User talk:Qblik

Hello Qblik! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ruhrfisch 02:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Attribution • Neutral point of view • Notability Conflict of interest • Autobiography Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Citing sources • Footnotes Image use policy • Copyrights • Fair use External links • Spam • Vandalism Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry What Wikipedia is not • Deletion policy

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thanks for your comments on List of Pennsylvania state parks. Thanks to User:VerruckteDan the sizes (acres or sq km) now sort. Ruhrfisch 02:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution interwiki[edit]

Hi,

Are you sure the interwiki you did connecting the en:Relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution with the Polish Wzór Breita-Wignera is correct? Note that relativistic BW is different than the Cauchy distribution, which is called the (non-relativistic) Breit–Wigner distribution by physicists.

Cheers, Erkcan 12:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore[edit]

Thanks for making your queries about the article on the talk page rather than changing the article on the basis of one source. That is how it should be done, and I have now answered all your points in some detail. qp10qp 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your suggestion that it didn't seem precise enough, I've brought a little more of the Brugger information into the article at first mention. At second mention, when Calvert was later made Baron Baltimore, titled for the manor at his property, I have now quoted the Codignola information verbatim in the note. Looking at the contemporary quote from Carew, taken from Krugler, I realise that I placed it there not to reference the geographical fact (that was provided by the Codignola reference combined with it) but to reference the point that Calvert's resignation involved no disgrace and that he retained his place on the Privy Council.

I'm glad to hear that you might translate the article for Polish Wikipedia. I think this one would be very suitable for translation because the narrative is relatively clear. It's one of my favourite articles because the material available seems to fit the required article length very well (most articles either have to stretch thin material too far or boil down a huge amount of data, which in both cases can lead to unsatisfactory results). qp10qp 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rings of Jupiter[edit]

Halo isn't hollow of course, halo is a volume bounded by a toroidal surface and filled with particles. You should think more about rings from the physical point of view. They are clouds of particles ejected from parent bodies. So they occupy some parts of space which shape depends on the orbits of parent bodies and forces acting on them. So a ring can be hollow only if smth removes particle from the inside. In the halo ring such a force (a satellite, for instance) is absent. Similar with gossamer rings; they are formed by particle coming from two different satellites and spread over the volumes defined by satellite's orbital motions. So they can overlap and nothing can prevent overlaping. This means that in the same volume particles belonging to the different rings can be present simultaniously i.e. inside smaller Amalthea Ring there are of course particle belonging to bigger Thebe Ring. Ruslik 06:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Halo and everywhere in the article it refers to light. 'flux' generally means number of particles per second per cm². It usually used for photons, charged or neutral particles etc. I added the word 'light' to the article. Ruslik 06:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true (about Gossamer rings). I have read ~20 articles in the peer reviewed journals and have never seen anything like this. Ruslik 06:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

[1]. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 03:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Gate Highlands National Park[edit]

Hi Qblik. Thanks for pointing out the contradiction in the article. I got the 41 km² figure from Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary [2]. The official website has changed since I last looked at it, but it currently gives a figure of 11,600 hectares [3]. The World Database on Protected Areas says the area is 11,568 hectares [4]. I guess I trusted the book reference more than the website reference I used in the article, but looking into it more I now think 116 km² is the correct figure for the infobox. What do you think? Bláthnaid 19:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two parks were amalgamated this year, and the area has increased to 340 km². I've updated the article with sources from 2007. Thanks again. Bláthnaid 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Battle of Antietam[edit]

Battle of Antietam has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]