# User talk:WilliamKF/Archive 1

## Galaxy Redshifts

I noticed that you edited the Sombrero Galaxy article and a few other galaxy articles by replacing the more useful redshift in km/s with the less useful redshift in z. Please do not do this. Redshifts in z simply are not practical for nearby galaxies, where the numbers are incredibly small. In contrast, redshifts in km/s are very useful, especially for galaxies that have been used to derive the Hubble constant. Professional astronomers much more commonly use km/s for nearby galaxies, and km/s is simply easier to understand for non-professionals. Also, please note that on pages where I have written in the redshifts that I acquired them from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, which is a superior reference to the SEDS website. In particular, the NASA/IPAC website carefully documents their sources for their redshift measurements. Dr. Submillimeter 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Track this link: Here it is and this one and this, plus [1].

## NED information

Thank you for your understanding on the redshifts.

If you really wanted to, you could use the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) to update all the galaxy information that you come across in Wikipedia. I have been doing this slowly as I edit other articles. You can see what I have done in the information boxes on the Sombrero Galaxy, NGC 4088, and NGC 5033 pages as examples. Note that I include references to NED as footnotes so that other people can see where I got the information. If you were to do this for a few dozen of the Wikipedia galaxy entries, it would be incredibly useful. Dr. Submillimeter 20:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

After I wrote this, I see you started doing it with Messier 83. Thank you.
If you include classifications, beware of some of the information given by NED. In the line that gives the classification in NED, do not use the last part if it says things such as "HII", "LINER", "Sy", or "Sbrst". These are AGN designations, which NED does poorly. If you want a detailed discussion, I can explain why Messier 64 is not necessarily a Seyfert galaxy but why NED classifies it as one and why it shows that NED does some strange things with these classifications. (NGC 1569 is an even better example. It's also classified as a Seyfert galaxy for mysterious reasons.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
NED does not give distances. Extragalactic distances are actually very difficult to measure. While estimates of distances are easy to calculate using the redshift and Hubble's law, these distances are often questionable if not inaccurate. For example, on a professional paper that I wrote for NGC 4594, the referee (reviewer) for my paper said that I should use a distance of approximately 9 Mpc (based on papers that actually had good techniques for measuring distances) rather than approximately 14 Mpc (calculated using the galaxy's redshift). The problem with extragalactic distances is that many groups and clusters, particularly the Virgo Cluster, exert strong gravitational forces that change the direction in which galaxies are moving. The galaxies no longer appear to be moving only with the expansion of the universe, thus making the use of Hubble's law problematic. For now, I just leave the distance blank (or leave whatever was put in the entry previously) unless I can find a scientific paper with a good distance measurement. Dr. Submillimeter 20:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

## WikiProject Astronomical objects

You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects, where you can meet more people who are discussing how to write astronomy-related articles. The main page is currently undergoing revision and may have some format issues in your browser, but the talk page is a good place for discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Angle Symbols - I am using a style where the degree, arcminute, and arcsecond symbols are placed before the decimal point in a decimal angles. This seems to be the style used by the Astrophysical Journal, although their pages do not clearly state this (look up "Manuscript Style" at this page). If this is incorrect, I will let you know.

Galaxy Radius - I actually hate this part of the information box. Although professional and amateur astronomers use an angular radius for practical reasons, galaxies actually extend far beyond these radii. A fair amount of material is present beyond these galaxies' optical radii. (Look up "GALEX NGC 4625" in Google, for example.) Setting a physical width implies a definitive cut-off radius that actually does not exist.

Moreover, as you may have already figured out, ellipsoidal and irregular galaxies do not have single radii that define their widths. Elliptical galaxies may be triaxial (sort of hot-dog shaped). Irregular galaxies are simply undefined in three dimensions. I recommend leaving the "radius" box blank for elliptical and irregular galaxies. For spiral galaxies, use the semimajor axis as the radius, since that is the radius of the disk. (I am inspired to attempt to get the template changed because of this problem and my own concerns over the distance measurements. I am going to put this up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects.)

The formula I use to calculate widths is W=D sin theta, where D is the distance, theta is the angular size, and W is the width. If you want to calculate a radius, theta should be the semimajor axis of the galaxy. D and W are in the same units. I still do not recommend calculating physical radii for galaxies. Dr. Submillimeter 07:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

## Good Distance Measurements

If you can, use this paper by Tonry et al. for distance measurements to nearby galaxies. Tonry et al. use a reliable distance measuring method that is generally accepted within the astronomy community. Also, I think it would be more useful if you could cite the ADS web page (which gives the final article publication information) instead of the arXiv preprint server. Let me know if you have questions about the paper. Dr. Submillimeter 11:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the distance on the page for NGC 4826 with the distance from Tonry et al. as an example. To calculate the distances, use the distance modulus (m-M) from Column 10 from Table 1 in Tonry et al., the equation on the Wikipedia distance modulus page, and the conversion from parsecs to light-years (about 3.26). Let me know if this is too confusing. (Also, I did not recalculate the radius or absolute magnitude on the NGC 4826 page. I am currently seeking opinions on getting the template changed so that those lines no longer exist.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The second number in column 10 of Table 1 in Tonry et al. is indeed the uncerainty in the distance modulus. Would you like a formal calculation for converting that number into an uncertainty in light-years? Dr. Submillimeter 06:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The formal calculation I have for the error is

ed = (0.2 ln 10) 100.2(m-M)+1 e(m-M)

where ed is the error in the distance in pc, (m-M) is the distance modulus, and e(m-M) is the error in the distance modulus. Using this formula, I calculated the same error that you did with NGC 4826. Dr. Submillimeter 06:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I would have liked it if you had talked to me about adding the above equation to the distance modulus page before doing so. Dr. Submillimeter 08:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

## Distances in the Galaxy Information Box

I like your idea of changing the default in the information box from light-year to megaparsec. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects and add your comment to the discussion. If you have any other suggestions for the information box, please bring those up at the WikiProject talk page as well. Dr. Submillimeter 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

## Spitzer, 2MASS, Galex images (and other infrared/ultraviolet images)

I would be cautious putting the Spitzer, 2MASS, and Galex images up on Wikipedia. These images do not look like what the average amateur astronomer would see. At the very least, you should add an explanation like I did with Messier 74. Dr. Submillimeter 08:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

After writing the above, I see that you did add this information with your image of NGC 3627 but that this information did not make it to the NGC 3627 page. Please make sure that the descriptions of the images appears in the Wikipedia entries where the images appear. (By the way, the 5.7 and 8 micron wave bands trace polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emission moreso than dust emission, especially in spiral galaxies.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the FITS format? I can point you at a public archive of FITS files in the optical wavebands (BVR) that (I think) qualifies as public domain. Dr. Submillimeter 21:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Spitzer Infrared Nearby Galaxies Survey (SINGS) makes its data publicly available here. You want to look inside 20060601_enhanced_v1, which will list a series of directories for individual galaxies. Each of these directories contains an Ancillary directory that contains the optical data from the project. The B (blue), V (visible; actually yellow, but can be assigned green), and R (red) images are in these ancillary directories. SINGS is funded by NASA, so I think these data can be used on Wikipedia under its public domain policy. I am just so freaked out by the Wikipedia fair-use policy that I do not attempt to upload images.
Good luck with the data. Dr. Submillimeter 08:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

## Galaxy template

Your comment is intriguing. It would be worthwhile to brainstorm ideas about what would be useful to add to the galaxy template. I recommend looking at a few catalogs. You can look at "The revised RC3 catalog", "The Revised Shapley-Ames Catalogue", or "The Nearby Galaxies Catalog (NBG)" at VizieR for ideas. You can also look at the galaxy search results from NED or SIMBAD to see if they produce anything useful that is not already included in the template. Keep in mind that the items should be understandable my the general public.

I do not recommend including the distance modulus simply because it is redundant with the distance. Hence, including it is not very useful. Two quantities that might or might not be useful are group membership and nuclear activity. Unfortunately, both are fraught with problems. Group membership can be very difficult to determine and may be dependent on the algorithm used; for example, see what I wrote under "Environment" on the Sombrero Galaxy page. Nuclear activity (Seyfert, LINER, HII, etc.) is more straightforward to determine. However, except for a survey by Ho, Filippenko, & Sargent, no one has done this systematically for any meaningful sample of galaxies, and observations in different wave bands may lead to different interpretations, so it may be difficult to properly classify the nuclear activity of many galaxies. (NED also gives some strange nuclear activity designations.) I also doubt that the general public would understand the nuances of things such as "LINER" or "HII" designations without a full explanation, as I have done in many articles.

I am open to your ideas. Just try to pick quantities that are not dependent on other values and things that the general public would easily understand. Dr. Submillimeter 08:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the distance modulus is very useful, but only if the average reader knows what it means, only if the average reader does not find the distance just as useful, and only if the average reader is going to convert from apparent to absolute magnitude. (I like to work in LSUN myself, so I would find it useless.) It would also require its own line in the template, which I personally do not like. I dislike the suggestion, but maybe you can bring it up for discussion on the Wikiproject:Astronomical Object page to get other people's opinions.
On the other hand, I like you suggestion of including both ly and Mpc in the infoboxes. As you pointed out, that is commonly done in other infoboxes. I suggest that you and I both do that in the future. Dr. Submillimeter 17:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Your impletation of dist_pc does not work well; it causes empty parentheses to appear in articles when dist_pc is not given. Instead of changing the template, I was thinking that you and I would do something like this:
|dist_ly = 33 million [[light-year|ly]] (10 [[parsec|Mpc]])
Do you have any thoughts on this? Can I revert your changes until we decide on a final solution? (I will wait until 8 Oct to do so.) Dr. Submillimeter 07:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect your intentions in the modification to the template, but the result looks a little sloppy. I will probably change it back, although I may wait a couple of days.

A more radical idea has crossed my mind: It may be possible to go through all the uses of the template and change "dist_ly" to "dist". People may then feel like using Mpc and ly. I almost think I can do this. The number of galaxies in Wikipedia looks a little smaller than some of the samples I have worked with professionally. I may try it at some point. Dr. Submillimeter 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

## Maya and Orion Nebula observations (?)

Hi William- re your recently-made annotation to the Maya civilization article describing some correspondence between (a decorative motif on?) "their hearths" and the orion nebula: as currently phrased it is not at all clear to me at least just what is being claimed by that source you have provided. The most natural reading of that passage seems implausible, for some reasons I mention at talk:Maya civilization. Perhaps you could clarify at the talk page just what that source is claiming, maybe by providing some relevant extracts from the work in question. Regards,--cjllw | TALK 07:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

## NGC 1569 distance

I noticed that you removed the cited distance that I had added to the NGC 1569 page and replaced it with another distance measurement. Both should be included in the article. (Just because a measurement is more recent does not necessarily mean that the older measurement is invalid.) Is that OK with you? Dr. Submillimeter 00:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Where multiple good distance measurements are available, I suggest averaging them together and citing all of them. (See what I did in both the Sombrero Galaxy article and in my real-life paper on the Sombrero Galaxy.) For NGC 1569 specifically, the newer reference is better (since it is working with newer data and a better method), but the older reference can still be discussed. Perhaps a "Distance measurement" section is warranted, with a discussion on the distance measurement methods (emphasizing that the object is easy to resolve into stars because it is nearby). Dr. Submillimeter 01:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

## More distances

You may want to check this paper for additional distance measurements. I am currently using it in discussions about the M51 Group, the M101 Group, and the NGC 5866 Group, but it looks more valuable just for its distance information. Dr. Submillimeter 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

## Galaxy Cluster template

Your new additions to the galaxy cluster template did not make sense (at least for nearby groups and clusters). Among other things:

• Cluster morphologies are not widely used
• Redshifts may be difficult to assign to poorly-defined or nearby groups
• Diameters are very difficult to assign when group identification is difficult

Your reforms may have been appropriate for very distant clusters (${\displaystyle z>0.1}$), but not for the majority of cluster on Wikipedia. This may signal that Wikipedia needs two cluster templates. Anyhow, please ask me before revising the templates.

Also, you may want to look at how I have written group lists in the M51 Group, M74 Group, M101 Group, and NGC 5866 Group pages. The member lists seem to make more sense than the older system (which may have been invented by HurricaneDevon). The system I am using avoids trying to guess distances and instead uses redshifts. I also give other useful information, such as RA and Dec, Hubble Type, and magnitudes.

Finally, let me know if you want me to locate a group membership survey on the Virgo Cluster or another large cluster. It may be useful for compiling a list of member galaxies. Dr. Submillimeter 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

## Significant Figures

Also, another thing you may want to consider in your edits is the number of significant figures in the numbers that you are inserting into the infoboxes. Among other things:

• If a value has an uncertainty, the uncertainty should dictate the number of significant figures. Usually, the uncertainty should be reported to one significant figure. The value is rounded to the number of decimal places in the uncertainty. For example, "5432 ± 67" should be rounded to "5430 ± 70". (I report two significant figures for the uncertainty if the first digit in the uncertainty is a 1.)
• NED's magnitudes are probably accurate to only one decimal place.
• Galaxy group positions are accurate to only minutes of RA and Dec (which I know from averaging multiple values together).

This may explain why I round off many values in the infoboxes. Please contact me if you have questions. Dr. Submillimeter 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A clarification on the above statement about galaxy groups and clsuters: nearby group and cluster positions are only accurate to minutes of RA and Dec. Distant groups (and probably some nearby compact groups) will probably be accurate to seconds of RA and Dec. Dr. Submillimeter 01:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

One more comment on your recent edits: I noticed that you have been using NED for things within the galaxy. While NED probably provides OK information on galactic objects, it is really designed for extragalactic objects. SIMBAD is probably a more reliable reference for things inside the galaxy. (SIMBAD is a good multi-purpose reference, but it gives less information on galaxies than NED.)

(Also, in case it seems like I am overly critical, I am also trying to learn how to improve my article writing skills from watching your edits. For example, I now include uncertainties when I add redshifts to articles, partly because I followed your example.) Dr. Submillimeter 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

## O'Dell

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

I'm very sorry but I'd rather not post my e-mail in this environment for privacy reasons, &c. — RJH (talk) 17:58, 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 orionneb@sonic.net to start the email discussion. Thanks. WilliamKF 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think that reference #13 corroborates the argument (or at least I think it does) so I just cloned that reference. I'm good now, thank you. — RJH (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• NED's information on nearby groups sucks. Apparently, NED drew its information from only one or two catalogs of galaxy clusters (with a preference for using the LGG catalog). This is an unreliable approach. I have been looking at four different references in my attempts to determine group properties (such as the RA and Dec of the center and the number of members).
• Although the positions of nearby clusters (such as the M51 Group) can only be measured in minutes of RA and Dec, things in the Abell and HCG catalogs can probably be described with greater precision (with seconds of RA and Dec) because their "boundaries" are easier to measure. For that matter, they should be listed using a separate galaxy cluster template (a "Compact Galaxy Cluster" or "Abell Galaxy Cluster" template, perhaps) that gives redshift and angular size but does not list member number. Let me know what you think about this.

Dr. Submillimeter 17:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to your response: It does make sense to give the number of galaxies for a small, compact group (like Stephan's Quintet) but not for a large, distant group (like Abell 400). Maybe three templates are needed?
As for catalog information: Look at VizieR, maintained by the same people who created SIMBAD. You can do a search on many (but not all) catalogs through VizieR. All you have to do is find the catalog name. For example, try looking up "Abell". You will find many links to Abell's catalogs (as well as links to catalogs with "Abell" in their title). I use VizieR somewhat to compile the galaxy group membership lists, but it could be used for all sorts of things (although the amalgamated data in NED or SIMBAD is probably better for objects such as individual galaxies, stars, star clusters, and nebulae). Dr. Submillimeter 19:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

## More on significant figures

Yes, the Astrophysical Journal and other journals do frequently (but not always) publish errors with multiple digits. However, the question is whether those extra digits are really useful. Generally, the extra signifcant figures in the uncertainty are not useful, and rounding produces statistically similar (if not identical) results.

• Take your example of 824 ± 27. The one sigma range given for the measurement (without rounding) is 797 - 851. The range given with rounding is 790 - 850. Using rounding does not strongly affect the result; 790 - 850 is more or less the same as 797 - 851.
• Consider 4 ± 27. The "4" is not well defined; it is statistically equivalent to 0. This justifies rounding in this case. In the case of 4 ± 3, however, rounding is not justified because 4 is not statistically equivalent to 0.
• An even sillier example to consider is 824.2756 ± 27.8912. If six figures in the measurement are uncertain, should the uncertainty be quoted to six significant figures? Is that fourth decimal place useful?

This is why I round my measurements (here and in professional publications). The convention that I have suggested is a useful, practical one, and I see no reason to deviate from it. (It's even passed peer review with no problems six times. On the other hand, I think some astronomers get tripped up in peer review when they quote too many significant figures.)

At this point, we are left with some practical questions about making the Wikipedia articles more uniform. Do we go with rounding measurements based on their uncertainties or not? Maybe Wikipedia has a set of guidelines somewhere. Dr. Submillimeter 12:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

## Galaxy subcategorization

I looked at WP:SUBCAT, and I think it would be useful to invoke the second categorization rule for spiral galaxies such as NGC 4826. Most astronomers (or at least professional astronomers) would think of barred and unbarred spiral galaxies as spiral galaxies first and then as barred or unbarred second. Moreover, many galaxies' properties depend on the overall shape (spiral, irregular, elliptical), whereas only a few depend on the bar properties. Therefore, the use of both categories is warranted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

## Survey Q

Have you ever been to the southern hemisphere? respond here Deadline is December 15th. AstroBoy 02:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Guess there's more astronomers on Wikipedia than I thought.

Hey, I want to go to the southern hemisphere for the same reason as you do! Awesome you! are you an astronomer? I'd also like to see Crux,Argo Navis and some of the famous deep sky objects there, like Eta Carinae and 47 Tucanae. AstroBoy (Smilies)(VANDALISE HERE!!!!!!)Barnstars(talk) 04:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

## Distance measurements

I am curious as to your thoughts on distance measurements for galaxies and other objects in Wikipedia. You seem to prefer to find the most recent distance measurement regardless of the method used for obtaining the measurement or the absence or presence of other, viable measurements. (This is an observation based primarily on watching your edits in articles such as the Virgo Cluster and Triangulum Galaxy articles.) In my professional work, when I find multiple viable measurements for the same quantitiy (such as distance), I will average them together and possibly note the uncertainty implied by the two measurements. What are your thoughts on this?

I also noticed that you seemed to prefer using references that applied a distance measurement method using eclipsing binaries. Is there a particular reason why you like this method? I could believe that eclipsing binaries have some advantages, but the distance calculations are model-dependent to some degree, which worries me. Dr. Submillimeter 23:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

## W Cloud

Using the ADS Abstract Service, I have found a small number of references that discuss the W Cloud. However, I am not concerned with the article's verifiability. The reason why I nominated the page for deletion is because the W Cloud is non-notable. See Wikipedia:Notability. Dr. Submillimeter 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

## UGC and PGC categories

I agree that the numbers in the UGC category should be listed as 5 digits (since the catalog contains 12921 objects), and I will do so in the future. However, the numbers in the PGC catalog should also contain only 5 digits (since the catalog contains 73197 objects). (You can check out this information using VizieR.) Do you agree with this approach? Dr. Submillimeter 18:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why NED adds a 0 to all the PGC numbers. NED does weird things sometimes. Seriously, try the VizieR link. Alternatively, try a search for a "PGC 73197" and "PGC 73198". Dr. Submillimeter 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

## Work with AWB

Good work with the AWB! It's faster than inserting the stuff by hand. Dr. Submillimeter 10:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Small point: Do we need plus signs in front of all the apparent magnitudes? Hardly anything has an apparent magnitude below 0 (or brighter than 0). I thought simply writing the numerical value without the plus sign was sufficient
I still like your work with the AWB. Dr. Submillimeter 20:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I tend to work with flux densities instead of magnitudes, but that is because I am a sane infrared/submillimeter astronomer instead of an optical astronomer. When I have worked with apparent magnitudes, I did not use the plus sign.
NED, SIMBAD, and the Reference Catalogue, Third Edition (RC3; a primary source of data for NED) do not use a plus sign for positive magitudes. The plus sign is not consistently used for redshifts; NED and RC3 do not use them, but SIMBAD does. The only case in which plus signs are commonly used are for positive declinations, but this is because about half the declinations of objects are positive. I would suggest leaving out the plus signs for apparent magnitude and redshift (because most of those values will be positive anyway) but applying them for declinations. Does this sound reasonable?
Also, when I find a galaxy article that needs infobox information, should I just paste in an empty infobox and leave it to you to fill in the information? How are you deciding which pages to do? (Since you are doing these infoboxes very quickly, efficiently, and consistently, I do not know if I should try filling them in.)Dr. Submillimeter 21:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested in this page. I use it as a template to rewrite Wikipedia galaxy articles. The "Category: galaxies" is supposed to be used to indicate the galaxy type (spiral, elliptical, etc). The "Category: constellation" can be filled in with the constellation.
I only try to do a couple of other things that are a little different from your edits:
• I am now placing references on each alternate name for a galaxy just in case names come from multiple sources (as is the case for NGC 5866). This is more useful for the galaxy cluster articles, where every galaxy cluster catalog uses a different name.
• I also have a method for sorting the categories at the bottom of the page. I place them in the following order:
• Categories by galaxy type. General types (spiral, elliptical, lenticular, irregular) are listed first. Specific types (barred spiral, unbarred spiral) are listed second. Category:Peculiar galaxies and Category:Interacting galaxies are listed next.
• Categories for any galaxy group or cluster.
• Categories for the constellation.
• Categories for the catalogs in the following order: Messier, NGC, IC, UGC, PGC, Arp
I thought that placing the galaxies' physical properties first, their physical location and location in the sky second (which are sort of physical properties), and their catalog information last made sense. Does this make sense to you?
One other thing that may be of interest: If you go to the Template:Galaxy page and click on the "what links here" button, you can see all the pages that use the galaxy template apparently in the order in which they were created. If you want to revise all the galaxy pages, that is a good place to start.
Let me know if you have any questions or need any help with anything else. And, once, again, you are doing a great job. Dr. Submillimeter 21:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• The term "S0/a" refers to a Hubble class that is intermediate between S0 and Sa. The galaxies are actually spiral galaxies with really tightly wound spiral arms. Even some professional astronomers do not understand the designation.
• Most astronomers do not differentiate betwee S0-, S00, and S0+. These superscripts could be left out of the galaxy Hubble types. If you want to include them, write them as superscripts (which NED does not do for techical reasons).

Keep up the good work. Dr. Submillimeter 23:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

## Galaxy pairs

Thanks for the information. If you find other galaxy pairs, let me know. A couple of these belong together because the individual galaxies are indistinguishable from each other (like the Antennae Galaxies), but most should be split. Dr. Submillimeter 00:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

## M83 Group

I just found a Karachentsev article on nearby groups that I plan on using to rewrite the M83 Group article and a few others. Please give me a little more time on this.

(In the meantime: What do you think about renaming the Canes II Group as the M106 Group?) GeorgeJBendo 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Cen A/M83 Complex" (or whatever Karachentsev calls it) appears to be a bit complicated. The major issue is whether the Cen A Group and the M83 Group are treated as separate entities or a single entities. (A key point in these issues is whether the galaxies from the two groups are gravitationally bound to each other. However, some things like the Sculptor Group are apparently not gravitationally bound according to Karachentsev.) I am going to survey my usual references to see if the majority of them treat these two things as one or two objects. I am also going to study Karachentsev's treatment of the system further (although he seems to oscillate between describing them as two groups and one "complex"). GeorgeJBendo 08:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, this nearby group work is much more complicated than I thought. I have started working on the Sculptor Group using Karachentsev's papers, but the group structure and his analysis is incredibly detailed. It does not help that a couple of objects normally treated as group members are actually foreground objects. At least this is a lot of information that can be used to add paragraphs to a lot of Wikipedia articles. GeorgeJBendo

I finished with the Sculptor Group. This was a difficult article to write. I am now ready to work on the M83 Group page using this reference and references therein, but I want to spend time decyphering the references first. (Copying and pasting Karachentsev's source list may or may not be appropriate, and the connection between the M83 Group and Centaurus A Group needs to be discussed.) Karachentsev's data may conflict with Kepple and Sanner's. I would expect Karachentsev's analysis to be more reliable. Would you mind if I rewrite the article to use Karachentsev's analysis? I probably would not attempt this for another week or so, but I still want to avoid edit conflicts. Dr. Submillimeter 11:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC) (Note the name change)

I have mostly finished with the M83 Group page. I still think that the page should be renamed "Cen A/M83 Group" following Karachentsev, especially after looking through the references more carefully (which sometimes call this the "Centaurus A Group" because Centaurus A is the brightest member and sometimes refer to this as the "M83 Group" because Centaurus A is seen as part of a separate group). You were the only other person to comment on this. Aside from the issue with using the slash in the name (which does not look like a problem), what do you think? (Maybe a requested move is warranted, just to formalize the debate?) Dr. Submillimeter 17:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on this. I will get to this on Wednesday. Dr. Submillimeter 19:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

## Name change; Template changes

Two notes:

First, I change my name from George to Dr. Submillimeter. Google was turning up my Wikipedia page as its first or second search term, which I did not like.

