User talk:Terry0051

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

It would be better not to interfere with correct historical usage[edit]

The bot changed "an universal dictionary ..." in a quoted (and correct) title dating from 1704, to "a universal ...." (Lexicon technicum). (This one has been changed back along with other revisions.) It really would be better not to do that! Terry0051 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Terry, thanks for that. I've added the spelling to my exception list for that article. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Astronomical Almanac[edit]

Thanks for your note. I've removed the link - I don't think it had any particular merit. The relevant guideline is WP:LINKS; specifically, links "should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article" (my emphasis). I tend to stamp on spamlinks fairly hard, because as soon as one is included they seem to proliferate. Thank you too for your contributions so far, and if you need anything, you know where my talkpage is ;) I tend to reply on the talkpage of the poster unless asked not to, but there's no single system. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 10:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. EyeSerenetalk 12:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Orbit of the Moon[edit]

It's hard to follow a thread on three separate user talk pages and so replied on Talk:Orbit of the Moon#Concave or Convex? where the conversation can hopefully consolidate as it's about that article. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Discovery of Neptune[edit]

Hi Terry - would you mind if I moved your message from User talk:Marc Kupper#Discovery of Neptune to Talk:Discovery of Neptune#Wording in the lead paragraph of how Neptune was found? Your version of the wording is fine but missed what I was trying to fix and had thought qualified as a copyedit. You are right - your interpretation of my edit is valid and meant that I changed the meaning though that was not my intent at all.

My thinking in moving the thread from my talk page to the Discovery of Neptune talk page are that the thread will be about a minor improvement to the article itself and that one of the other editors interested in that article may have a good idea on how to improve the wording. We all tend to see things from our own POV (including convex and concave <g>).

I'm swamped in projects and it looks like I won't get back to Wikipedia today. No hurry as Neptune is unlikely to vanish in the next few days. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Terry0051. You have new messages at Marc Kupper's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Marc Kupper|talk 00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to make it clear that both the current autoformatting system and all proposed replacements do require a special syntax to enable autoformatting, for each individual date. Having a per-page way of enabling/disabling it might be another option, although it hasn't (yet) been proposed in discussion. In any event, there is nothing in principle that would prohibit such a feature from being a required part of any date autoformatting system. --Sapphic (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Terry! I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. Having one in your userspace could deter unwanted canvassing on your talk page. ;-) You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(Advice on new draft)[edit]

{{helpme}} I'm not very experienced on this sort of thing, and I'd appreciate it if an available admin could possibly take a look at the draft on User:Terry0051/Sandbox, which could possibly become either (a) a new article or (b) a new group of sections in an existing article: Is there any obvious defect about it that would cause 'speedy deletion' or even an 'article for deletion' notice? With thanks in advance. --Terry0051 (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the notice from {{adminhelp}} to {{helpme}}, as this is a matter anyone can help with. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 12:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The draft is very good. It does not meet any CSD criteria. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 12:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Terry0051. You have new messages at Fahadsadah's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 06:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

University Strasbourg[edit]

Hallo Terry, apparently you don't know that the regular University of Strasbourg was moved to Clermont-Ferrand after the German invasion in 1940. The Germans then set up the Reichsuniversität Straßburg as a replacement. This source clearly says that Danjon remained at his post in the Clermont-Ferrand exile until the end of the war (Strasbourg was liberated on November 23, 1944, but some parts of Alsace, were liberated only in February 1945, after the battle of the Colmar Pocket). Cheers, --RCS (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(acknowledged and msgs copied to article's talk page) Terry0051 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Newtonian dynamics[edit]

Some history on Newtonian page dynamics: there were both short and long forms of the biography way back when. The detailed bio was split into a set of specific topical articles and merged with Isaac Newton (combining the section struvture and adding for details see links at the top of relevant sections). The alternative had been to delete entirely that extra information. +sj+

The simple plan was to provide space for Newton biographers to add extensive detail without making the overview biography too elaborate. This happens regularly with articles that become very long and detailed; sometimes this works better than others. Don't be shy about rearranging the smaller articles, or recombining them to better effect. +sj+ 13:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for me to adhere to WP guidelines[edit]

Hallo Terry --

You say "Some of your recent edits in Talk:Orbit of the Moon appear to have some resemblance to the editing patterns and behaviors described in WP:Disruptive Editing. Specifically, the following characteristics of some of your recent edits seem to match what is described in WP:DISRUPT and the linked pages under the headings 'tendentious', 'cannot satisfy WP:Verifiability', 'does not engage in consensus-building', 'refusal to get the point':"

That seems a rather heavy handed comment as most of my contributions to this subject have been in discussion pages. which presumably is what they are for.

