User talk:Mu301/Archive 6

Speedy deletion declined: WWRO-LP

Hello Mu301. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of WWRO-LP, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: a merge to List of radio stations in South Carolina is possible and preferable to deletion per WP:ATD-M. Thank you. SoWhy 12:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds better. --mikeu ^talk 03:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: KCEI-LD

Hello Mu301. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of KCEI-LD, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Radio stations don't qualify for A7.Seek other deletion-alternatives. Thank you. Winged Blades^Godric 02:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll reread the criteria and the review the page in light of that. --mikeu ^talk 02:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Academic peer review

Hi Mu301, I noticed that you and Arianewiki1 (also noted in their talkpage) are the main writers of Alpha centauri page. Would you two be interested in submitting the article for academic peer review via the WikiJournal of Science? It appears that a while back it was submitted to to an early version of the journal (then called "Second Journal of Science") though it has changes a lot since then. See articles in prep for the first issue here & further info here. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I have not made significant contributions to that article, but I did participate in the GA review a couple of years ago. A few issues were brought up that still have not been addressed. The entire View from this system section is overly long and given undue weight. Very little of that info is encyclopedic. There is a great deal of speculation in sections such as Theoretical planets (among others.) While some of this is sourced there appears to be some synthesis that goes beyond the original references. Overall, I would assess this as a weak candidate for GA. It does not stay focused on the topic and present the essential information in a concise and clear manner. IMHO, it would require a great deal of copyediting before it would be ready to be considered for any journal. My main interest in the article was that I thought the review might lead to collaborative improvements. However, the nominators were unresponsive and the nomination was essentially abandoned. --mikeu ^talk 13:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the explanation. I see what you mean about the article's shortfalls. Hopefully it will be updated some day. I might email a few astronomers to see if they'd be interested in updating it in collaboration with some more experienced wikipedians. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 23:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Good news, a set of 4-8 astronomers and physicists have agreed to help update the Alpha centauri article. Some got together at the EWASS2018 conference, and the others are from NASA Ames. I'll make a post on the Alpha centauri talk page so that there's a record there too. None have previously edited Wikipedia (to my knowledge), so if you happen to be able to help keep an eye on the page they conceivably may need help with formatting etc. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: did anything ever come of this? The article does look better though I woudn't rate it GA at this stage. Let me know if I can help. --mikeu ^talk 01:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mu301: Sadly not really. There was initial enthusiasm, but it slipped down the priority list and fizzled out. I'll send a reminder email around just in case through. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Barbalet

I am writing to ask for a review and reversal of the deletion of the wikipedia entry about me and my project, Noble Ape. The entries deleted were created by a series of listeners to my podcasts from 2007 through to about 2013. To be clear, I am only interested in the reversal for Noble Ape and Tom Barbalet on Wikipedia. The other two articles are less important to me.

While I appreciate the articles that were deleted were not ideal, the articles Tom Barbalet and Noble Ape did represent my work in a form which was comparable to others who have contributed a similar extent to the field of artificial life and still actively represented on Wikipedia - OpenWorm, Critterding, Avida, Boids, Polyworld.

They also show through Wikipedia and external academic references (http://www.nobleape.com/sim/#Academic) that my work is not a walled garden. It has contributed to a number of different areas and been used by Apple and Intel for their development.

As the article on Artificial life organizations also shows I have also fostered a community of developers and dialogue in the field of artificial life.

Probably unknown to you through this process is that a number of the external references to Noble Ape are currently being suppressed through payment to Google and other search sources by a comedian who aggressively promoted a comedy tour and album under the same name from 2016 to the present. This has lowered any chance of finding external references to Noble Ape.

I continue to work on Noble Ape to this day totaling more than ten hours per week on average. This is a voluntary effort to further ideas in social evolution, philosophy and open source software. I appreciate that working on Wikipedia is also a voluntary effort. I thank you for your time and considering my request to appeal this deletion.

Barbalet (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

M87*

Looking through the reference, I don't see that M87* is an actual name - it's just the shorthand used in that particular article. Is there some reason to believe the naming extends or will extend beyond that article? Tarl N. (discuss) 15:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see there is a discussion of some sort already on User talk:AhmadLX, I'll take the discussion there. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Astrometric_solving

Hello Mu301, I marked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Astrometric_solving for deletion since I created the article already. A assume i didn't place the delete mark correctly. Can you delete the draft? sorry for the double entry. Han.k1959 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Please stop your disruptive editing at BNC connector and Audio and video interfaces and connectors. A court document (which is different to your claim anyway is not a valid cite for the name of the connector. BNC connector contains reliable references for the correct name. 86.132.158.101 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"Baby Neill Constant" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Baby Neill Constant. Since you had some involvement with the Baby Neill Constant redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You removed an authoritative reference that cites findings of fact based on contemporary expert testimony. (fyi, I wasn't the only one who reverted your removal, see the edit history) If you can provide a reference that supports your claim, please do so. Otherwise, your statement that "Every engineer knows..." in the edit summary is WP:OR. Also, please centralise discussion at Talk:BNC_connector#Baby_Neil_Constant. --mikeu ^talk 18:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Highly charged ion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fundamental physical constant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at SunPCi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. As you did in Special:Diff/931184374 despite this newly added contents not meeting reliable sources requirements, and using "better sources needed" to leverage introduction of improperly cited materials. Graywalls (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:3RR allegation

Reverts including 3rd within 24 hours is not against the rules. Your allegation that I'm gaming is unjustified. Reverting the FOURTH time just outside of 24 hours would be something else but no fourth reversion occurred, so why are you alleging I have gamed the system? Graywalls (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)