Second, Friendlystar recently changed several templates to use an obscure version of an RA/Dec formatting system that was not working well in cases where data and references for RA and Dec were already entered in infoboxes. He then adjusted the galaxy and galaxy cluster templates to display RA and Dec data in two template lines and RA and Dec references on a second set of lines. I have reverted his edits and asked him to discuss the changes in the Astronomical objects WikiProjects. I think he was well-intentioned, but I think his changes should have been discussed with other people first. I am hoping that he will be willing to discuss the templates before making future changes. Anyhow, you may want to just keep track of him in case he does something else with the infoboxes. Dr. Submillimeter 12:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

## NGC 2841 Group

My references indicate that the NGC 2841 Group does not exist. One of my references lists this as only having one or two dwarf companions, which hardly qualifies as a group. Please do not create more infrastructure for this group. I will fix this later. (This group work is slow.) Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

## Name for Centaurus A Group / M83 Group / whatever

Do you have any opinions on naming the object currently labeled M83 Group? The Karachentsev (2005) reference uses both "Cen A/M83 Group" and "Centaurus A/M83 Complex". Other references use "Centaurus A Group" or "M83 Group". Do you have a strong opinion? I will also be posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Dr. Submillimeter 18:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

## NGC 5195

I do not understand NED's result.

The Third Reference Catalogue (RC3) gives the Hubble type as I0 pec. (NED has a link labeled "RC3 data" on its search results underneath the thumbnail image. This leads to NED's copy of the RC3 data. It may be incomprehensible unless you are used to reading the entries.) Hyperleda (also linked under the thumbnail on the NED search results page) gives the type as SBa (in another incomprehensible form). It might be appropriate to leave it blank, as no one has reached any clear consensus. (If I had to assign a Hubble type, I would go with E or I0.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

## Barred irregulars

You may want to look at the entries I added to the M83 Group page to see examples of barred irregular (IB) galaxies. NGC 5408 is also classified as IBm. (I did at least think that the category merge proposal was well-intentioned.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

## Distance measurements

You may want to look at how I rewrite the discussion on distance measurements to Messier 94. Rather than taking a hard-line stance that one technique or the most recent paper is absolutely better than the others, I have given equal weight to discussing two equally-valid (and statistically similar) distance measurements. When we encounter multiple distance measurements in the future, we should write up the results like this rather than using only one reference. (However, some older references may not be worth using, as you had persuaded me with an older reference I had used for NGC 1569.)

I will be revising the Sombrero Galaxy article next; the planetary nebula luminosty function distance measurement was at least interesting and informative. Some people may consider it a validation of Tonry's techniques if his measurements matched the distance measured from planetary nebulae.

At some point, it would be very interesting to describe all of the distance measurements to Messier 33 as well. I found a paper at one point (maybe one of the current references in the article) which tabulated all the different distance measurements to the galaxy. That table would be a good addition to the article. Dr. Submillimeter 01:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How humorous! We wrote each other simultaneously.
Could you add an example footnote to Messier 94 as you suggested? Maybe we can work on the footnote together and then apply it to other articles. Dr. Submillimeter 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I calculated the error using standard error analysis. The calculated quantity can be represented as:
X=(A+B)/2
The uncertainties of the sum of A and B can be written as:
d(A+B) = ( dA^2 + dB^2 )^0.5
However, X is equal to one-half of the sum of A and B, so the error for X is:
dX = 0.5*( dA^2 + dB^2 )^0.5
I can always cite my error analysis book on this. If I made a computational mistake, let me know. Thank you for discussing this further with me. Dr. Submillimeter 01:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I liked what you did with NGC 300. I thought that replacing the distance measurement there was appropriate.

I am also going to recommend just calculating a mean and standard deviation when combining multiple distance measurements. I have the impression that the formal derivation of the error analysis is too messy (especially when applied to more than two measurements) and borders on original research. (However, no journal would even blink if I presented such a calculation.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

## Help with Peg DIG/dSph confusion

If you doubt NED's results in situations likfe this, I suggest trying a few other options:

1. Try the "UGC data" and "RC3 data" links at the bottom of the NED pages (just above the pink box for external links).
2. Try the HyperLeda database.

The "Pegasus Dwarf Irregular" is designated in most catalogs as an irregular. The type is given as "I" in most catalogs, and the T type is given as between 9 or 10 (which corresponds to Sm or Im). However, NED listed this as a dwarf spheroidal because this paper listed it as transitory between irregular and spheroidal. The detailed study is probably more informative than the large catalogs. It is probably worth discussing the morphology in more detail in the text.

Unfortunately, the "Pegasus Dwarf Spheroidal" is not listed in UGC or RC3, and a position search in HyperLeda turns up little information. It is probably designated as a spheroidal in another reference used by NED.

I will look into the distance estimates for the Pegasus Dwarf Irregular later. Based on the notes in NED, it looks like distance estimates to this galaxy have been problematic; the McConnachie et al. and Karachentsev & Karachentseva papers are not the only ones that give conflicting distances. Simply describing the mismatch in the various distance measurements is probably the best thing to do in the article. (Among other things, it would demonstrate that extragalactic distance measurements do not always match. That would be incredibly informative.)

Like you, however, I also worry about the fact that McConnachie et al. may have mismatched their targets to Karachentsev & Karachentseva. See if the two papers give coordinates for their targets, and then see if the coordinates match. That may demonstrate that McConnachie et al. miswrote the name used in Karachentsev & Karachentseva. I will look at it more later.

Finally, do not worry about the small rounding errors in the distance calculations from the distance modulii. If this happened in a professional journal, no one would get terribly upset. (This is also part of the reason why I round numbers; 933 ± 34 looks like 932 ± 33 when both are rounded to 930 ± 30.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

## Harvard Reference/Citation System

From Hu's talk page:

Why switch to Harvard style references? I'm not used to using those and am curious as to what motivated the change? Thanks. WilliamKF 05:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I have looked into the issue carefully, and it is the only system on Wikipedia that meets all of these objectives:

• Briefest citation in-line with the text.
• Keeps the text clear and readable in the editing phase.
• No confusion about duplicate references. The <ref> system requires naming references and an editor may not notice a prior or later occurence of the same reference.
• Identifies the author and year inline.
• Familiar to researchers.
• Indicates currency or precedence of references.
• With the author's name inline, those familiar with the field will immediately recognize valid references.
• Works well as a reference section
• Allows the reference section to be alphabetized by author primarily and by year secondarily.
• The detailed information about the reference is in the reference section, not the text.
• Independent of the more common WP reference system, <ref>, which is modeled after footnotes and better suited to that purpose. The two systems can coexist beautifully.

