User talk:Serendipodous/User talk:Serendipodous archive 7

Europa

I inserted two sources. I also noticed that format of citations is not consistent. I think all refs should be converted into templates. Ruslik (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the last citation. In case you don't know, there several web-archives of articles related to Europa (and Galilean satellites): Special Topics -- Europa, Margaret Kivelson and Adam Showman. Ruslik (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JK Rowking edit

Okay Serendipotous, you're "an egocentric blusterer who really needs to get over himself." (LOL!) But seriously, thanks for tweaking that edit, and doing your part to preserve an FA article! Edit Centric (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Politics of Harry Potter

Hi Seren, Merry x-mas and happy holidays. Not to be annoying, but can we add a link from the JK Rowling article to the Politics of Harry Potter. I would suggest somewhere around Philanthropy and maybe expanding that to the causes she advocates on behalf of like Amnesty International, and Cage beds, Darfur.... Anyhow, not big enough of a deal for me to fight about, but hoping you might concur. Thanks and peace on earth, Libertycookies (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually missed the links in the template. Possibly that is adequate but nonetheless, I would suggest that an article about JK Rowling should include a brief paragraph with her substantiated influences, and perhaps a brief paragraphs on the substantiated political causes she has promoted with a link to those detailed articles.

If the reasoning goes that these paragraphs are unnecessary because seperate articles exist, then I would question the need for a paragraph on Legal disputes as well as the link to that article. Libertycookies (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atmosphere of Venus

I started a rewrite of this article. Could I ask you to look into what I have already changed in the text? Ruslik (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Harry Potter actors

Hi, this category is a recreation of deleted content. See this discussion and other. There even is a featured list at List of Harry Potter films cast members so a category is not necessary. Garion96 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete the category and rollback your edits. It's faster. Garion96 (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Sorry about the work you did for nothing. It's been decided a while ago that this kind of categories leads to overcategorization. A list works much better here. Which indeed is quite a good list here. Garion96 (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The film related articles I am not sure. The cast members is easy. Just don't categorize them for Harry Potter. Just look at Richard Harris. He could be categorized also in Tarzan actors, King Arthur actors, Count of Monte Cristo actors. There is not so much difference there between Harry Potters actors. It would just be overcategorization. There is a mention in each article that the actor/actress played in Harry Potter. There is a list stating all the actors and cast. That should be enough. Garion96 (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a Tireless Contributor

Thanks! Moved to my vanity closet. :) Serendi^podous 04:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can move this to the vanity closet as well, but just wanted to say how great it is to finally see a Harry Potter article featured on the main page, and such a comprehensive and well-sourced, and interesting, one as this. Congratulations on a job well done. --Fbv65e del — t — c // 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Georgia's comment

I think I took care of Sandy Georgia's comment. Let me know if you have any more problems. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter actors category

Hey - I noticed you have been adding this category to articles on some of the actors that appear the Harry Potter films. The category does not exist as posted, so it comes out as a redlink, and as a result folks have been reverting your edits. Just thought you should know. If the category does exist in principle, please make sure you are posting it correctly (spelling etc.). Thanks! --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reffing glitch

Happened to me to - seems to have gone aweay again. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europa again

What was the "problem" with refs? I noticed nothing bad. I also added a ref for the obliquity. It seems equal to about 0.1°. As to calculatable parameters, they can be computed with the following formulae:

$periapsis=a*(1-e)$

$apoapsis=a*(1+e)$

where a – semimajor axis (mean orbital radius), e – eccentricity.

$surface\;gravity\;(m/s^{2})={\frac {G*M}{R^{2}}}$

$escape\;velocity\;(m/s)={\sqrt {\frac {2*G*M}{R}}}$

where M – mass, G=6.67×10⁻¹¹ m³/kg/s² – gravitational constant, R – mean radius. Ruslik (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks very much! — BillC ^talk 11:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venusian atmosphere and New Year

I actually just finished with this article. I extracted and inserted into it all new infromation I can find in those Nature articles. In process I actually created two fat sections ('Circulation in the troposphere' and 'Magnetosphere'), which may need your attention. The only thing left is to update the summary in the main article about Venus.

Now I want to express my best wishes for the New Year! It is only several hours that separate us at this moment from the year 2008, when many interesting things in the field of planetary sciences will happen.

So Happy New Year!Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually added a paragraph about lightning to Clouds section. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europa

Thanks. Ruslik (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europa article appears to be in Limbo. It needs a copy-edit. I asked two editors, but they appear to be busy now. Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I was surprised but the article has been promoted to FA today. Now only Ganymede is not in the FA list (among Galileans). Ruslik (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may need a copy-edit, but I am not an expert in such matters. Ruslik (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. Ruslik (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red

I've fixed up this article's culture section, but I'm not a science guy. I'm trying to get it to GA and the Science section needs references and lots of fixing. Could you help? Wrad (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for dealing with Tony1 over at Europa. I've had little access to a computer over the last few days so I was afraid that Tony's curse would doom the FA. I owe ya one. :-) Serendi^podous 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Ruslik did most of the work. I actually no longer mind giving or receiving negative feedback during the FAC process because the end result is usually a better article, and I often learn something in the process. But sure, glad I could be of some help.—RJH (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beetlejuice

Hey, I dont' personally care about it, but there's been a lot of discussion on the talk page about how to spell the name, with most people feeling that it should be spelled the same as the title of the movie. Maybe you want to address it there to avoid edit-warring? Murderbike (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beans!

Did my comment on Triton on the Featured topic page precipitate a fit of beans? Mention something, and naturally it's acted on? Anyway, you're wonderful!.

What do you think of this claim that Triton is the coldest body in the Solar System? I realize it's sourced, but it makes no sense to me. Surely Eris and other TNOs are colder. Marskell (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This claim was probably made in 1989, when the temperature on Triton was first measured. Here I should remind that the first Kuiper belt object (except Pluto) was discovered in 1992. However that old claim has continued to be reproduced since 1989 without any regard to new discoveries. Ruslik (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about Refs

I wasn't sure it would stick, so I didn't ref, not that I expected you (or anyone else) to do the dirty work.

I've found and added a favorite link to makeref which should make it less painful for me to ref in the future. If you don't already use, then try it. If you do use it, then next time you complain to someone, advise them of the tools. Libertycookies (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php[reply]

Congrats! (Quite a bit late, though)

Congradulations on ~~helping~~ getting J.K. Rowling featured. Great job, indeed. Basketball 110 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triton

Don't sound so daunted! You've done great work there, and it can certainly get to FAC. As for getting in over your head, I do it all the time :). And you're probably capable of swimming out farther wrt to the math than I am. Ruslik is rapidly filling out Ganymede; I'm adding bits and pieces and copyediting. After that's done, we can come back to Triton.

Because the planet hab stuff doesn't deal with numbers in any sophisticated way, I feel more comfortable with it based on my reading. I may get back to Habitability of red dwarf systems, for instance, but not until I clear my plate of other things. Marskell (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break from writting Triton a join us in writing Ganymede article. Later we will move to Triton again. Actually the article (about Triton) is in so a bad shape. It can go to FA after the remaining 'fact' tags are removed.

Besides do you have access to this article [1]? Ruslik (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for my questions, but this content is available through Free Subscription, is not it? Ruslik (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if you register you will have access to this and many other articles, which may be very helpful. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I'm going to try that tomorrow, Ruslik. Is it Really Free? I've been relying on an old friend's university account! Marskell (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to provide real adresses, phone numbers etc. You only need to provide a real e-mail, which can be useful if you forget password. Ruslik (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite phone number is 11111111 or 77777777. It depends on which button on the keyboard is closer to my hand. Ruslik (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball

