User talk:Serendipodous/User talk:Serendipodous archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Serendipodous/User talk:Serendipodous archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Lectonar 10:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The field is optional

As an aside, my apologies for not having an account name but, for some reason, my old name isn't recognised here anymore and I can't start up a new account without creating a dummy e-mail address to go with it, which is too much hassle for one username. 82.45.244.104 18:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You CAN start up a new account. The e-mail field is optional. For example, I left that field blank on THIS account. WAS 4.250 13:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abraxan

A tag has been placed on Abraxan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 05:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary Habitability

Hi there. Thought you might be curious to look at User:Marskell/Planetary Habitability. I haven't had a chance to work on it in a week or two and you can make notes, additions and edits if you like. While it's a user page I will sort of reserve the right to change what I like but would also appreciate input. Take care, Marskell 19:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding. It's been posted: Planetary habitability Marskell 19:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just pleased to help. Glad you found my contributions useful! Serendipitous 20:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sorting Hat

To be specific: it IS a known Gryffindor Relic. It is NOT a Horcrux candidate. Therefore, it should be listed as a relic, along with the Rowling comment that it is not a Horcrux. Michaelsanders 17:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great

just what we need around this place... more misspellings of serendipitous. :) Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ack; it didn't occur to me that people would think I didn't know how to spell "serendipitous". My original name was Serendipitous. I lost my password and suddenly couldn't log in, and hadn't bothered to enter an email address, so I had to come up with a name that was similar to my last name but different. So I came up with that. OK? Serendipodous 19:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. My humblest apologies. I was trying to be sarcastic, but it's quite hard to do in writing. I hadn't read your user page when I originally welcomed you, but now I understand. I just hope people don't see your name, and think that's the way it's spelled. It was a great name by the way. See ya around. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

I wouldn't get too hung up on whether a page meets a certain bar for peer review. The article is fine and a lot of work has gone into it. Sure, throw it on peer review and see if you get any comments (the Peer review page is wonderful in principle but unfortunately doesn't get much traffic). My thoughts are that it probably needs a pic or two more and I'm wondering about the sectioning (ie., Pluto dominating Orbital criterion). Otherwise, it's improved and still improving, so good work. If it went to an FA nom I could see people wondering about a "Definition of..." article being suitable.

Also, I reverted the redirect to Solar System from Terrestrial planet. I think the latter certainly needs an article of its own. Marskell 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right about that. Since there was a great deal of repetition between the two articles, I thought it might be tidier to merge them, but it does work better as its own article.

Sorry about deleting the peer review question; I was going to post it on your talk page, rather than on your page's discussion board, because I thought it was too personal for that forum. The one thing I have not been able to figure out how to do on Wikipedia is import images; I didn't post those pictures. There are plenty of freely available images within Wikipedia, but they are commonly spread throughout the "planetary" pages. I'd prefer to post something more original.

Perhaps I can combine the "Pluto" and "asteroid" sections, since they both draw the same conclusion? Serendipodous 20:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check: Wikipedia:Uploading_images. Marskell 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Wow, you have been quite prolific lately! Keep up the good work. Just please start using edit summaries. --Doradus 03:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, something else you might not have considered: it's sometimes easier on other editors if you can collect a number of minor changes into a single edit. For instance, it's hard for me to review your edits to "Definition of Planet" because they are implemented in dozens of small edits with no summaries. However, it's also sometimes good to do individual things in separate edits, so I defer to your best judgement. --Doradus 18:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy. FYI I answered your question here: User_talk:Doradus#regarding_edit_summaries. --Doradus 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the Solar System article, but it gets difficult to follow changes with so many edits. Perhaps more frequent use of the Preview button? thanks.

Hello again

I shipped Planetary habitability off to FAC yesterday if you'd like to take a look. Went round in circles regarding numbering for ref's but this finally seems taken care of. We shall see; there's a couple "support if..." at the moment.

Also, I'd been meaning to suggest something to you: why not approach a bureaucrat about your name? They can, I believe, delete the old user and move this one there. It's very obvious you're the same person. Thus, you'll have the right spelling back. Cheers, Marskell 16:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"A breather" is a good idea--actually, given various constraints and plans, I was planning on not editing Wiki in December. At the end of the day, this is unpaid work--there is no obligation to edit. But "never edit again because of arguments" is a bad idea, I'd say. I noticed your back-and-forth with E. P. Anthony on the Definition of a Planet page (I do watch it): while you may have become angry I thought he was the one who got overly pedantic ("use my full alias, etc."). It just seemed unfortunate (bc I've worked with you both), not a reason to give up. So, you know, don't give up... I really expect Serendip (sorry, not a full alias ;) to be showing up on my watchlist in future. Marskell 22:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy again

First, glad to see you're still here. Second, thought of you when I saw this interesting article at AstroBio mag: [1]. Marskell 22:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

Thanks Serendip! And congrats to you too given how much you've added to the article.

I noticed the last post in talk. As you know the geo-chem stuff is where I'm a dummy so I wanted to be clear about "the energy contained in the powerful covalent bond between carbon and hydrogen, released from the breakdown of carbohydrates, is the fuel of all complex lifeforms" This is accurate, particularly "all complex lifeforms?" Would this apply say to fatty acid metabolism? I didn't know fatty acid metabolism existed until this evening so I don't have a clue ;).

Finally, this FA stuff is fun, aside from whether you start the article yourself. I may pick a page or two and try and raise them and would need some help. Now, given that I'm a nutcase about habitability I was thinking of starting with Europa (moon). Cheers, Marskell 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

buzz buzz

There's an article in last month's (January) Scientific American on Brown dwarf formation I'm sure you'd like to take a look at... Marskell 08:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

You should start with Wikipedia:Footnotes or Wikipedia:Harvard referencing and decide what you like. I prefer the former. There are at least three Wiki-means of doing footnotes (two are in use on Planet Hab) and there's also a lot of instruction creep on the Wiki pages to figure them out. The best advice I think is to simply open a page that has a referencing system you like and copy the syntax exactly. If you have more specific stuff you want me to look at, let me know. I'll give the page a read over when I get a chance. Marskell 09:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:J._K._Rowling#Further_comment

Please see my comment to you on Talk:J._K._Rowling#Further_comment. Thanks and best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Discworld calendar was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. // Tawkerbot2 07:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

My once in a while check in with Serendip! :)

I just thought you might want to look at the editing I did on the red dwarf section of Planetary habitability. I decided to go to the primary sources in Croswell and cite them directly. I think it more specified now and the addition is interesting. Also I want to basically source every statement of fact (or at least every statement with a number) in the article. I'll make a post on the talk page to that affect soon and maybe you can provide cites for info you've added.

But I'm never happy. I looked at it all again tonight and thought "is this radically earth-centric? If life were found on Europa tomorrow, how much would have to gutted/altered here?" Who knows.

Regarding citations, I hope I wasn't unhelpful in responding to your desire to make a proper ref system on Definition of planet. Everyone now seems to be using the ref system where you embed the link info into the actual text. It is the easiest even if it makes the article clunky. If you want to do this on the "Def of..." article I'll split the time with you :). More than anything, it's a matter of "do I want to sit here for three hours and make all these links proper references..." Marskell 22:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at JK Rowling. What a laugh! The stupid part is that really the page only relies on about eight sources, cited a half-dozen times each. Work for work's sake. Note on Planet hab there's 35 cites from 33 sources, which I'm pleased with. I don't want to become anal myself, but as I say every statement with a number is a fair demand.

I understand that linking directly from the text is in many ways the most preferable, but remember that if a link dies people don't know what's what. By spelling out the source in a ref section you allow people to track things down if they go missing. This is especially true with primary sources; I certainly don't want to link to a .edu/PDF from the article body. Plus ref sections are rather satisfying to look at IMO.

And your right, finally, that if I tried to broaden things to account for every possibility on Planet Hab I'd totally lose focus. Earth-centric because it must be Earth-centric then. Marskell 09:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't worry, the Def of... page will still be relevant after September. Perhaps more so because it will provide a history of how scientists arrived where they arrived... Marskell 09:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. K. Rowling

Hi! Let me know what you think about this edit. Hopefully it will solve our problems. :o) E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack

I'll try! Busy days ahead... Marskell 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. I'll try and give it a fuller read-over before actually voting. Marskell 18:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the FA by the way! I just added the little star as Raul forgot.

I've taken Fermi paradox back to WP:FAC, if you're interested in alien speculation. Marskell 17:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not responsible for the raw material on Fermi, more just slicing, specifying and sourcing. It has been a lot of work as it was incredibly bloated two months ago. Unfortunately no one commented over the first day :(.

Regarding new topics, one simple thing to do is adopt an astronomical body and take it up to FA. I think I mentioned Europa before. I just decided today to have a go at Neptune. There's also the theoretical stuff like terraforming. If there's any other you want help with, let me know. Marskell 10:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers Internet Leaks

Hey, I saw you were the first to report images, so I was wondering if you knew where I could find them. Thanks, Infinare 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no plans to post them, I just wanted to view it... Infinare 23:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice addition to "planet"

but do you think you could provide a source for it? Just wondering what you used. Thanks. Serendipodous

Do you mean other than the three in-line citations I already included with the revisions? Perhaps you could be more specific? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't mean to sound too brusque; it's just that the middle paragraph of "Planetary formation" isn't cited, and I wasn't sure where the information came from.

No offense taken, thanks—I was just mildly confused. I just started a quick project to try and add citations to the article and to fill in some details. :-) — RJH (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Formation of the solar system

I have no objection to your working on Formation of the solar system, and transfering material from the Solar system to it. I had been thinking of doing so myself, although I wanted to flesh the "Formation ..." article out some more before doing so. So your request is very much in line with my own view of the role of the "Formation ..." article. As I see it as a way of saying more on its topic while also shortening the "Solar systm" article. --EMS | Talk 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet X

OK, but zetatalk stuff (if you were ever on Usenet, you saw enough to last a lifetime) expands to fill the bafflement available. Isn't most of that more apropos to the zetatalk article? I don't object to a mention, but the whole thing is so esoteric. It's not a big cult, it's a small and loud one. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with "Definition of Planet"

Hi Serendipodous -- I added a comment to this section regarding the proposed merger. Could you take a look? I hope you don't take offense to my objections. Thank you! :-) — RJH (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Acheron-1.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Acheron-1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chaos syndrome 20:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

I've taken a shot at answering your question at Talk:Muslim History#Origins of Islam. I hope someone else will weigh in, hopefully not to hand me my liver. - Jmabel | Talk 02:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Wikipedia:Peer review/Solar System/archive4

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Peer review/Solar System/archive4 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 08:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrestrial planet

Regarding the edit comment here: why wouldn't Ceres be a terrestrial planet? Granted, it doesn't have any tectonic activity, but neither do Mercury, Luna, and Mars (and if the Earth weren't around Luna would certainly qualify as a terrestrial planet). As far as I'm aware there are three "classes" of planets ... terrestrial (rocky/metallic), gaseous (e.g. Jupiter), and icy (Kuiper belt objects). Why wouldn't Ceres qualify as a terrestrial planet? --Cyde Weys 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell needs 54 planets?

God, I hope they don't stick with this. It will make the definition meaningless IMO. But then my opinion doesn't count for much...

Regarding being dethroned, no worries. It really means your work to date is on display again. As I said previously, the page will continue to be useful after this as providing a history of the how the definition was arrived at. Marskell 15:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had just come back from the bar and I was actually trying to make a joke. When I see or hear "damn you all" I just assume it's ironic. Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes: "You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!" Homer Simpson does a take on this in Deep Space Homer to take the meme further.

Of course, my ironic sensibilities after coming back from the bar may not be shared with others so thanks for reminding to be careful :). Marskell 05:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you haven't stated "merge" or "don't merge" (or perhaps I missed it). You should make your opinion clear there! Marskell 21:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should not absent yourself. I think I know what your opinion is, and I believe you should state it. Now, I don't want to post "hey, why not jump into a shitstorm?" because who wants to jump into one, but at the same time I think you should defend the purpose and scope of the FA you've created. Definition of planet was made for this decision. It doesn't need a sub-article to "postempt" it (is that the opposite of preempt? :). Planet --> Definition of planet. Sounds good to me. Marskell 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [2]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet names in languages of India

Hi, You asked whether the names of the planets are uniform throughout India. The answer is both yes and no. The English name Venus is called in Tamil as Velli, but in Sanskrit as Sukra. Tamils will recognize the Sanskrit name. In general, Sanskrit names would be recognized in all parts of India. However, it is not true that the names are the same in all languages within India. I hope I have been of assistance to you. Sincerely, BostonMA 14:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Your recent questions have rather complex answers, and I am not sure that I have sufficient knowledge to answer them accurately. Pakistan and Bangladesh have majority Muslim population. I am not a Muslim, but it is my understanding that orthodox Islam would not ascribe souls to the various planets, nor consider them gods of any sort. That being said, Islam in the Indian subcontinent has a history of intermingling with Hinduism. To mention just a few examples, the Muslim ruler Akbar was a patron of many Hindu temples. Sufism is a sect which combines elements of both Islam and Hinduism. Shirdi Sai Baba is revered by both Hindus and Muslims as a saint, and finally, both Hindus and Muslims visit the Amarnath lingam (or so I have heard).