I recommend it highly for all articles with a scientific or academic orientation. Explanations: Wikipedia:Harvard referencing, Template:Harvard reference Hu 07:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Just got your message re: Planetary Nebula M2-9. I'll look into the references right away. Hu 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Ooo! It's a beautiful nebula! (the Butterfly) Hu 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've edited that article.[2] Thank you for introducing the Harvard reference system there. I used the ordinary reference system as footnotes to keep the infobox compact, both for readers and editors. I fudged the SIMBAD citation by calling them the authors. Hu 02:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

## Improved names for SAB and SB galaxies

The names used for SAB galaxies in Wikipedia have been bothering me for a while. Currently, Wikipedia lists these galaxies in Category:Intermediate spiral galaxies. However, the term "intermediate" is ambiguous; it could also be used to refer to the luminosity, mass, the subclassifications for spiral galaxies (i.e. Sb or Sbc), or several other things.

Instead, I would like to propose the following:

Astronomers do use the terms "strongly barred" and "weakly barred" to differentiate SB and SAB galaxies, so the category renames would make sense. Articles with the phrase "barred spiral galaxy" or "barred lenticular galaxy" can remain unchanged. Articles on the SAB galaxies can also be linked to barred spiral galaxy, but the word "weakly" can be placed in front of these links to indicate the galaxy type. (Weakly barred and strongly barred spiral galaxies are functionally similar, if not identical.)

What do you think? If you like the idea, I will also propose it at the Astronomy WikiProjects. Dr. Submillimeter 18:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

## Galaxy morphological classification

I boldly moved galaxy classification to galaxy morphological classification on the basis that the page was about morphological classification (as opposed to AGN classification) and that a slight variation on the phrase is used as the title of a section of Galactic Astronomy by Binney and Merrifield. As a consequence of the move, many galaxy articles now link to a redirect that could potentially be made into a disambiguation page if someone wrote a page on galaxy AGN classification. Using AWB, could you please sweep through all pages linking to galaxy classification and instead link them to galaxy morphological classification? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 11:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. (I am still finding a good reference for the bar information.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

## Protoplanetary disk

I was confused by parts of your recent edit and tried to fix it. Did I guess right? Cheers, --129.247.247.238 15:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

## Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

## DYK!

 On January 11, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article protoplanetary nebula, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

## NED Distances

Messier 90 may be the ultimate silly example that can be used to demonstrate how NED fails to calculate distances accurately. This is an object in the Virgo Cluster that is interacting with the cluster's intracluster medium. Based on the distance to Messier 87, M90 should be at approximately 16 Mpc. Ned lists the distance as 1.2 Mpc. If M90 really was at that distance, it would lie within the Local Group. Dr. Submillimeter 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

## Harvard Reference/Citation System

I saw at Messier 90 that you are now using a different reference system. It would be nice to get everyone to agree to this system first. I myself prefer the footnotes for one reason only: they fit into the infobox nicely. Other than that, the Harvard system seems fine. Hu up above is correct that the Harvard system does look more like the system used by professional scientists (although not by other professional researchers, such as historians).

Anyhow, we should probably discuss the style change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects to at least get everyone to agree to use the new system. Is this something that AWB could fix wholescale within Wikipedia articles? Dr. Submillimeter 08:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. The guideline uses the footnote system, although they do not address the issue of footnotes versus inline text directly. The guideline is endorsed by several other WikiProjects, who all may be using the footnote referencing style at the moment if they endorse the citation guidelines page. Switching to a different citation system is really going to require feedback from other people. Dr. Submillimeter 08:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

## An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Tobias Lear, was selected for DYK!

 On January 18, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tobias Lear, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 15:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

## Stingray Nebula on DYK

 On 21 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stingray Nebula, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions. — ERcheck (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

## Sculptor Galaxy

I thought that your work on the amateur astronomy side of observing the Sculptor Galaxy was pretty good, but I am working on copyediting and reorganizing the material to integrate it into the article better. The only thing that I particularly did not like was the flowery, inaccurate language used by the amateur astronomy references. Moreover, these references misuse some terms (especially "halo") when describing galaxies. Try to stick with more technical terminology; Sandage's descriptions (which you also include) are much better.

If you really want to expand Sculptor Galaxy, you can find a lot of material at the ADS Abstract Service. This is a particularly famous starburst; multiple papers have been written specifically on this galaxy. You could also look at the notes for NGC 253 in NED and use those papers for building the article.

I also want to send you a reference on AGN that I use professionally but which is not available online outside of academic institutions. I will try to do so later today. Dr. Submillimeter 10:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ho et al 1997 is a paper that I frequently use for AGN classification in my work. Column 10 in Table 4 is the most useful; it indicates whether an object is a Seyfert (S), a LINER (L), or something else. For everything except Seyferts, ignore the numbers, and just use the letter as a guide for AGN activity. I've already cited this paper several times in Wikipedia; you can just cut and paste my citation if you like.

## Barnstar

Hi, William. You deserve a barnstar.

 The E=mc² Barnstar WilliamKF, for numerous contributions to astronomy articles. Axl 08:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

## Bubble Nebula -- NGC 6822 or NGC 7635?

I went today to find out some more about the Bubble Nebula, which is well known to amateur observers and others as NGC 7635 (see, for example), http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051107.html)

However, the info given in the Wikipedia article referred to a much less well known Bubble Nebula within NGC 6822 though the heading had apparently recently been changed from Bubble Nebula (NGC 6822) to Bubble Nebula (NGC7635). I'm not competent to Wikify the article that was given there, so I simply added a very short item that reflected what most people know to be the Bubble Nebula. I assumed that there was a separate article entitled Bubble Nebula (NGC 6822).

However, on looking at the article on NGC 6822 itself, the link there now goes straight to the short item that I put in, which now refers to a different object from what you intended, rather than to the longer article that you contributed. I'm sorry to mess around with the page like this, but as I saw it, it was completely wrong and Wikipedia help files say that if something is wrong, change it. I have a saved version of your article as an html page.

I am currently very busy and don't have time to learn the Wikipedia editing regime, so I hope someone else can sort this one out!

Robin Scagell 14:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

## case at WP:SSP

WilliamKF, please follow the directions for submitting a case at WP:SSP. You need to use the {{subst:Socksuspect2|1=PUPPETMASTER|2=PUPPET}} template on the case subpage (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TheCharminBear). Thanks, and if you need help, contact me. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi WilliamKF, looks great now, thanks for changing it. If you can supply more detailed evidence of what the suspected socks are doing, including diffs, that will help the admin that looks at the case. As you know, the page is heavily backlogged, so it may take some time before an admin gets to it--if the problems are severe you might want to explore other ways of addressing the problem, like WP:ANI or WP:RCU. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Tools" refers to the admin buttons, because that's what they are. They're tools for helping keep Wikipedia clean and good. And you can make changes to your RFA, but it's common courtesy to then link to the changes you made. – Chacor 03:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I have closed your RFA prematurely as it wasn't obtaining the necessary confidence of the community to reach a clear outcome for promotion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

## Wiktionary

Hi William,

Have you ever edited Wiktionary using this user name? If so, I would like to help you out of your current predicament.

Regards,

PT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Najlepszy czas (talkcontribs) 02:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

## Hi

Hello,

Thank you for confirming that the Wiktionary account corresponds to this one. I'll review this block in some more depth, but I wish to point out several things. 1) The other sysop did not revert my edit to wikt:martertial; he correctly marked a completed wikt:WT:RFV (as opposed to simply removing the navigation tag.)

As for the OED, please refer to the Beer Parlour archives. No, there is no way that any of that material can be used on Wiktionary.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

## User_talk:71.252.98.213#Personal_attack

Hi William, It seems this fellow wrote an unsigned comment that I view as uncivil and continued with his personal attacks. Please look at it.--Fahrenheit451 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

William. I suggest you take a look at http://www.rangevoting.org/ There is also a link to a yahoogroups discussion list.--Fahrenheit451 05:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

## Many new articles by User:Clh288

User:Clh288 has been spontaneously generating new articles on nearby galaxies, mostly to display NASA images that he has uploaded (although I don't know that he understands what the images are all the time). I have cleaned up about half of the articles that he generated, and I will attempt to do the others later. Could you also keep an eye on the user? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Antennaegalaxies.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Antennaegalaxies.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Butseriouslyfolks 05:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

## Image:Antennaegalaxies.jpg

Thanks for clearing that up. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

## Categorizing redirects

This seems to be generating some discussion; see Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. I just don't like the idea because it could cause confusion, as people treat these categories as lists. So, for example, Category:Messier objects could be treated as a complete list of the Messier objects, but then having duplicate entries for objects with nicknames (Messier 104 and Sombrero Galaxy, for example) will cause confusion. Dr. Submillimeter 10:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

## M108

Yes, I made a mistake. I was trying to remove an extra reference on the distance. Feel free to fix it (or I can fix it tomorrow).

On another note, I don't think that the Wang paper may necessarily be a good reference for a distance. I plan on looking at the paper tomorrow and trying to figure out where their distance measurement came from. One option is to use the distance estimates from NED but to clearly label the estimate with "(estimate)". Dr. Submillimeter 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

## Magnetic field of Uranus

When I wrote this piece of text some time ago, I made an error in numbers, since I had to recalculate the magnetic moment from different units used in the Science article. The Science article actually lists it as 0.23 Gauss·RU3, which is equal to 4×1017 T·m3. The terrestial monent is 8×1015 T·m3. Now I added different ref (Russell at.el), where magnetic monents of all planets are specified in Earth's moments. You can also see this chapter [3]. Ruslik 07:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I happened to notice your request at User talk:Worldtraveller. I suspect you're quite unlikely to get a response as he's left the project. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

## Poggio Bracciolini

You recently deleted this text: He also could boast of having recovered Ammianus Marcellinus, Nonius Marcellus, Probus, Flavius Caper and Eutyches. Was this inadvertent, or do you have earlier manuscript traditions? It would be too bad to lose information that is correct. Perhaps you could supply better information for the article on discoveries made by Poggio Bracciolini. --Wetman (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Receiving no answer, I have now restored the deleted text. --Wetman (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I had responded, but over on your talk page. I have backed out your recent change intending to restore the sentence, as the sentence was not actually deleted, so your change had it in there twice. Thanks for being concerned about losing information. WilliamKF (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion of Kenneth L. Williams

A tag has been placed on Kenneth L. Williams requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding `{{hangon}}` to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. KurtRaschke (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

## By the way

I had to go through the entire page and reformat all of the cite templates. Please be careful in future to ensure that your method of citation fits with that established for the page. Serendipodous 18:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I assure you, this isn't about me. I could care less. Indeed I care a lot less. But I'm currently going through an FAC and there are some seriously strict (read: completely bugf*ck insane) bylaws and style conformities I have to adhere to if I want it to succeed. So I'm not angry at you or anything, just informing you so that we collectively can get it together so we don't have to go through this again. Serendipodous 23:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

## Clara Clemens

Nice job expanding the Clara Clemens article. Want to take a look at the Susy Clemens and Jean Clemens articles as well? I couldn't find images to use with them that were not copyrighted. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ANY image of them is public domain in the U.S. since it had to be taken before January 1 1923. The appropriate tag is PD-US. Royalbroil 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

## 3RR

I don't want to make anything big out of this, because you were trying to the right thing. Just read this and I'm sure you'll understand: Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

When there's this type of blatant vandalism in progress, there's not much wrong with restoring the warnings. However it is usually best to just mention to AIV that the warnings are being removed. It will be readily apparent from the vandal's contributions. Result: the vandal was blocked and the page was protected. No further action. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I offer my most humble appologies. That was me at one of my lowest points. From now on I will make sure that users, especialy you, see me as a good and respectable editor. I hope you know that none of it was personal and if you ever need any help with anything I will apply extra effort just for you. Yours appologiticaly, bsrboy (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the absolute least I can do. I will continue my editing tomorrow and will carry out editing and improving the article as much as I can from now. As for Content dispute, I'm afraid I've very little knowledge about it. I've been reading about it tonight though and hopefuly I should soon feel as though I know enough as to make the decission that the article doesn't have content dispute. As far as I can see now it doesn't, but I'm not going to remove the tag yet. I should soon, unless someone beats me to it. bsrboy (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are William K F or not, but if you were it would be very useful to find out more biographical (personal) information. E.g. date of birth etc. If you are not William K F then anything you know about him would be very useful too. Or, even better, you could find a source, which tells us some information. bsrboy (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

## Assessments

I'm not sure about other projects, but for Biography articles, there is a place to request assessments. From the main project page, click the assessments link found in the boxes on the right hand side of the page. The assessments page has a section for requesting assessments. Certainly other projects have a similar assessment project. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

## Eclipse assessment

Hi,

Since you gave the Eclipse article an assessment of "C", would it be possible for you to explain why? It is unclear how to expand this article, given that much of the material on eclipses is carried by the Lunar eclipse and Solar eclipse daughter articles. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello RJH,
I marked Eclipse as being C-class moving it up from being Start assessment. I didn't mean to imply it wasn't any higher than C-class, only that it wasn't lower than C-class, i.e. Start. I was just being conservative in how far I advanced it along. In the meantime, User:Ruslik0 has gone ahead and bumped it further up to B-class, so I think the issue is resolved unless you think it should be promoted further in its present condition. Thanks.
WilliamKF (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Really I was just looking for ideas on where to take the article, and I was hoping you might have some suggestions. No matter.—RJH (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

