User talk:Robminchin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Robminchin, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have a lot of fun here. There are lots of resources around to help guide you. be sure to check out:


If you want add any images check out:


If you need any help try:


Hi sorry this message is a bit late, but i hope you find some of thinks useful. Theresa knott 14:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

For your information, Eton is actually part of the Unitary Authority of Windsor and Maidenhead, in Berkshire. The Buckinghamshire page was correct and has been reverted; the Eton College page was incorrect and has been amended. Graham :) 17:34, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Centaurus A/M83 Group

I edited your changes to Centaurus A/M83 Group in an attempt to integrate the material into the article better and make it seem less like a HIPASS/HIDEEP press release (see WP:COI). One of the things which I thought was way too technical for a general audience was the discussion on the neutral hydrogen luminosity function. Could you possibly rewrite this for the non-professional astronomer?

Also, I prefer using the PGC numbers versus the ESO numbers for galaxy identification. Neither seem to be preferable to each other or in common use, but the PGC numbers are easier to type into NED. Does this explain the use of PGC numbers in the article? Dr. Submillimeter 10:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought about this some more after writing you this message. From what I understand of Karachentsev's analysis, he assigns group membership based on whether the objects are gravitationally bound based on a careful analysis of distances and velocities (although he almost certainly lacks information on velocities perpendicular to the line of sight). Is your group simply assigning objects to galaxy groups based on distance? This may be worth discussing in more detail in the Centaurus A/M83 Group article. (I do mention similar things in some of the other articles that I have rewritten, such as the Sculptor Group article.)
Regarding the luminosity function: Wikipedia has a lot of defective astronomy articles. If you create an article on the astronomical luminosity function, I recommend using the title luminosity function (astronomy). If written well, this could be a useful reference for undergraduate and graduate astronomy students as well; most astronomy majors (and possibly a fraction of people with PhDs) have trouble with the concept.
Wikipedia has a reference on astronomical object names at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). I wrote the sections on galaxies and galaxy groups. I am really not certain whether something would be more commonly identified by a PGC or ESO number. Could you cite a few examples from the literature? (I certainly know that Karachentsev's designations are not in common use.)
Finally, be careful of running afoul of Wikipedia:No original research. Removing or replacing bogus redshifts is OK (if you give a rationale on the talk page), but you will need to write a peer-reviewed paper before you can declare him wrong on Wikipedia.
Also, revision of the galaxy infobox templates is open for discussion. Just discuss it at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects first. Dr. Submillimeter 16:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Your rationale for using the ESO names makes sense. Could you add it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)? Also, line 4 in the galaxy naming conventions is vague, but it is needed to support the name of objects like Arp 220. A better-worded term would be acceptable, although 'Primary NED identification' might not work for some objects. NED sometimes gives a less well-known designation from a well-known catalog instead of a better-known identification from a less well-known catalog.
The problem with listing every galaxy that has been listed as part of a group in any reference is that the references produce some wildly contradictory results, partly because the hierarchical and percolation methods work very differently in some situations. (See the discussion on this in the Sombrero Galaxy article, for example.) I prefer listing objects which are frequently listed as group members in all catalogs of galaxy groups. The exceptions are the galaxy groups studied by Karachentsev et al., where they have performed some analyses to demonstrate that the objects are gravitationally bound. However, I do not think that it would be a problem identifying group members not identified by Karachentsev et al. in the articles for the nearby groups if it is handled properly. For objects that are only candidate members, listing them at the bottom of the tables seems appropriate. Objects that are definitely members should be listed in the tables, but these should be referenced with inline citations and a special note should be placed at the top of the table indicating that these objects with the inline citations are identified by groups other than Karachentsev et al. Does this seem like a way forward?
I myself would use (and indirectly have used) Karachentsev's results for research on nearby groups and disregard all catalogs for more distant groups (but not for clusters). It is fairly clear that group identification is still unreliable, especially in the direction of the Virgo Cluster. Dr. Submillimeter 08:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Martin Rees at Jodrell Bank in 2007.jpg

Hi did you take this pic?Genisock2 16:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for letting me know.Genisock2 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good photo, well done! User:Seanjacksontc —Preceding comment was added at 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)