User talk:RJHall

These are archive links to copies of my talk page just prior to a cleanup. 18 March 2005 3 July 2005 14 Dec 2005 14 May, 2006 13 July 2006 21 October 2006

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

Thanks for your review

Hello RJHall,

Thanks a lot for your review of Chung Ling High School! I realize that two months is a long span of time, but I just got bogged down by a lack of Internet connection and examinations... Anyway, I hope that you would give consent to my transferring your comments to the article's talk page so as to facilitate re-editing and improvement. Is this acceptable to you?

Cheers! Eng Aun 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you need my consent for that, but please be my guest. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixing George Washington Danville page.

Do you know how to get rid of the cut of line around the first line of every paragraph? I would appreciate it if you would help me remove it! Thanks.-Robin4084

Bellevue

--Kraftlos 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) I went down the history of the Bellevue WA article and it appears that you were the first person to contribute to the history section. I was just curious where you got the information, because I was interested having the page referenced (and because I'm translating the article for the Spanish Wikipedia). Not that it's entirely your fault, because at least 20 other people did the same thing, but the page looks bad with no citations.

--Kraftlos 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I used the external links at the end of the page, which I added in at about the same time. I live there, so I'm a little familiar with the history. I'll add this to my to-do list, and try to get some proper inline citations added. — RJH (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so do I. I couldn't find any of your history additions in those links, so am I correct in assuming those websites have changed? Or did you write most of it yourself? (I'm surprised that the city of bellevue doesn't have any history on its website). Also I found some corporate website that ripped the entire wikipedia article off and put it on their site.

I've been a wikipedia addict for about 2 years, but now I'm really getting addicted to editing it.  :-/ Nice to meet you and hope to hear from you soon.

Peer Review: Switzerland

Hi, I'm new to Wiki and have been looking for areas to contribute to. One section that was suggested was peer reviews. So, I went to the Switzerland peer review, where I you had already made the review. As a newbie, I don't know if it is OK to provide answers to your comments (ie. under your comment or in another paragraph below yours) or if commenting on your comments is not allow/prefered in the peer review section (ie. Zug is the name of the canton & Zug is then name of the captial city, same for Zurich/Zurich, Geneva/Geneva, and a few others). Thought I'd ask here before making changes that are not appropriate. Thanks, Minimia 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think that is quite appropriate. Please do contribute your comments to the peer reviews. — RJH 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Orion Nebula

Give me your email, and I'll forward the O'Dell email being cited at Orion Nebula. WilliamKF 17:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you might say that. I've created a one use email to start our communication. Please email me at emailaddress to start the email discussion. Thanks. WilliamKF 19:16, 27 October 2006 (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 07:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver

I have answered some of your inquiries relating to Vancouver's Featured Article Review. Please review the changes and let me know if they're enough. Mkdw^talk 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey Q

Have you ever been to the southern hemisphere? respond here Deadline is December 15th. AstroBoy 02:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Dude, my favorite subject is astronomy too.

LOC Classification fix

RJHall -- Thank you for removing the concerns on the LOC pages. I'll keep fleshing them out. I just hope that you and User:Seraphimblade don't get into a wrangle. He thinks they are unnecessary listcruft. NielsenGW 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I hope so too. Deletion actions do seem to bring out some strong opinions in people. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

State terrorism in Syria

This is an article you had onceupon a time involved in. Some questions have come up See here ThanksRaveenS

Featured Article: Vancouver

Thank you for your recommendations in regards to Vancouver on its FAC. On November 22, 2006 the article became a featured article thanks to helpful tips and suggestions by users like you. Thank you again on behalf of the editors and members of the WikiProject Vancovuer. Mkdw^talk 00:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

GW High Student Population

sorry to say this,but GW doesn't have that many students. Trust me it's aprox.1,200Template:Robin4084

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Reverting My Edits

I don't understand how removing comments about "white emo jews" and "the running of the jews" is censorship. The article is practically patent nonsense. I'm going to at least remove the PAs. If you have an issue with this, kindly take it up on the article's talk page. Thanks. →Bobby← 16:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to why the issue is not obvious. Blanking out an article to which you have personal objections so that it can not be read by others is clearly censorship. Yes I do see that those specific comments are offensive. — RJH (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the integrity of the encyclopedia as well as the personal attacks. In my mind, nothing was lost from the encyclopedia by removing the blatently false prose. Anyone on the AfD debate can easily check the history for themself. I've no taken the time to remove comments that could be seen as personal attacks from the article, while leaving the non-offensive nonsense in tact. →Bobby← 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the removal of individual, unconfirmed and clearly false statements that are not backed up by referencees. I do have an issue with the an entire article being blanked in the middle of an AfD just because you took offense. But no matter. I guess we just have different views on censorship. — RJH (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I was probably a little brash to blank the article. After reading through the first few paragraphs and seeing nothing but outright lies and two personal attacks against jewish folks, I decided to cut the whole thing and let editors participating in the AfD check the history for themselves. In retrospect, I should have just taken the extra five minutes to filter only the offensive comments out. I apologize for my overreaction, and thank you for calling me on it. →Bobby← 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for that and I don't doubt but that the article will be summarily tossed once the votes are in. (Or else that it will be heavily re-written.) — RJH (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sirius

It's a reach, and I can full well understand if you want to remove the banner. Basically, (1) I'm adding the banner to all articles that fall in the scope of the project, to ensure as many articles as possible get assessed (Dogs does assessment), and (2) Sirius is called the "dog star", and linked to some older legends relating to dogs, which legends do fall within the project's scope. The article is also specifically mentioned on one of the lists from Category:Dog lists, although I can't remember specifically which one right now. I was considering adding the similar banner to Canis Major, Canis Minor, and Canes Venatici as well, but thought I might well get a response from just the one. I can understand if you would want to remove it, particularly here, but would be interested in knowing in any event regarding whether you would have similar objections to inclusion on the two Canis constellations. Badbilltucker 17:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I have no problem with the banner then; I just didn't see the connection. — RJH (talk)

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 17:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't vote for gene. But thanks for letting me know. :-) — RJH (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

C6H-

Would this fit in this page? List of molecules in interstellar space Negatively Charged Space Molecules Discovered, thanks, CarpD (^_^) 1/12/06

It looks like HC6 is already on the list. I'm not sure if the difference is due to a configuration change. *shrug* — RJH (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the only thing significant is that is it the first negatively charged molecule. So, maybe there should be an extra note on that or a duplicate with a negative symbol. At least, that's what I think could be added. CarpD (^_^) 4/12/06

Just let you know, I am unfamilar with chemestry and astrochemestry. So, I may not be the best person to make notes on that. I can add the reference to the bottom for the C6H- molecue, though. thanks, CarpD 04/12/06

FAC of Bacteria

An editor has made some major changes to this article, could you please return to the FAC and provide some feedback on whether or not these are an improvement? TimVickers 21:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Crete ref

Hello, thank you for your message. I haven't been on wiki lately. Well, if you would like a reference you can find it on The Lost Battle, Crete 1941 by Callum Macdonald on page 197 of that book.The book can be found in the references at the bottom of the article. Callum Macdonald writes the following about Kurt Student: "After the war, he admitted that the hours before dawn were the longest of his life: "I waited with my pistol continuously by my side, ready to use it on myself, if the worst came to the worst." The quote can also be found in Crete 1941:Eyewitnessed. Thanks for letting me know, and good luck on improving the article. Regards, Periklis* 02:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tau Ceti

The article Tau Ceti you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Tau Ceti for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Shimeru 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nature

RJ, are you the one responsible for having cleaned up the last paragraph of "Matter and energy" (thereby likely saving it from permanent elimination)? ... Kenosis 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm not completely sure. I know I made some changes to that section, but I don't know if it is the revision to which you refer. Was there something you had in mind? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue's already been addressed-- I don't remember taking the last chunk of Platonic philosophy out completely. But it's gone now and closer to the point of the section than it was before. And thanks for your repeated and diligent attention to the article. ... Kenosis 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh sure thing. I know you've contributed quite a bit to that article, so I think you deserve much more of the credit. All I'm trying to do is get it up to GA. Thanks. — RJH (talk)

FA?

Why are you not submitting History of supernova observation as a featured article candidate? Is it not comprehensive? Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly comprehensive, but the FAC process is a pain in the backside that requires a higher level of commitment and a fairly thick skin. In most instances I'm content to get a page up to GA level. In the case of the above mentioned article, I was going to see if I could bring the Supernova page up to FA level (with the history at GA). — RJH (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

LINERs

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)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2007 (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)

You helped choose Jupiter as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 14:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

You helped choose Universe as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 21:41, 3 January 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 09:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

LINER statement in Andromeda Galaxy

I cut the statement because it was in the Structure section where it did not belong. The AGN activity should be covered in the Nucleus section. However, I did not see how to place the statement into the Nucleus statement without rewriting the section, so I moved the statement to the talk page.

Also, NED should not be trusted for its AGN classification. NED garbles some AGN classifications and sometimes chooses strange references for its AGN classification. Look up "NGC 4826", for example. NED lists this as a Seyfert 2 because someone found that this objects lands in a weird place in a diagram. On the other hand, Ho et al. (1997), using systematic line diagnostics, categorize this as a "transition type" galaxy (transitory between LINER and HII). I would recommend finding another reference for the AGN classification. Dr. Submillimeter 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. — RJH (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please dampen your +cat links

Your talk page is showing up here Category:Dog lists Headphonos 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody posted a message that included the category. It's fixed now. — RJH (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Northern lights

Hi RJH, thought I'd moved this conversation out of the Sirius talk page :-) We sure do get a lot of northern lights up here! Last October they were so stunning, even in town (with its significant light pollution), that walking home from a bar I just lay down on the ground and gaped at them in awe. I hadn't seen them pink and purple before, only green. But there had been some solar activity earlier that day; this was above and beyond anything I've ever seen before. But it is still pretty common to see northern lights even in the city. Icemuon 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Hey

see here --ThT 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomy articles by quality statistics

Hello. There's not much point editing Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Astronomy articles by quality statistics; the numbers on this page are automatically updated by a bot, based on the numbers of articles within the subcategories of Category:Astronomy articles by quality. Any changes you do make end up getting overwritten by the bot. Mike Peel 10:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nearby group information

I saw the link that you added to Local Group. Just to let you know, Karachentsev and several collaborators have done a lot of survey work in recent time that has significantly improved distance measurements and group identification for most galaxies within 5 Mpc. See what I have written at the IC 342/Maffei Group, Centaurus A/M83 Group, and Sculptor Group articles based on his references. I would consider Karachentsev's work to supercede van den Bergh's at this point. Please contact me if you have questions. Dr. Submillimeter 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Natural science is now the COTF

You showed support for Natural science at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration of the fortnight. Hope you can help.

Thanks for your interest in the collaboration, Walkerma 03:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II

Hi! I saw your interests page, and I wish to explain a bit situation with mentioned history-related article.

In fact, we don't want to erase content of this, it will be merged into more global article like "Occupation of Ukraine".

Also, as you can notice, current version of article contains >50% about Holocaust, it's not the primary goal of it. If it will be merged into Occupation of Ukraine it will be more title-specific. Because at that times, there were Soviet people, not Ukrainians. And article particularly speaks about Jews.

Thanks for understanding, please provide your arguments. --Galkovsky 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing "former featured article" status

From the Village Pump in early January:

A joker nominated Execution of Saddam Hussein for featured article status. A chorus of 'oppose' votes followed. Now the talk page has the banner saying this page had been nominated and turned down for feature article status.

Can someone remove this status from the article? The nom was obviously in bad faith. I'd much prefer to not see that 'former featured article candidate' banner (or category) there at all. Let us pretend this bad joke never occurred. Thanks - Tempshill 18:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to remove articles from the list as they can serve as an example of what not to nominate. Do you believe that a page with this status is lent some type of credence? If so I'm unclear as to why. The topic itself seems mildly notable and just as suitable as many other topics to get converted into a FA. — RJH (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, yes, a page with that status is lent some type of credence; the banner says to an outsider, "This page was considered seriously by Wikipedia as a great article." When a "bad" article is given that status, it says to an outsider, "Wikipedia is a lunatic asylum." That page, in early January, anyway, was a news-ish article, full of scattered reports and edit wars, and was unquestionably far, far from being a featured article. Incidentally, being notable is required for any Wikipedia article, not just FAs; and the importance of the subject is low on the list of criteria for being considered for FA status. Tempshill 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying we should hide our dirty underwear? :-) Sorry but I can't see that it is as a significant concern. But perhaps the {{facfailed}} template needs to be updated to clarify that we are not assigning the article any importance by this consideration? This could be discussed on the Wikipedia talk:Featured article review page, for example, since I think the issue would apply to more than just this article. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A peer review

I wanted to personally thank you for reviewing the article, maxillary central incisor, and your subsequent feedback. Hopefully, I can address your concerns to improve the article. Thanks again. - Dozenist talk 15:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. That was appreciated. — RJH (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Metal is now the COTF

You showed support for Metal at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration of the fortnight. Hope you can help.