## Galaxy Box and cites

Hi, I am developing the Galaxy box templates and they are still in the initial stages. I am aware about the issue with sig fig, Mpc to kpc and Mly to kly, I have to include parser functions to determine the approprite units. You can take a look at the templates and are welcome to improve it. Thanks Sumanch (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

## NGC 1300

Hey, I see that you added category:ring galaxies to NGC 1300. What is your source or rationale? According to Phillip's Astronomy Encyclopedia from 2002 (afraid that's the best I have to refer to), ringed galaxies are not the same as ring galaxies, where collisions and near encounters are the preferred explanations; in contrast to ringed galaxies where stellar dynamics are the cause. Supposedly, bars could later on turn into such rings through these dynamics. Best regards, --Harald Khan Ճ 22:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That was in 2006 and appears to have been an error. Thanks for detecting that, I have corrected it. WilliamKF (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
You added a few others also, such as NGC 1365. Could you check them also (Category:Ring galaxies), posssibly? Thanks. --Harald Khan Ճ 13:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I added them because of the (R') in their classification. However, I can't find anything to give meaning the the (R'). Do you think (R') means ringed galaxy and not ring galaxy? Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be from the de Vaucouleurs system where (r') supposedly denotes galaxies with 'ring-like structures'. So I suppose yes, though a comment from somoene who knows a bit more about the subject (if we happen to have any) would always be nice. --Harald Khan Ճ 12:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've opened up this question over here. WilliamKF (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

## Henry John Whitehouse

Please see this page. Some people at DYK have a problem with using one source in a page for a hook. I have put it up to see how people feel. You may want to watch the discussion and answer any questions that may arise. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

## DYK nomination of Nicholas U. Mayall

Hello! Your submission of Nicholas U. Mayall at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

## Something funny with RA and Dec templates

(This was a very old comment with no date, moved manually to archive)

Your recent alterations to the RA and Dec templates are very useful, but they cause footnotes to appear on a separate line from the RA and Dec. Is it possible to fix this? Thank you.

## Thank you

Thanks for you assessment of John Bulwer, any feedback on how to improve the aricle is much appreciated. I haven't got anything to give you except for this [citation needed] Good luck in all your endeavours. Happy editing. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi William, as you say, the entry becomes bold. wp:link "Linking the article to itself produces boldface text; this practice is discouraged as page moves will result in a useless circular link through a redirect." If you want to make something bold, best to explicitly bold the text so it doesn't look like a circular mistake. Also copying cites between articles without applying it to each individual article can be problematic, Tom B (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

## Nicholas U. Mayall GA Review

Hello, sorry for the delay, but I've finally left some review comments for you at Talk:Nicholas U. Mayall/GA1. They may not be easy and what you were hoping for, but you have a good base to work from. - Taxman Talk 20:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

## Washington Irving (sidewheeler)

Wanted to make sure you were aware of the GA review at Talk:Washington Irving (sidewheeler)/GA1 I have left comments there. --Brad (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

## Planetary nebula

yes can do. after i'd consolidated cites, i was going through revision history and saw you'd put brought the gurz ref out specifically in the article. i had thought that the harvnb template was a remnant from the old days as there was only one, but it wasn't an old addition. the main thing is that referencing has to be consistent, whatever achieves that and keeps added precision on refs, i would check with ruslik as he's the other main editor aside from you who's added refs. Tom B (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

he should be linked at least once, which he is. but not 4 times, which he was, Tom B (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not object to the Harvard referencing style (like in Cat's Eye). Ruslik_Zero 13:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

## Nicholas Mayall

sorry to see it didn't get promoted but i think it has improved, hopefully it'll get there at some point. i would do more copyediting but there's always so much to do, i'll try and get there when i can, Tom B (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the WP Biography assessment only goes up to B Class, where the article already is. Perhaps try a good article nomination again? Best Hekerui (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
An A class review would happen at WP:BIOAR, but this process is on hold and will not promote articles. Hekerui (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

## Unreferenced BLPs

Hello WilliamKF! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,714 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Paul W. Hodge -
2. Michael Egan (author) -

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

## AfD nomination of John Kraft

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is John Kraft. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

## You are now a Reviewer

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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

## NGC 4565: barred or unbarred galaxy?

Hello, WilliamKF! Please see Talk:Barred spiral galaxy#NGC 4565: barred or unbarred galaxy? Sincerelly, Andrew M. Vachin (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

## William Herschel Telescope

Any chance you could take another look at this? I think everything has been dealt with. Modest Genius talk 15:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

## File permission problem with File:Tycho Crater.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tycho Crater.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

## Non-free rationale for File:Americans Elect Icon.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Americans Elect Icon.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

## File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Americans Elect Icon.png

You forgot to add a fair-use rationale to File:Americans Elect Icon.png or File:Americans Elect Icon.png that you uploaded recently and there is also no copyright tag with either. All fair-use images must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria policy guidelines. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, (note jpg version should be deleted.) WilliamKF (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Americans Elect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jon Huntsman (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) 11:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

## Palomar 12

I found a change that just seems like an incomplete sentence? "Its membership is now generally believed." Can you check it? Shenme (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have to dig that up again, but probably won't get to it till after the holidays. WilliamKF (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. WilliamKF (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Colfax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Court of Common Pleas (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) 11:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

## May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fleetwood (novel) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dagmar Freuchen-Gale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vogue (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) 09:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

## Christian Science

Hi William, the CS talk page is a bit difficult to navigate at the moment. Just in case you missed the question, it's about this video that you posted earlier. We can use that as a source, but I think we would need to know who is speaking. Do you happen to know his name and position? You can reply here if you prefer; I'll look out for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not know, but I'll work on getting the information, thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added it for now without a name, so if it's a lot of trouble for you to track down the name, don't worry. At the moment the article says:

There are no set words or practices during treatment. According to the church, treatment is the "replacing of fear and doubt with certainty of the divine presence in one's life. It doesn't take a formulaic approach, there really isn't any step-by-step process. The process is really one of foresaking matter, and matter-based thinking, for spirit and spiritually-based knowing."[1]

1. ^ "What is Christian Science treatment", Christian Science church, September 1, 2011.
SlimVirgin (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

## License tagging for File:JumpSport Trampoline Logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:JumpSport Trampoline Logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

## Proposed deletion of Abell S740

The article Abell S740 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage in studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1860.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the `{{proposed deletion/dated}}` notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing `{{proposed deletion/dated}}` will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)