on WT:ASTRO for the background. I believe that in this case WP:IAR tells us to just delete the article as soon as possible, because all it is doing is misinforming people. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't entirely understand the discussion at WT:ASTRO, but I can follow enough to see that it should be gone. Would you like me to leave it as a redirect, or delete it altogether? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that deleting it all would make more sense. I'm not a fan of redirecting to pages when an article should exist on the subject (and it should in this case), since seeing a bluelink instead of a redlink discourages article creation, I've found. In addition, if a simple redirect is created, the wrong content can still be seen in the page history. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Brighter than the maximum[edit]

I'm writing a program that catches more errors that a quick eyeball check.

Is there a good reason for variable stars to be brighter than the maximum? I could mark them all with {{Contradiction-inline}}, but it happens so often that I wonder if Vmax means what I think it means. For instance in List of stars in Vulpecula, BS Vul has a visual magnitude of 10.08 and a Vmax of 10.9 (and it can't mean maximum magnitude number, because Vmin is 11.6.) Art LaPella (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The discrepancies come from when the V-magnitude listed in SIMBAD is not in the range of the V-magnitude listed on AAVSO. In general, what I do in such cases is if the listed magnitude is below or above the range, I adjust it to the closest value in the range. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I was about to edit the listed magnitude accordingly in a case like that one, but then I realized I would be exchanging one inconsistency for another.
When absolute magnitude and distance are specified, consistency with visual magnitude is among the problems I test for, and it would become wrong if I changed the visual magnitude only. Since I'm doing that calculation anyway, it would be easy to change the absolute magnitude or distance to match, but which one? If the absolute magnitude is calculated from the distance and parallax, then I should change the absolute magnitude. But if it's a Cepheid variable for instance, the distance can be calculated from the absolute magnitude not vice versa, so the distance and not the absolute magnitude should be adjusted - or are there any stars on the list far enough to be measured that way?
Or I could just leave them marked as inconsistent ... Art LaPella (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that it would be best to calculate distance from absolute magnitude. The measured period is extremely unlikely to be wrong, while it is definitely possible for the measured parallax to be inaccurate, as seen by the multitude of stars with negative parallaxes. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Done, and will be repeated on similar pages. Art LaPella (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Sigh - the other time-consuming way to clarify discrepancies is read a helluva lot of arXiv material.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Although arXiv is unfamiliar to me, it doesn't keep asking my non-existent university for money, and thus I followed it far enough to conclude that it does explain WR 46. The answer is: Change both absolute magnitude and distance in List of stars in Crux, which are unreferenced – and the WR 46 article's absolute magnitude -7.05 is also wrong. It's referenced, but the reference doesn't say -7.05. It does say DM (which apparently stands for distance modulus) is 13.05, so absolute magnitude is 10.8-13.05=-2.25. That figure is consistent with 4070 parsecs and apparent magnitude 10.8. Nothing else matches, so that must be it. Art LaPella (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I was too bold. Art LaPella (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I just finished prepping the Carina list for the major edit over the next few days...wow WP sure had a lot of stuff at wrong titles. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
One of the details of that edit was changing the V386 Car magnitude from 5.14 to 5.64. I reverted to 5.14 because it must have been some kind of typo (SIMBAD for instance says 5.17). Judging by where you moved it in the sort sequence, you intended 5.15 or 5.16 which would be fine. Art LaPella (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, meant 5.15, I think. Stupid 4 key being next to the 5 key! StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. Your post on Casliber's talk page[edit]

I was just checking to see if a discussion had been initiated with Cas Liber about his full protection of Sigmund Freud, and I noticed that you had asked him if you would fare well at RfA. Now keep in mind, I have only performed a cursory review of your contributions — editing stats, activity levels, block log (which of course is empty), and your talk page (excluding the archives) — so I can't really describe this as a thorough assessment. Nevertheless, based on what I've seen, I think you would stand an excellent chance of being granted the sysop toolset. You've been here for about four years now, have over 10,000 edits to your name, a large chunk of mainspace contributions, you seem to know your way around the place, and you come across as a very approachable editor. I'd say go for it! You'll definitely have my support. Kurtis (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
...and we're off! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Merge[edit]

Thanks! If you wouldn't mind also doing Gliese 667 Ch as well, would be much appreciated. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I also question the utility of even having a Gliese 667 C article in the first place. The Gliese 667 article is completely adequate for presenting all of the information that is currently there. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I tend to agree. It's a bit weird to see objects like Gliese 667 C getting their own articles when arguably more-important objects like Sirius B or UV Ceti are consigned to sections. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
But OMG it has exoplanets, it must be the most important thing ever!!!!!11!!11ONE!1!!! Well yeah, I agree, and will probably start a merge discussion tomorrow when I have more time. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and no planet claim is too tenuous to get its own mention because OMG PLANETS... I've found that going through the list of {{OrbitboxPlanet hypothetical}} transclusions is a wonderful way to find extremely dubious articles. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I've started a merge discussion for Gliese 667 C. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter[edit]

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to Florida 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your request for adminship[edit]

Hello StringTheory11, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations for this result.

As you know, you had a significant amount of non-trivial opposition. While your request reached consensus, my advice to you in response to the concerns is that you take things slowly at first and never hesitate to ask for help, be it from people you highly respect and trust or even from people who opposed your candidacy. As per usual, the administrators' reading list is worth a read and the new admin school is most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere.

Now that all that is out of the way, good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 02:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Congratulations, String! Keep up the good work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Congrats! now where were we with the constellations......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    Delivery ! your equipment has arrived. I'll just set it over here in a corner. Congrats ! Mlpearc (open channel) 02:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    Janitor's bucket with mop.jpg
  • Looked similar to my own, so I can empathize. Next week, if you are wanting input on mentoring, I would be willing to assist Secret in any way. Congrats to you. Dennis Brown |  | WER 02:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Welcome aboard! Chillum 02:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • And I see you already made your first admin action. Chillum 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Your new uniform - wear it with pride!

