User talk:Spacepotato/Archive 3

?

hi, why do you insist on turkey is accepted as asia? then russia and cyprus will be asia too? --Triancula (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of Turkey's population and its capital are in Asia. So, it's an Asian country which has sovereignty over some territory in Europe. Similarly, the bulk of Russia's population and its capital are in Europe, so it's a European country which has sovereignty over some (quite a lot) of territory in Asia. For yet another example, France has sovereignty over some territory in South America, but that does not make it a South American country. Spacepotato (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Need to work something out

I am getting very irritated on how you have been treating me recently. We need to work on something to stop this ASAP. — NuclearVacuum 01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may say so, I believe part of the difficulty arises from poor communication on your part. I think it would be helpful if you would provide more informative edit summaries, instead of using no edit summary, or the default "undo" edit summary. In addition, keep in mind that there is no ownership of either articles or templates on Wikipedia. Anyone is free to copy and improve anyone else's templates at any time. Also, I think you should keep in mind that the aim of Wikipedia is to display articles to the user. So, what is displayed to the user is important, and what arrangement of wikimarkup is used to the display the article is less important. Finally, I apologize for this edit summary. I meant to say that, as you replaced a version of the infobox template with clear headings and no unnecessary fields with one with vaguer headings and boxes filled with question marks, your edit did not improve the article. Spacepotato (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Can you please tell me why you made a copy-cat template instead of improving the template that already exists. There is nothing wrong with the current one that you must make a new one and make it even more confusing to keep track of this stuff. If you haven't noticed, I personally spent the night changing the template so it (A) has options for the mass of the planet and (B) does not mention semimajor axis as the only mentioning (it now clearly states "Orbital distance"). There should not be anything that the current template has that makes the copy-cat needed to be here at all. Can you explain your actions? — NuclearVacuum 01:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

1. First of all, let me say that there is nothing wrong with copy-cat templates. This is what WP:OWN means.
2. Second, {{OrbitboxOnePlanet}} is better than {{OrbitboxPlanet}} et al. insofar as it allows fields whose value is not known to be omitted, rather than displaying meaningless boxes filled with question marks to the user.
3. Third, I did indeed see your changes to {{OrbitboxPlanet begin}}, {{OrbitboxPlanet}}, et al.
4. Fourth, the term "orbital distance" is vague. It's better to call a semimajor axis a semimajor axis and a projected distance a projected distance. So, I think it would be better to leave the heading in {{OrbitboxPlanet begin}} as "semimajor axis", or, if it is desired to use this template when the projected distance is known instead of the semimajor axis, to adjust this template so that either heading can be displayed.

Spacepotato (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well please let me bring this out in the open. I find nothing wrong with this template now. I, however, will not agree that this is appropriate for a 100% replacement of the current one. Because the current one allows the agreement and easy movement of planets that may be discovered in the future, and also allowing more objects then simply planets (hence "planetary system"). I will feel much less tense if you try not to promote this "copy-cat" template (just to bring it out into the open). Also, those question marks do go good in the template, but I do agree that it should not be in every box just for a planet with not much info on itself. I also want to mention that I kinda tweaked it so it would be easier to work with. Hope you are OK with that. — NuclearVacuum 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Acting like a child

Maldek has pissed everyone off in certain places, yet you just play up to him like a child! If you continue to act like you do, he'll continue. It's time for you to compromise! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrackDragon (talk • contribs) 08:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is that you're proposing. Spacepotato (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing you stop being an idiot and compromise. You see in life it takes an adult to resolve an impasse! You and Maldek need to resolve your differences! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrackDragon (talk • contribs) 08:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise you're gonna argue like children forever CrackDragon (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry for coming over a little heavy in the last few comments! A few too many beers and a self-righteous attitude obviously don't mix!! CrackDragon (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Confused

I was browsing through the CFD backlog and I noticed that in your star renaming discussion, the categories for red dwarfs and red giants had not yet been merged into the M-type categories and deleted. So I did this. Then I noticed that they had in fact been deleted, but were then recreated by you. Which makes me think that I may have screwed something up. Please let me know; it should be easy to fix. Postdlf (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to write to you about this. The deleting and moving required by the CFD has already been performed by User:Kbdank71 and User:Kbdankbot, as you can see by checking the logs. These categories were in fact new categories that I had just created, subsequent to the move, and not identical to the categories of the same name existing before the move. So, if you could undelete them, I would appreciate it. The reason behind this is as follows: internal to Wikipedia, Category:Red giants had been used to refer to stars with classification M III, and Category:Red dwarfs had been used to refer to stars with classification M V; they were moved to categories with more appropriate names (Category:M-type giants and Category:M-type main sequence stars, respectively; here, giants is synonymous with luminosity class III, and main sequence stars with luminosity class V.) However astronomers use the terms red giants and red dwarfs with broader meanings, so I recreated these categories to reflect this usage. I hope this clarifies matters. Spacepotato (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so, but anyway it should be back to the way it was before I meddled with it. Postdlf (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everything appears to be in good shape now. Spacepotato (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

1 E19 s and more

Thank you for the good edits here. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ADS disambiguation

Thanks for letting me know and sorry for the error! I think they're all fixed now. Bunnyhop11 (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of name Spacepotato

Spelling of name of User:Spacepotato
Spacepotato	Spacepotatoe
OK. Good. Right. Ça va pas mal. ¡Muy bien!	Not OK. Bad. Wrong. Tout est perdu. Estamos en el quinto coño.

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For best username spelling correction overkill (that was awe-inspiring!) El_C 07:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Future of an expanding universe etc

Hi Spacepotoato-

Since pleas for discussion at the article and user talk pages (at future of an expanding universe and 1 E19 s) have gone unanswered for several days except with further edit warring, do you think a RFPP (full protection) is warranted until this gets actually discussed? Some other measure? I note that User:Maldek's last substantive comment at a talk page was July 17, while there have been several rounds of revert wars since then. I wanted to give the user some time to respond at the talk page after the last round of reverts before resorting to something drastic like page protection, but we're getting nowhere.

(I don't think avoiding calling you "spacepotatoe" by simply not saying a word at any talk page was what anyone had in mind after your brilliant comment re spelling of your name.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, the level of snafu seems acceptable. I don't think a request for full protection is necessary. Spacepotato (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri

Thank you for your improvements to the Proxima Centauri page. I particularly enjoyed the Matthews (1994) addition; wish I'd seen that before.—RJH (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Per your additions to the article, is it fair to state that virtually all of the star's remaining (non-visible) luminosity is radiated in the infrared? I think that might be interesting to some readers. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. looks like more than 85% of the flux, based on Leggett (1992), p. 357. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Spacepotato (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor planet/asteroid

I can't prove a negative, so I think the burden of proof is on those who claim there is a distinction between minor planet and asteroid. So far, no one has provided any evidence. Serendi^podous 21:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have explained the distinction at Talk:Minor planet#Merge proposal. Spacepotato (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: RA and DEC

Hi Spacepotato. Would a BR suit you?
And I didn't notice about negative DEC. That was dumb, got that fixed. All this could be avoided by losing the archaic M'S", yes?/no? Saintrain (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Minutes and seconds aren't archaic; astronomers use them all the time.
2. In order to not break existing pages, any change would have to handle cases such as the following:
   • {{DEC|−56|47|09.514}} (Epsilon Indi; minus sign, U+2212, rather than hyphen, U+002B)
   • {{DEC|−08|12|05.91}} (Rigel; entity name for minus sign, U+2212, rather than hyphen, U+002B)
   • {{RA|14|39|36.4951/35.0803}} (Alpha Centauri, a binary star)
   • {{DEC|-60|50|02.308/13.761}} (Alpha Centauri again)
   • and whatever else is in the ~1,300 articles using these templates.
3. As to the desirability of this change (i.e., adding decimal degrees on a separate line), you should discuss it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Astronomical Objects.

Spacepotato (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Engineers still use inches and gallons, too (see Mars Climate Orbiter). And I'll bet the 1st thing astronomical progam/ers do is convert from m' s".

Seriously, are there any advantages to using m' & s" in astronomical coords? An arcmin on earth is about a mile (another, you know) but what about cosmically?

2) Re the first two: I submitted bug 15349 to handle those typographical characters in expressions.

The second two: interesting. I was wondering what Polaris looked like but it has only 1 RA/Dec!?

3) I desire it!

The break wouldn't, of course, work inline; only for infoboxes. So that's out. That's why I left a (breaking) space. The infoboxes need fixing to limit their width.

I'll propose a change, but we both know what's going to happen. "Change???? Change???? If it was good enough for Copernicus ..." Saintrain (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't think there's any real advantage to using minutes and seconds. Like many other units, they're just used by custom. If we divided the circle into 60 degrees instead of 360, made up 50 new digits, and continued sexagesimal subdivision indefinitely, we could have a concise, consistent base-60 system. Base 256 would be even more compact and more compatible with computers, but is less composite.

We could do a lot of things, but people come first and computers are for doing the number crunching. (I'm still not ready for radians, though. :-) Saintrain (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

1. As far as I can see the MOS doesn't say anywhere to use an en-dash as a minus sign. We should use U+2212—those hyphen minuses are really ugly.

Wikipedia:MOS#Common_mathematical_symbols "For a negative sign or subtraction operator, use a minus sign (−) ... or an en dash ...". I'm sure (no irony) the wonderful people who respond to wikibugs will figure it all out. Saintrain (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The coordinates in Polaris are for the brightest component, A. Unfortunately, people aren't very careful about specifying which component or components data is for in our multiple star articles.

Spacepotato (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Long and short scales

Point of information: British English does indeed derive from the languages of Continental Europe - i.e. Greek, Latin, Anglo-Saxon, various Norse languages and Norman French. I have not reverted. Ian Cairns (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the predecessors of Anglo-Saxon rather than Anglo-Saxon. I am taking derived from to mean adopted with little change as a result of colonization rather than gradually evolved from as a result of linguistic change. Spacepotato (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Andromedae

I will be reviewing your article Alpha Andromedae for GA. Please feel free to communicate with me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

problems with discovery year in OrbitboxPlanet templates

I added discovery years to Template:OrbitboxPlanet begin, Template:OrbitboxPlanet, Template:OrbitboxPlanet hypothetical, etc., and I tried to add this data to articles but it wouldn't pop up. Can you fix the problem? BlueEarth (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When you added code for this, you placed it after a </noinclude> and did not remove the </noinclude>. So, the code was not treated as part of the template body and therefore had no effect. If you had made this change correctly, it would have resulted in question marks appearing everywhere for the discovery year in all articles using these templates, something that I think should be avoided. The discovery year could be added without this happening by adding an extra argument to {{OrbitboxPlanet begin}} to indicate that these templates will be using a long form which includes the discovery year. Then, you can add this argument to articles using these templates at the same time as you add the year= argument. Articles where the extra argument has not been specified would be displayed without a column for the year, and therefore without question marks in this column.

By the way, my comments above pertain only to {{OrbitboxPlanet begin}}, {{OrbitboxPlanet}}, and {{OrbitboxPlanet hypothetical}}. I have fixed your change to {{OrbitboxPlanet short}}, and it should now display the discoverer year correctly, if it is specified. Spacepotato (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you removed the discovery year from all templates except for OrbitboxPlanet short. I tried to add discovery years in orbitbox in 55 Cancri#planetary system, but it wouldn't show it. Can you fix this problem? BlueEarth (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, read my comment above. Spacepotato (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Doradus

To avoid a terrible conflict, what did I do wrong with Alpha Doradus? — NuclearVacuum 23:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You made an unnecessary, possibly detrimental formatting change and placed what appears to be an unnecessary cleanup template. Also, you incorrectly indicated that the color indices were for component A when in fact they were for the system as a whole. Spacepotato (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The double-column setting is to lengthy, where as the vertical boxes work better on the eyes. And the system colors can easily be fixed. There was no reason for you to undo the hard edits that I have implemented. — NuclearVacuum 23:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the double-column format more concise. Spacepotato (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me why my edits were unnecessary? How was my edits any different that what was already on the page before I edited it? Why do you hate me and my work? — NuclearVacuum 23:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how your edit helped. You reformatted the infobox, but to me the original formatting seems clearer and more concise. The two-column format has the advantage of a uniform visual differentiation between quantities pertaining to component A (left column), those pertaining to component B (right column), and those pertaining to the system as a whole (centered.) Also, you placed a cleanup template on the page; this seems unnecessary. Spacepotato (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The U Andromedae and U And RFDs

Hi, I noticed you voted Delete in the RFD nomination of U Andromedae and U And. However I have noticed that the U Andromedae redirect was in the past deleted for exactly the same reason as this time round -- I have thus proposed it would be better to replace U Andromedae with a stub to prevent its re-creation. I've put up a proposed stub at Talk:U Andromedae/Temp. Icalanise (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposed stub looks pretty good - if you can persuade User:Eubot to blank the redirect and ask for a speedy deletion (either CSD A3 or G6, the latter in preparation of a move to that "location"), it should be completed with a minimum of headache. Then the RfD can be closed, with Wikipedia being richer for it. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The stub can be moved in after the RfD is closed as delete. Spacepotato (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Sub-Jupiter mass planets

Category:Sub-Jupiter mass planets is awaiting closure on CfD. I thought I'd ask you if this is a recognised term in astronomy? --Salix (talk): 16:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1. The term is occasionally used.
2. The statement at the CfD that only lower bounds on the mass are known for most exoplanets is correct (what is usually measured is not the mass M but M sin i, where i is an unknown angle.)

Spacepotato (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers

If the table is from Conway and Guy, could you make that clearer? By all means remove the "unreferenced section" tag. If you have a copy of Conway and Guy, you can save me the time of requesting it through the library if you'd add a specific page reference for the place where they describe their system. Do they mention any actual real-world usage of their system, or do they just present it as an intellectual exercise? If the latter, do we really need the whole table, or wouldn't some representative examples be sufficient? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

1. The section is not tagged as unreferenced. It is tagged with {{Refimprovesect}} and another tag.
2. The article already states that the names come from Conway and Guy ("The choice of roots and the concatenation procedure is that of the standard dictionary numbers if n is 20 or smaller, and, for larger n (between 21 and 999), is due to John Horton Conway and Richard Guy.")
3. The reference in the article provides page numbers. The system is described on pp. 15–16 of The Book of Numbers, J. H. Conway and R. K. Guy, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1996, ISBN 0-387-97993-X.
4. There is no real-world usage of the system as far as I know, but I think it's still worthwhile having the table, as these names have an intellectual fascination, despite their uselessness.

Spacepotato (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Reversions of copyright-violating articles

Recently, you have performed deep reversions on a number of articles with the motive that they contained copyright violations. I'd like to suggest that, instead of reverting, you remove the material you believe to be a copyright violation; this is the action specified by our policy on copyright violations. Deep reversions remove interwiki links and other useful data and content and so are not helpful to the encyclopedia. Spacepotato (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I was merely following the instructions given at WP:CP, which states that the article should be reverted to the version before the copyright violations were added (I suspect this is to avoid "derivative works" issues). If merely removing the text is acceptable, then it should be stated as an option in the instructions section on WP:CP. Icalanise (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Skygazing

An article that you have been involved in editing, Skygazing, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skygazing. Thank you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

About that one SIMBAD reference...

Hey, Spacepotato.

I replaced the link because it was dead. What's your reasoning behind your revert? Just wondering. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The web page you cited only gives a position to the nearest arcsecond, and did not give the accurate position for HD 40307 quoted in the article. As of now, the link currently in the article ([1]) functions correctly. (The original link, [2], seems to be experiencing some difficulty right now but will presumably be back up soon. experienced a temporary problem but is now back up. So, don't confuse a momentary interruption in service with a dead link.) Spacepotato (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Spacepotato (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been aware of SIMBAD's transition for some time, but this was the first time I saw no information inserted into the page. I do not believe I had expressed myself correctly, stating that it was a "dead link," as I was not trying to refer to one. However, thank you for the clarification.

Best, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 03:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding apparent magnitude and references to planetbox and starbox

Can you add apparent magnitude and reference links to planetbox to at least some of the extrasolar planet articles? Also you should add SIMBAD, ARICNS (if necessary), and EPE links if necessary in starbox in stars with planets articles, then remove those links from external links section in star and planet articles. BlueEarth (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll post a reply here since BlueEarth initially asked me about getting a bot to do this task before deciding to move the discussion here. My personal view is that before going about adding data to large numbers of articles, it would be better to have a proper review about what properties we actually want to have in the various Planetbox templates: both having too many properties and too few properties pose problems. Icalanise (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference for Hydrogen-4

Thanks for inserting the link to the H-4 reference. I have now copied it into Isotopes of hydrogen where there was previously an inferior link which gave no information at all without subscribing. With your link it is possible at least to read the abstract free.

I am just wondering about the half-life which is reported to six figures: 9.93696 x 10^-23 s. Do you know if this precision is at all meaningful?

I have also copied this link into the French article fr:Hydrogène, and corrected the half-life based on this reference. Someone had previously written 899 ns, which is 16 orders of magnitude off! Dirac66 (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This value seems overprecise. Nubase2003 [3] gives a value of (1.39 ± 0.10)×10^-22 sec (Γ = 3.28 ± 0.23 MeV). Nudat2 [4] gives Γ = 4.6 ± 0.9 MeV, for a half-life of (1.0 ± 0.2)×10^-22 sec. Finally the abstract of the reference [5] quoted in the article gives Γ = 3.33 ± 0.25 MeV, for a half-life of (1.37 ± 0.10)×10^-22 sec. Spacepotato (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Planetbox orbit template

Might be better to generalise epoch so it applies to all parameters - would be useful for systems with rapidly evolving orbits e.g. Gliese 876. What do you think? Icalanise (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clearest to separate the parameters pertaining to observed separation from those pertaining to the orbit—in fact, I was considering the possibility of revising {{Planetbox orbit}} so as to separate these two groups by a template-width bar. So, I'd prefer to have a separate field for the epoch at which the orbit is given. Spacepotato (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds reasonable. Icalanise (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Need help with Latin translation

Hi

Just need some help with translating the following pages (apparently cancelled) from De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium:

[6] and [7]

I see reference to various Greeks (eg Pythagoras) and I would like to know exactly what Copernicus is saying about them. In the English translation I have (from Stephen Hawking's book: On the Shoulders of Giants) there is no reference to Pythagoras at all so I am intrigued as to why these particular pages have cancellation lines drawn through them.

Can you help or perhaps point me to someone who can?

The source page for the above is [8] and I am looking at pages 11 and 12.

Thanks Neil Parker (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks interesting, but I think you would be better served by someone more fluent in Latin than I am. You might want to look at Category:User la-4. Spacepotato (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Hey, Spacepotato.

I've been putting time into improving HD 40307; however, as I'm relatively inexperienced with improving star articles, I was wondering if you'd be willing to lend me some input on any way to beef up the article before I put it up for GA.

Please get back to me as soon as you can; I could really use your help.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 08:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Re this star:

1. The star was observed in the Cape Photographic Durchmusterung, so we know that it was observed in or before 1900.
2. The star was catalogued in the original Henry Draper Catalogue, published between 1918 and 1924. It was not part of the Extension to the catalogue. The Extension added stars to the HD catalogue rather than adding new information about stars already in the catalogue.
3. The mass figures of 4.2, 6.8 and 9.2 Earth masses for the planets orbiting HD 40307 are lower bounds. The actual masses of the planets could be and probably are higher than these figures.

Spacepotato (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Planetbox star detail

Template:Planetbox star detail has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Icalanise (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Van Maanen's star

You seem a little edit sensitive about that article, so I'm going to move on now rather than battling for every change. I just wanted to point out that a frequent convention is to place the history section first. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Some star articles are structured this way, but it's certainly not universal. Spacepotato (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Jalisco

Hi, I see you have removed the flag of Jalisco in its article stating that "it's incorrect". As I wrote in the footnote (found at the end of the infobox) the flag was adopted in 2007 according to the State Government and Congress. Please let me know what is "incorrect" with the flag. According to the official description, that's the flag. Regards EOZyo (мѕğ) 06:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The flag you placed in the article has three vertical stripes, blue, yellow, and blue. According to the official description ([9], article 14), the flag has two vertical stripes, one of blue, closer to the flagpole, and one of gold (yellow), further from the flagpole.
2. The flag you placed has an aspect ratio of 3:2. According to Article 14, it should have an aspect ratio of 7:4.
3. The trasoles of the coat-of-arms of Jalisco should reach almost to the base of the shield, according to Article 6. On the flag you placed, they do not reach this far down.

Spacepotato (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I totally oversaw the fact that they were 2 vertical stripes. I'll start working on a new flag right away. 18:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)—The preceding comment was added by EOZyo (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Developed country list

Why did you undo it? I have been to the webpage of world bank high income economies page and it says there are 65 countires. And, do you know how to arrenge them in alphabet order more easily? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byeonggwan (talk • contribs) 03:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As explained before the list and at the talk page, it's a list of high-income economies ineligible for lending, not a list of all high-income economies. As for the best way of putting a multicolumn list in alphabetical order, I would recommend the use of {{columns-start}}, {{column}}, and {{columns-end}}:

{{columns-start|num=5}}
* a
* b
* c
{{column}}
* d
* e
* f
{{column}}
* g
* h
* i
{{column}}
* j
* k
* l
{{column}}
* m
* n
* o.
{{columns-end}}

produces

• a
• b
• c

• d
• e
• f

• g
• h
• i

• j
• k
• l

• m
• n
• o.

Spacepotato (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don´t quite understand you. On the data of the world bank [[10]], it says there are only 65 countires. And, what do you mean by High-income economies not eligible for lending programs?

Byeonggwan (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is not in the main table but mentioned here. As for "not eligible for lending programs", it means that they're not eligible for loans from the World Bank, either from IBRD or from IDA. Spacepotato (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

developed country

A citation is needed for separating 5 countries from the the main list of High Income Country group. Eliko (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll add another reference to the "Country Groups" page. Spacepotato (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning on Developed country

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Developed country. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Kingj123 (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This had not escaped my attention, but thanks for the reminder anyway. Spacepotato (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)