-- taking part of RS source out of context, in a way that misrepresents its content

There is no way your 1912 Turner paper would be accepted as RS or would survive the refereeing process with the extremely misleading concluding sentence that I quoted. Also, it is impossible to differentiate a single point of inflection on a curve to obtain a gradient, which was what Turner presumably was attempting to do.

-- making apparently perverse reading of RS source in support of challenged point of view

If that is the most recent RS that supports your POV then even gentle criticism must seem perverse.

-- not giving reasonable credit to the author of an RS, not assuming that the author probably had some sense and probably wasn't trying to say a crazy thing that nobody ever believed, and passing over a sensible available reading of the whole if one is available: (when other readers do get the point and do see and choose the sensible reading).

A flawed conclusion demolishes the argument.

-- altering something from a RS and expecting the altered version to be accepted as RS

I merely cut and pasted Young's interpretation to provide continuity over two synodic months. This was obvious from my diagram and is legitimate use of this RS to demonstrate what happens at the cusp. You seem to ignore the implications of this point, which follows directly from my other RS in Wolfram's cycloid demo. Indeed it seems to me rather perverse of you to ignore the Wolfram demo which approaches reality although I accept the suggestion that an epicycloid can also be considered for service here.

-- misquoting arguments offered by discussion partners

You wrote "There is clearly a complete lack of RS support for these alleged facts. Terry0051 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)" Yet you accept Young and presumably Wolfram's cycloid as RS?

-- refusing to 'get the point' when other editors get the point

I have contributed two diagrams to the discussion pages to illustrate the validity of my argument, which is more than any other editor has done.

-- in these or other ways wasting the time of other editors

My time is at least as valuable as that of other editors

Please take a look at your editing and at the WP policy pages and edit constructively.

I am interested in suggestions for improving my diagram. Thank you for your constructive criticism.
With good wishes Geologician (talk)

Re your note[edit]

Thanks for your message. I've checked over the technical aspects of your filing, and it all looks good to me. Obviously you'll need to await the outcome of the RFCU (I can't help as I don't have checkuser access myself), but if you find yourself unable to make progress for whatever reason beyond that, you could also consider filing a request for comment and/or a request for outside opinions. I'll be happy to help out if necessary. EyeSerenetalk 09:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So your instincts were right - glad to hear it's all sorted. For future reference, if the disruption starts again and you're fairly sure it's the same editor, WP:DUCK permits us to handle the case without going through the full checkuser process. Now you've demonstrated that you can correctly identify this editor's socks from their edit-patterns, I'd be happy to help out with the admin buttons if you need a faster response in future (should they return). All the best, EyeSerenetalk 19:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Provisional unblock[edit]

The following was posted on Geologician's Talk page on 22July 2008:

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee has considered your appeal and decided to provisionally suspend your ban for three months, subject to the following terms: You edit from one account and one account only; You abide strictly by sockpuppetry policy; You accept that your account will be checkusered from time to time to verify compliance; If the three months pass without incident, the unblock automatically becomes permanent. As you have now accepted these terms by email, your account has been unblocked. Roger Davies talk 10:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Roger. The unblock will obviously vindicate me from Terry0051's accusation of sockpuppetry, so I shall look forward to an apology by that user when it becomes permanent, if not immediately. Geologician (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Geologician (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[From Terry0051] Hallo Geologician -- thank you for alerting me to the information that you posted on to my talk page, and [1]. I'll look forward to any future editing discussions we may have, in the hope that they will be cooperative occasions of constructive editing and constructive discussion. With good wishes, Terry0051 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

problem with the material you 'archived' from talk-Moon[edit]

It is in archive 60. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this mess is all cleared up with all of the tiny archives now combined. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


Just wanted to say nice meeting you at Pendrell's Oak, and thanks for the coke! :) Serendipodous (can't find the tildes; I'm on a Mac)

Thanks. Got your email. :) Hope to see you around here more often. Serendipodous 15:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A treatise of the system of the world[edit]

Hi, I read the first source you left me, and then didn't even get through the second source, when I realized my mistake! As Robin would say to Batman "Holy inverse square law, Batman. Hoodwinked by an anonymous joker!"