To what extent the non-Hindu populations of Pakistan and Bangladesh have a view of the planets which is similar to that of Jyotisha is something that I do not know, and you should seek other advice for an answer to that question. I am similarly ignorant regarding the beliefs of the Buddhist population of Sri Lanka with respect to the planets.

I wish you the best of luck in your research. Sincerely, BostonMA 14:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahnstah

		The E=MC² Barnstar
		The primary purpose for all of us here at Wikipedia is working together to build an encyclopedia -- with that in mind, it's unfortunate that some of our most dedicated editors work for a very long time without being recognized by the community for their contributions. With that in mind, it's my pleasure to recognize your science-related contributions with this EMC² Barnstar. Luna Santin 09:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice image

Nice image you placed over at Asteroid belt. I love the way it distinguishes the Hildas clearly :-) Deuar 12:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilda asteroid for one, and also it is better than the current image at trojan asteroid. Deuar 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar system

Re: the talk page. Yes, makes sense about the multiple threads, and it would be better to have one thread for continuing discussions. However, the existing conversations don't read quite so clearly when they are all lumped together. As for the article, it seems to be progressing nicely. I've left a message at UK's talk page indicating that the revisions have attempted to incorporate UK's concerns. Hopefully, this will help ease things. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of

I don't want to give you an answer without reading both pages in full again. Give me a day or two. There is a disjunct with them, to be sure.

As for not editing planet hab, you know, I feel guilty. Like the page is alive, watching me, and feeling neglected...I think I edit too much. Marskell 17:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

This belongs on the talk page, but I thought I'd post it here to allow you to chew over it yourself and maybe make some changes. Re Definition of planet:

Concern over OR. Sentences that begin "It's been said..." must be sourced (indeed, I'd avoid that wording entirely). The two paragraphs at the end of clearing the neighbourhood: our deducing ambiguities or ambiguities that have been pointed out in print? With a topic like this, a well-read amateur can arrive at a cogent general-level criticism, as so much of it is (non-)commomsensical. But such points, however obvious, should not be inserted without sources.
A bit underweight on sourcing. Note you don't need entirely new ones but can reuse those already there (<ref name = Moon> blah, blah </ref> in the first mention, followed by <ref name = Moon/> in subsequent mentions). The first two paragraphs in history should be sourced and a couple more cites added to sphericity. This relates, obviously, to the OR. You may be asserting ordinary enough facts, but through selection and presentation are you using them to advance an argument ("this is an ambiguous definition" is an argument—it must be sourced like everything else).
The intro. When the definition was ambiguity (rather than merely being ambiguous, as it is now) it made sense to start the page as it is, but now it doesn't feel right. An "inverted pyramid" (info from most to least important) would seem to demand starting with the IAU definition and moving backward to the history. The article is called "Definition of planet"; we now have a "definition of planet", whether people like it or not, and that definition should be at the top of the LEAD. Now, doing this will make it and the 2006 IAU mimic each other to a greater degree, which raises again the question of merging. I still think it can be done. As I said to you once before, your page was essentially made for this decision and I don't see why its details belong on a sub-sub-article.
Re the science of "clearing the neighbourhood": don't look me :). All I'd say is, note the active voice: "cleared its neighbourhood" not "has had its neighbourhood cleared." I think this is crucial as it hints at the process of formation. The planets aren't accidentally alone—they didn't allow other bodies to be. This may become more important (and controversial) if it's deduced Sedna, say, is alone in its orbit. Ironically, it's the quotes from Stern that emphasize this point most obviously.

OK then, that's my thoughts for now. I had thought of hauling both pages to userspace and attempting a merge but don't know if I want the work considering the hackles that may be raised. Plus I've got an FAC on the go and am wiki-busy. Cheers, Marskell 13:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't come down to hard on the article! Does the above make sense to you? Marskell 12:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would only add regarding the intro, that starting with the IAU does not mean presenting it as ideal or final. It can be introduced any which way: "controversial...and possibly subject to further revision" etc. Right now we have "no scientifically accepted definition of "planet" existed before August 24, 2006" as a clause of the second sentence; on a basic prose style level, it does not make sense to introduce that and then wait two paragraphs to state what the definition actually is. One of the two should be moved.

As for merging, I do not mean merge the 2006 article as it stands, as the page isn't anywhere near summary style. IMHO it can be reduced by 60% overall and the sections prior to "August 24" by, literally, 80-90%. However, I think it's one of those things that is hard to judge the wisdom of until presented with a relatively polished alternative. Marskell 14:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed the conversation and have now commented. Nice to know I'm needed ;). Marskell 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forums

I've noted in other conversations that you've mentioned talking on astronomy forums. Which do you use that are useful? I'm working on Barnard's star and, you know, when you're a complete amateur it can be difficult. Wikipedia:Reference desk/science is so-so. Marskell 21:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, which I'll check out (you don't really use "fora" as the plural, do you ;). Here's a page from AstroBio you might like to read: http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2089&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0. Marskell 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar system

Hello, on June 24th 2006 you added to the article the following sentence about the solar wind: "...in all directions at speeds of over 2 million kilometres per hour." Where did you get this? It is a gross error, as any search in google will show it is less than 1000km/h. Please correct or remove this statement. Odedee 05:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand correcred - my bad, I was fixing errors on the Hebrew wiki and didn't notice you were using different units. Please don't consider this a personal attach - I believed this was an error, nothing else. Anyway, good thing I left the article unchanged, and thanks for the clarification. Odedee 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System is a stellar system

I think it was you who introduced the term stellar system to the Solar System article, perhaps not to the first sentence, but at least to the last para of the intro. (If not, my apologies.) The "stellar system" bits are unreferenced. They are wikilinked and stellar system redirects to star system.

I am challenging the current definition in the star system article and this is under discussion at Talk:Star_system. The star system article used to define its topic as a group of a small number of stars that orbit one another and I think it should go back to that.

At their most generic, "stellar system" and "star system" can obviously refer to any type of system associated with a star. The downside is that at their most generic, the terms are not very useful. Do you have an opinion on what it means to say that the Solar System is a stellar system? And (whatever your opinion is) do you know of references for it? I'm trying to get a handle on what should happen to these bits of the Solar System article if the star system article does go back to its earlier scope. thanks Nurg 01:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of planet + Star

Hey Serendip. I have meant to engage your WP:FAR review of Definition of planet more, but then time flies and it's suddenly been up there three weeks. Sorry if that elicited less than you wanted.

I thought you might want to look at Star and its current FAC. I think it's a good page. Marskell 22:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hogwarts Founders

Hello. I seem to remember you, like myself, were not happy with the additions to the Salazar Slytherin section. I haven't been able to form a consensus large enough to dislodge the dedicated MichaelSanders, but I really think it's time we got enough might on our side to do something about it. Serendipodous 07:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Salazar Slytherin section does seem excessively lengthy when compared to the other sections in the Hogwarts founders article. It especially seems to carry a lot of excessive weasel word baggage about what "some fans feel...", in violation of avoiding weasel wording, not to mention the guidelines and policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. I think we could open up a dialog on the article's talk page and address the issue there (and not personally go after the "offending" user like some others do (see the pitiful and petty personal complaints lodged by Vedexent (on my user talk page) over a simple matter of interpretation of the meaning of the word "concept", in the Horcrux article. That user apparently prefers to address differences of opinion privately on the user's talk page, bullying others into submission, rather than openly discussing the issue for a consensus among peers. Not my style. And such arguments over wordsmithing and syntax are not worthy of my time. But I wonder how long before Vedexent berates me for this? Some folks just need to step away from the keyboard for a while and fix themselves a nice cup of tea.). Anyway I think we have just cause to eliminate the weasel wording and speculation about "what some fans think" about Slytherin, and only allow posting of "just the facts" based on what Rowling wrote in the books, what was clearly stated in the movies (with a canonical asterisk), what Rowling has posted on HER web site, and what she might have let slip in interviews. --T-dot 13:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(see additional comments back at my talk page) --T-dot 14:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanasia

You're more than welcome. Sloppy and mendacious use of language always annoys me. Adam 01:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia and Ge

Are you sure Gaia isn't derived from Ge, and not the other way around? It certainly makes more sense. There would be a word for the ground before there was one for a goddess, and Ge is the shorter one, pointing towards it being the root (and why we have geology, geography, etc.). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

Yup, it just took some time, it's done now. --Pax:Vobiscum 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metallicity

Hello. I've left a message on Talk:Metallicity regarding your merger of Stellar population into the article. I'd appreciate it if you could read it and leave a response. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]