User talk:Orion11M87/Archive 1

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


Thanks for fixing the reflist mess. I could not figure out what I had done wrong. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Heya, I've further replied here :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

On reversions[edit]

I think we should revert his changes one more time, (if need be), and then give him a warning. If he continues we can then report him. In any case the reference he is giving is not even related to the entry he is trying to add. FFMG (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we should report it. do you know the procedure? FFMG (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes I see what s/he is trying to do. But lets not lower to his level, we can only remain civil and report him if/when he breaks a wiki rule and somehow always assume good faith.
I am also at a loss at how to explain to him/her the simple difference between state, national and international news.
I think that asking the help of an admin would make us no better than him/her, but what else can we do? FFMG (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, so lets hold on, if s/he comes back alone or with-someone, we will discuss more. If still s/he keeps restoring, one of us will give warning over revert war. Then if still continued, we will report to a administrator. — Orion11M87 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, for answering my question :] and, yes Im a Boy. User:II MusLiM HyBRiD II 18:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome! Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

String theory[edit]

Thank Brian Greene, whose wonderful little essay on the LHC (New York Times, 12 Sept 2008) laid out the objectives and potential advances in a most wonderfully clear and concise way. It was just what everyone has been asking for on the Talk:LHC page. Good luck on your program; I wish I had the mathematical background to understand it (as Weinberg remarked lately...)! Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I am old (66) and my brains are going fast, but I cannot resist this stuff. I'd be very interested in looking on, on your project, if that is possible; though I doubt if I can really contribute anything significant. Keep me posted anyhow, & thanks! Bill Wwheaton (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin[edit]

I'm not sure it's proper to correct (or even have) Wikilinks in the title of my thesis. Certainly, correct capitalization is not proper in titles.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

LHC delay press release[edit]

[1] -- SCZenz (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I apologize for not reading your question more carefully! CERN has made no announcement about the official inauguration day since the incident, so Wikipedia will have to do without new information for the time being. Thanks for your kind words on the Symmetry article; see you soon! -- SCZenz (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, they officially confirmed October 21 startup: [2] -- SCZenz (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)



Thanks. But please use my work e-mail address, not my personal one, as my access to that computer is temporarily impaired due to recovery from recent surgery. When will you be at JPL?

Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Your revert summary said my edit was non notable. How exactly is it not notable? Especially if it's notable enough to warrant it's own article? - (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything that has an article does not necessarily make it notable on the Years articles. While the Ethan Allen boating accident may be an event of a magnitude in the country it happened, its trial date is not notable at all, that is not even considering its notability on the international level. And please discuss things as such on the article it was rejected. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay. I'm really sorry for questioning your actions, and I apologize for posting this here. Please don't report me! - (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and no need for apologizing. You were honest. Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm really confused by the rationales you're using for removing entries in year pages, such as this one. Is there a consensus somewhere that a person must have entries in 10 different languages to qualify for the year entry in the English Wikipedia? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a rule of 10-languages that was formed through consensus long time ago, here. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't know that existed. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead of LHC article[edit]

Hi, "due to the arc-magnet quench" sounds far too technical for the lead. Besides, what does arc-magnet mean? Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"due to the arc-magnet quench" isn't technical at all; all it means something happened because of the magnet quench. arc-magnet is the name of such magnets and arc being arch. Quench means rapid heating of the magnet through oscillations. Precise and technical way would be "due to the sector 3-4 dipole arc-magnet quench and the heating of the Bus bar, 1 ton of cryo-helium was leaked". Let me know if you need more help on anything! Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I never heard the superconducting dipole magnets of the LHC being called that way, but perhaps it's just me. Would you please produce a reference? Regarding the quench, sorry but it IS technical. The lead is supposed to be accessible to every reader and the details should be given in the main body of the article. Nobody knows what a magnet quench is unless he/she is a physicist or has already read some technical description of the topic. Perhaps we should move this discussion to the talk page and see what other contributors think about it. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I see that you reverted the changes that I made to this sentence (...) with the intention of testing various predictions of high-energy physics, including the existence of the hypothesized Higgs boson,[2] and the sparticles of the Supersymmetry.. In my opinion with the intention of testing ... the sparticles of the supersymmetry sounds weird in English. I am not a native speaker, but are you? And in physics one normally refers to "supersymmetry", not "the Supersymmetry". And "testing the sparticles" is quite bad (you indeed test the prediction of the existence of the sparticles). I will revert to the version that I had proposed, with the intention of testing various predictions of high-energy physics, including the existence of the hypothesized Higgs boson and of the sparticles predicted by supersymmetry. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am discussing it on the LHC talk page too, cya there. — Orion11M87 (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Spam[edit]

Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick on the draw[edit]

Yeah, that was too funny. Twinkle makes nixing this crap and warning people so easy. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


Coming of Age of our Milky Way, the most detailed infrared picture of our galaxy to date.

I can just imagine JPL or Nasa having a room with a picture like your panorama on the walls, and maybe hexagonal or circular so you feel like you're in the middle of the view. And get somebody knowledgeable to go inside and look around and see if he cant more information in it than we can looking at in two dimensions. Do they have that? WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at various NASA centers, museums, and events. The most prominent one I remember is the Spitzer's Coming of Age of our Milky Way, it was displayed at the 212th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in St. Louis, Missouri. You can read about the colossal image here, Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


I seems to be spending about half my time looking at his edits to see what nonsense he's inserting. Most of the individual line items are correct, although he doesn't seem to understand WP:DASH quite correctly. Think it's worth proposing he be blocked until he chooses to explain his edits? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I know you have been reverting on about 12 articles to fix deviation of standards errors. After these notices and warnings to the user, last warning should be given now; And if the user still makes more edits off standards, a block should be placed. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have given the final warning. — Orion11M87 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just seen the user's edits go well beyond 12 articles. If you think the user should be blocked now, go ahead with the block. I didn't had articles before 2000 in my watch list due to the time constraints. — Orion11M87 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your request for rollback[edit]

Wikipedia Rollback.png

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! —αἰτίας discussion 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a redirect[edit]

I agree with the redirect made at -- the stub belongs on the main page until fleshed out. -- Evertype· 23:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree now with the redirect made. Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Years[edit]

In 2009, WikiProject Years developed a essay for the inclusion of events "recent year" articles.

Important policy discussions took place in January 2009 at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years.

Deilvered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC) on request of Wrad