I removed the sources right away, even though you requested that I only correct them. I want to read through the rest of the links (sources) that you provided me, on my talk page, and then maybe I will post another citation. In the article, Newton's law of universal gravitation my citation isn't really neccessary. I put it there in the first place, because I had put it togther for the other article, and it was available (or so I thought). However, a citation is neccessary for that paragraph in Point particle, so I will have to "shop" around. Maybe I will find it in the links that you left me on my talk page.

There was no WP:etiquette disregarded in contacting me. In fact, I am glad that you did. I would rather the editor contact me than just blatantly remove someting like that, which I added, with no explanation. The good thing is that I can see my mistake first hand, and I appreciate that. Good job! (Ti-30X) Quinn 23:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Terry, this looks like a really useful link. I might actually change the reference I am using because (you seem to be right) I could not find it on the web. It is actually a reference that was already on the Newton's law of universal gravitation article. I was wondering why I couldn't find it at Google books. Now I know.
What does it mean, with this reference, that this is "Preceded by A Guide to Newton's Principia, by I.Bernard Cohen. University of California Press..." Thanks for your time. Ti-30X (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (I'm still Quinn btw)
Terry - about this link you gave me on 13 July "the 1728 translation of 'System of the World' (open here at page 12)". It is interesting that here is Newton discussing the "cutting edge" stuff of his day. In his tables he shows data from a Mr. Flamsteed (Townley Flamsteed), and Galileo, while discussing the accuracy of the new micrometer. (I assume the micrometer was new at that time). He also mentions Cassini.
And just for the heck of it I think I will incorporate another citation from one of the two links you gave me on 17 & 18 July, into the Point particle article. Newton's law of universal gravitation doesn't really need another citation, IMHO. So much to do on Wikipedia, so little time :>) Ti-30X (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi Terry, if you look at the edits themselves it's normally pretty explanatory. the univeristy of andrews references is not in any of the inline citations so it's not clear how the article uses that reference. the newton project is linked in one of the inline citations and also in external links Tom B (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(a)Andrews ref wasn't listed in external links but in references even though it wasn't a reference. (b)the newton project link in references is exactly same as one in external links, Tom B (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup 14 November[edit]

Another Cambridge meetup is planned for the afternoon of Saturday 14 November. Please contribute to the page and come along if you can. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

References and notes[edit]

Hi Terry,

When I want to improve an article the first thing I look at are the references. Most editors are interested in the thrill of seeing their opinions in print. So was I, at first. That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Sometimes you have to give an opinion to tie things together, but it should be at the level of general knowlege, or what already has been said. Everything else needs a reference, or if references have been asked for, it is best to provide them. One key to the level of the editor is the references and I almost always start there. Wikipedia wants the biblio items in citation template format. If they are, then you can see at a glance who said what and when. For external links there is cite web among others. I find that the links are where advertisers like to hide. The raw link gives no information about what the link is about and who is sponsoring it. I find links and refs are a lot of work. I have to look everything up on Google books or whatever. I have to do all the work the editor did not feel like doing. About half the links I look at however are no good - the ferry line wants to advertise trips to the island mentioned in the article or some such thing. Sometimes the link isn't even about the article but has the same name. Right now I'm working on Vernacular. It uses the main things that usually need clean-up - notes, bibliography, links, hatnotes. It reflects the current state of my knowledge and I believe is consistent with firm Wikipedia policy. On the whole, if any aspect of the article is confusing, it needs work. I go to a lot of trouble to find pictures as well. For the writing - I go out of my way to keep the previous editors' words if I can. Many times that just isn't possible. I try to put my reasons in the discussion if I have to make serious changes. This doesn't win me any friends and it won't win you any. I dare say, if you are going to clean up articles you are in for a nasty time. I made a choice to work only on the class B or below articles and that means I must deal with the editors who created them, who are under the impression that they did a really great article and my or anyone's editing changes are in the same category as pre-teens punching each other on the shoulder. When I realize that some of these are educated men then my confidence in Wikipedia reaches a low ebb. So this is what you are in for. A few general observations. Never use url's to books on Google Books. They change those frequently and half the time they are breaking the copyright laws and will shortly be forced to change access to the books. That's not a Wikipedia policy, just a practical observation. Second - and this is really important - there are a lot of youngish people and sad to say many adults who do not understand a copyright. You cannot cut and paste from a book or article under copyright. You can make small properly attributed quotes for educational purposes. Those need quotes and a footnote. If the English in the article looks really good and smooth, chances are it is a cut and paste. You can check by putting 5 or so contiguous words on Google book search. Now, if you run into flak or find an article that needs fixing but you have no time or interest, the judicious use of templates will flag the article for someone else:

For books that are past the copyright, it is still ethical to quote not copy them. I know that in the past certain chancellors and deans liked to copy from lesser known writers and if they got caught, well, their excuse was, everyone is doing it. In fact I have in mind a certain chancellor notorious for his mouth who when someone else in authority threatened to make an issue of someone in his camp being plagiaristic himself threatened to reveal the plagiaristic doings of another national figure. He won. If however you are not a god-like chancellor able to do things just because you can, honesty is still an admired virtue (if you can find any). To my way of thinking the virtue of an encyclopedia is its truth and if it has no virtue it is fantasy only and as fantasy goes not a very good story at that. Good luck in you effort to clean up, which will, I assure you, be totally unappreciated and win you practically nothing but enemies.Dave (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, everyone's experience with Google Books is different. If I see a link that is successful I leave it. I used to put them in myself but then I kept getting notifications that the link was not turning up the book. You probably need more experience with Google. I think it is a great thing to have books online. Maybe however you noticed that many pages are messed up. That is because once they have a contract they hire in crews at slave wages and drive them like slaves to accomplish a minimum score of pages each shift. Once in a while they give lip service to quality but that's all it is. I did that for a while as an interlude to my professional career (I retired long ago, you know). Maybe you noticed the thumbs sticking out egregiously on some pages. Some of those might be mine (not many I dare say). Although they pay lip service to safety the machines in fact are unsafe. I found I could not do the page count so I didn't last long, but I learned a lot about Google. For one thing they are not altruistic. I had to argue with them for a month in order to get my first week's pay, which was almost not even worth mentioning except that I had to work so hard for it. This from a company that made huge profits that year. Maybe you did not know about the lawsuit for copyright infringements? They finally settled, but it is a raw issue still. Check their corporate web site sometime. There are numerous copyright discrepancies in Google. That is because they make their money by getting the material up long before the deadline and go so fast they have to sacrifice quality. They can;t get hung up on checking copyrights. That method actually is a technique formerly used among technical writing contractors in their days of prosperity: you do a price estimate, double it, and then do the manual in half the time. But, I am not going to rat on my former friends and anyway the whole field has been decimated by recession. There are a lot of online book sites now. I'd rather use anyone else but Google any day. This is an interesting but old question in ethics. What happens when a company can become rich and useful through unethical and illegal means? I can't say that I have any new answers.Dave (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of honesty, what about you? I notice among your associates some people who wrote for the original Nupedia and who wrote some of the code for Wikipedia. That strikes my attention because here you are asking for my advice who have only been on a few years when you appear to have been a long-standing associate! It does not compute. Not that it makes a practical difference. Wikipedia policy is to take people at face value and though that may epistemologically lead to the biggest absurdities I ever saw, still, it may be the best working policy available for such a volcano of seething opinion and emotion. But, if someone asks my opinion by policy I do give it in the spirit of openness. I refuse to be vindictive like so many editors. Be aware, I wasn't born yesterday on many different levels. Well thanks for your communications. We must agree to disagree on some things I fear, but if I don't follow Wikipedia policy, be sure and let me know, will you? You may as well, everyone else does.Dave (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
That's OK, no big deal. I was looking through your talk page and saw some names and people there. On following them down I saw some credentials so it seemed to me you had a bit more experience. But, it doesn't matter really. If you have been on for less than a year, welcome to Wikipedia. I remember my welcoming to Wikipedia. It went something like this: we're deleting your article, you wierd fanatic. Oh by the way, welcome to Wikipedia. Ho, ho, ho! But I stuck with it and I hope you will too. I was originally trying to build a database in certain areas but there was so much work to be done I am still at it. Nevertheless I am glad to have all this information at hand despite the limitations of Wikipedia. I suppose I could say the same thing about Google. I spent a lot of my life running to libraries looking for information I can get now in 30 minutes sitting in my chair. I need to get out of my chair however. Anyway I like working on Wikipedia; as many others have said, it keeps my hand in the writing field. I am a writer, though not a rich one. Good luck in your fixing other articles. They have to be fixed, someone has to do it. And it is a good introduction to being an encyclopedist although "working with others" isn't what you think it might be. It is more like trying to placate someone who has gotten furious because you dared to correct his stuff. But, that is when it needs correction the most! So, stick with it, stay flexible, remember, that angry person out there is just like all of us. Ciao.Dave (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