Thanks for your excellent contributions to Natural science, it's really improved the article! Walkerma 16:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately the article still needs much improvement. — RJH (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kampfgruppe

Thanks a lot for ur imput on kampfgruppe. --Jinxs 21:45, 31 January 2007 (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 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nom for Galaxy

Hi. I've reviewed Galaxy against the Good Article criteria, and I think it's there, except for some minor clarifications to the lead section. So I've placed it On Hold for the time being, but am very optimistic about it passing within a few days. The Land 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Now that it's GA I'm putting it forward for FAC, so hopefully that will bring it up to top quality. — RJH (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

List of globular clusters

I'm currently doing some undergraduate research on NGC 2419, and got confused when I looked at list of globular clusters and saw that it said this cluster was in Puppis, not Lynx. Then I realised the problem was that it was listed with negative declination, not positive declination. I corrected the entry, but thought I let you know in case you wanted to check to see if there were any other sign problems with other entries. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the catch. I'll add a check to my to-do list, although I'm not sure when I'll get to it. :-) — RJH (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Halfbeak

Thanks for your constructive comments, here.[1] Made the changes where I could. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 23:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Good luck with wherever you're going to take it. — RJH (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Supernova

You're welcome! Your hard work on the supernova article has tamed a real monster. It had grown quite out of control. Please feel free to ask for further review of astrophysics articles -- I don't have time to regularly edit, but I do poke my head in every few weeks, and would be happy to focus my attention where it would be most valuable. Mordecai-Mark Mac Low 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Aikido

Thanks for the comments on the Aikido peer review - I think most of the have been addressed and in about a weeks time I will submit the article as a FAC. I also placed some comments in the peer review itself. Cheers Peter Rehse 06:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and good luck with your FAC. If you're persistent and address the issues as they arise I'm sure you'll succeed. — RJH (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How long do supernovae last?

Hi. Thanks for your message. Obviously, I don't know much about supernovae. My intention was to make the article clearer. It seems to me that the point of making a comparison with the Sun is to emphasize the large power of a supernova explosion. Any star can put out a lot of energy over a long enough time interval. What makes a supernova different is that the energy is released over a very short period of time. So, it's important not only to give an indication of the amount of energy released, but also the length of time over which it is released. I don't know how much of the energy goes into the neutrino burst, but it sounds to me like the 50 day time period is the relevant one. How 'bout this:

"A supernova may briefly out-shine its entire host galaxy before fading from view over several weeks or months. During this brief period of time, the supernova radiates as much energy as the Sun would in about 10 billion years." Rracecarr 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty good. I was trying to leave it somewhat open-ended because some of the explosion energy is put into radioactive isotopes that decay over longer periods. But your text is probably close enough. I also realize now that I should add in more information about the time intervals involved down in the body. Thank you for your work on the article. — RJH (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Jupiter article (and others)

Thank you for rewriting the Jupiter article. Based on this, and your recent contributions, I think you deserve this barnstar, even though you have one of them already:

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		To RJHall for contributions to astronomy and planetary science articles Michaelbusch 01:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you my good fellow. — RJH (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Chemical element is now the Core Topics Collaboration

You showed support for Chemical element at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration of the fortnight. Hope you can help.

Thanks again for your help on the last one, metal. I should be able to pitch in and help on this new one, once Version 0.5 comes out. I've also done better at publicising this new one. Cheers, Walkerma 15:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Gold star

File:Herooflabor.jpg

I thought astronomy had hit the doldrums after Worldtraveller went into retirement, but, gosh, your astronomy articles (and lists!) are a joy to behold.

You are a fitting recipient this gold star (right) together with the title of my hero for the day, an occasional personal award. Well done. (And apologies if giving you an ex-Soviet honour causes any offence). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Never been a socialist, so the award is slightly ironic. ;-) — RJH (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Followup on Jupiter

Congratulations on Jupiter's promotion! You've been doing some excellent work on astronomy articles, and it's particularly impressive that you manage to cram so much information into one article with crisp, concise writing. I did have a minor followup on my FAC comments for Jupiter that I didn't get a chance to post before it was closed, so I'll drop it off here - maybe I'm dim, but I still don't see why Thursday being named after Thor has anything to do with Jupiter; it sounds like a back-of-the-cereal-box fact. The chain of reasoning as far as I can see is 'Thor is a god associated with thunder -> Jupiter is a god associated with thunder in an unrelated mythology -> Jupiter the planet is named after Jupiter the god -> therefore it's totally relevant to mention the etymology of Thursday in the Jupiter article.' It's an editorial decision, but unless Thor was associated with the planet in Norse mythology, that's way too tangential for me. Opabinia regalis 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better! And sorry for belaboring the point ;) Opabinia regalis 01:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

FAC

I noticed that you reviewed some GA/FA candidates. Just in case you have time and interest in the topic:

I would like to have your comments on my work for further improvement. Any suggestion will be very much appreciated. Thanks.Sangak 18:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

AzaBot 01:37, 28 February 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 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Galaxy

Don't be too negative - hopefully people will be interested in your hard work and appreciate it. The vandals are just the price to pay for that, and we'll all clear up after the party. Chrislintott 17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mars

Many thanks for your helpful comments on the Mars FAC, they have proven an invaluable guide and I am very pleased with the improvement they have generated in the article, kind regards sbandrews 18:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; you're entirely too kind. Good luck with your FAC nomination. — RJH (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Kiarostami was promoted!

Dear RJHall

I need to thank you for your kind assistance and support. The article would not come to FA status without your helps. Thanks and All the best. Sangak ^Talk 11:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Schools discussion

Hi RJHall, I see you are interested in the Schools discussion. I read your Personal High School Notability Criteria, and thought you might have something to add to the discussion other than "schools are inherently notable". Some inclusionist arguments of substance would certainly be appreciated, I think. Best regards, Icemuon 22:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand you -- I feel rather drained by it myself, although I can't help peeking at it now and again. Best regards, Icemuon 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

AzaBot 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC query - Japan

Hi, I've seen you vote on FAC candidates several times. Could you have a quick look at the Japan article and tell me whether you believe it is FA material? The biggest problem seemed to be over references, which have been added and properly formatted. As to stability, we've had problems with vandals - major problems between editors are resolved. John Smith's 12:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just gave it a cursory look-through, but the article seems pretty good The only section I find noticeably missing (compared to other nation-state FA's) is "Flora and fauna". You might also want to mention the whaling issue and the etymology of the word "Japan". There are a few citations preceding punctuation. ( Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags.) Personally I always take a page through the peer review process to get a page in the best shape before trying an FAC—it usually takes about a week or so.

Unfortunately vandals are a problem for nearly everybody; about I can do is keep checking my watch page for those articles in which I have an interest.

I hope this was of some small help. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe another peer review, then. But I don't think anyone knows much about flora and fauna, so maybe we'll leave it there. Cheers, John Smith's 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know you'd already had a PR—so it's probably not needed. But you may want to address the citation-before-puctuation issue. There are some nation-state articles that don't have a "Flora and fauna" section, so that probably isn't a show-stopping issue. — RJH (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrected the punctuation issue. I'll file an application and see how it turns out. John Smith's 17:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Application filed - if you could leave your comments they would be much appreciated. John Smith's 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Athena User Interface

Hi there;

Do you remember what caused you to add "Athena User Interface" to the AUI (disambiguation) page back in Sep 2004? (diff)

I don't think the term was ever used outside of a narrow scope at MIT, and only in the context of a short-lived project (cf. Talk:AUI#Athena User Interface). Did you find references to it somewhere?

Thanks. jhawkinson 02:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For something that far back, I can only speculate that I added it in for the sake of completeness of the disambiguation page. I wouldn't suffer any heartburn if that entry were removed, however. — RJH (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Geology or geography

Here's another interesting new phenomenon on Mars, from the HiRISE camera [2], but I can't decide whether it belongs in the Geology section or the Geography section - what do you think? Regards sbandrews (t) 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So is that a Keep for the 747 argument then?

Hi RJH. I note your comment - I infer that this means you'd vote keep but for the record it'd be great if you stated this. Thanks NBeale 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)