Appreciate the answers to my numerous questions. I apologize for not asking them earlier. Gryllida (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • See? What did I tell you? ;-)
Congratulations on your successful request for adminship! Kurtis (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Am I suposed to be wearing a uniform? I have been in my pyjamas this whole time! Chillum 16:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on your display of grace under pressure (the most important attribute, IMO, in an admin and one that's hard to learn) during an RFA as tough as my own :-). Nothing you do with the mop will be as difficult as this past week. All the best, Miniapolis 17:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you all! I promise not to blow anything up! StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I think Joe Decker's post wins the award for funniest thing throughout this whole process. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Congrats! ///EuroCarGT 18:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well done, have a night off and chill out. The most difficult week of your life is over (unless you go for RfB later...) Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Most difficult week of his life? RfA is bad but I am sure there have been tougher weeks. Chillum 14:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Congrats, I trust you will not blow everything. Face-wink.svg Jim Carter 08:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You're an admin now?!?!? Crap, where are the keys to the bomb shelter? Just kidding. Congrats. :-)—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

VA/E question[edit]

Hi! Do we need to list celestial equator, declination and right ascension separately, or could we replace them all with equatorial coordinate system, which isn't currently listed? Cobblet (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think equatorial coordinate system by itself would be fine; it leaves room for more articles. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I opened the proposal. Cobblet (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Slowly pulsating B star[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

AFD Mentoring[edit]

Curious if you had given any thought to starting. I believe Secret offered to help with that, which is an excellent choice as he has a tremendous amount of experience at AFD, and in my opinion, a very balanced perspective. Dennis Brown |  | WER 19:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be willing to start next week, if that's fine with @Secret:. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy to ride shotgun with Secret in the driver's seat, although my hours are hit and miss. As I've said before, I've been here before, so pretty familiar. Just as with myself and CSD, it is all about getting a comfortable groove around where community consensus lies, nothing major. Dennis Brown |  | WER 19:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
My hours has also been hit or miss lately because of promotions at work, though Monday I should close an entire day worth of AFDs with rationales to start you off, and you could follow along. I recommend starting with the obvious deletes/keep closures (five plus comments of keep/delete without an opposite rebuttal). Let me know when you want to start. Thanks Secret account 00:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with starting Monday or Tuesday of next week, if that's fine with you. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing Secret has gotten busy, so I will step up for now. As a point of reference, my own CSD mentoring was at User talk:Dennis Brown/CSD. It has never been done, so I had to design it myself. It is more about setting an example for the community that you got the message, and putting forth a good faith effort. I suggest creating a similar page to allow future examination and just to work as a dedicated work sheet. I would suggest taking one AFD per day, at day 6 or 7, create a permalink to its current state in the header, and faux close it by simply adding the close on your worksheet and the link to it in the header. Obviously, you should find one that has split voting, half keep and half delete. Under each, other admin can comment as to the applicability of the close. I suggest one a day average for at least 60 days, although you can always do a few in one day, skip a few days. It should be self directed as you are admin, and can be expected to do this on your own via the discussion. Just ping me for feedback. I may ping others. If it feels awkward, remember that I do understand, and I'm the only other admin to do this. Of course, you aren't bound by policy to do any of this, just by honor. When I did it, I took it more as a demonstration of character than of my CSD skills. Dennis Brown |  | WER 10:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I've started a list at User:StringTheory11/AfD. If I counted correctly, I did 44 today. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, not exactly what I was looking for but it's a start. Not looking for the relists or the easy stuff that non-admin take care of, instead looking for the hard ones where you would have to close against the count, and you have to provide a solid rationale because the close isn't obvious just looking at the votes. More difficult ones. These aren't every day type closes, which is why it takes a while to find enough of them. For example, my last AFD close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Teman was tricky. Somehow, I managed to close that without my talk page being vandalized and without someone appealing it. That is our goal as admin, closing so it sticks and doesn't cause yet more process in appeals. Not all of what you need to post is stuff like this but much of it needs to be, and all of it should be non-SNOW or ultra obvious stuff. Another example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roller sport in India that I nom'ed. I disagree with that close, but of course, I won't make a big deal of it as the close was reasonable enough, but I don't think it reflected consensus, which would be to merge and redirect. If you find a closed one that you disagree with, list it with your rationale. Dennis Brown |  | WER 17:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Power Rangers Super Megaforce episodes[edit]

Blue men of the Minch[edit]

Hi StringTheory--please see the talk page, and consider unprotecting the article. I have faith that disruption will halt. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

After reading through the talk page, I feel comfortable with this. Will do. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks--we 'preciate you. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

14825 Fieber-Beyer[edit]

Please do not redirect the 14825 Fieber-Beyer asteroid page to the list of minor planets. The asteroid was officially given the Fieber-Beyer designation and rightfully should have its own page. If you would like them to be linked that would be justifiable if you were to label 14825 as 14825 Fieber-Beyer and have it direct back to the the notability page. The page is still under construction and the orbital elements will be added to the box shortly. thanks SKFB (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB

Please read WP:NASTRO, which quite explicitely states that the naming of an asteroid is not a reason for notability. The asteroid is clearly not visible to the naked eye, is not in any notable catalogue, has not been the subject of any significant studies, and was not discovered before 1850. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Asteroid 14825 is in many catalogs. The external links have been posted. SKFB (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB
It's in a single catalogue, that being the catalogue of all minor planets. Certainly not enough for notability. Read the guideline; there is clearly nothing notable about the asteroid. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)