De Motu and Galileo[edit]

The sentence did not say derive but rather relate and Galileo's laws (of free fall and projectile motion) are certainly related. In the case where resistance forces can be assumed to be negligible, Newton provides a description of free fall in Problem 5 and its Scholium as an inverse squared relation of centripetal acceleration. Particularly for projectile motion he describes the path as an eccentric ellipse not parabolic. His description as such is enough to say that Galileo's laws are very good approximations but not exact. Thepossumdance (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC) As I said before I believe Problem 5 and its Scholium directly relate to both of Galileo's laws. I will reproduce it just in case you don't have the original text at hand. Newton states in the Scholium for Problem 5, "By the preceding problem the motions of projectiles in our air are defined [as ellipses, so says Problem 5, not parabolas as Galileo would have it], and the motions of heavy bodies falling perpendicularly on the hypothesis that gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the centre of the earth and that the medium of the air in no wise resists. For gravity is one species of centripetal force" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepossumdance (talkcontribs) 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well then shouldn't there be a sentence regarding that relation? He is both showing Galileo to be theoretically wrong but practically correct, in that his calculations are a very good approximation of inverse squared gravity (eccentric ellipse is very close to parabola etc). Thepossumdance (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the last thing I'm going to say on this. To have an article about De Motu that does not bring up Galileo's laws of free fall or parabolic motion is just dumb, really really dumb. He proves Galileo's law of free fall to be correct in the first instant of fall. If you refuse to address De Motu's relation to Galileo's laws, then I refuse to believe you are a scientist. Thepossumdance (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not trying to have any heated dispute about this (and it would be appreciated if you would refrain from personal attacks, and discuss constructively). Also I didn't express any overall objection to a mention of Galileo. But the mention should clearly be of a kind that is suitably supported by the sources. You wrote that Newton "proves Galileo's law of free fall to be correct in the first instant of fall.", and while I would agree that Newton uses the result, i.e. Galileo's square law of descent (in its application to evanescent/infinitesimal time intervals during which the relevant force can be treated as constant in the limit) -- as far as I can see, that is just a use and not a proof of the result, the sources don't appear to show Newton proving Galileo's result (it's not as if he needed to). Later on, in the Principia, Newton specifically credited Galileo. I've put a post now on the 'De motu' talk page, and if there's a reliable source that shows something different, by all means make a suitably supported edit, reflecting whatever the reliably sourced facts turn out to be. Terry0051 (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Kepler's laws[edit]

Which error are you talking about? Do you disagree that the article needs a section on history? Bo Jacoby (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

Thank you for your response.
(1) Before your edit, the intro section was, in an important respect, in accordance with the reliable sources. Your edit removed from the intro section the essential qualification that the 'laws' are not exact, took away inline references to citations, and left incorrect and unsupported statements, untrue to the cited reliable sources, that Kepler's laws apply (without the qualification 'approximately') to the planetary system and other planetary systems etc.
(2) Your post on the article talk page seems to try to brush aside the approximate character of the Kepler relationships. My reply on the article's talk page offers reasons why that is not appropriate.
(3) I have no problem with a history section -- as long as the result is supported by the reliable sources and clearly conveys the content to the reader. But the introductory section still needs to be left in a state that is consistent with the sources, and properly foreshadows the citation-supported content, not to contradict it.
(May I suggest that this is a suitable discussion for the article's talk page, I am replying more fully there.) Terry0051 (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Meetup in Cambridge, 27 March[edit]

See Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 6 - much as before. We'd be glad to see you. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup[edit]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 7 taking place on 29 May. Hope to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Meetup Cambridge 8[edit]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 8 will be on Saturday 24 July. Hope to see you there. There was an odd "small world" moment at the last. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer Waters 10:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Space reorganization[edit]

Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:

  1. Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
  2. Separate the Astronomy and Spaceflight "sides" of WikiProject, and remove WikiProject Space.

If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProjects Moon and Mars activity[edit]

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the space-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the lists of members of WikiProject Moon (here) and Mars (here). If you still consider yourself to be an active editor either of these projects, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Solar System at 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC).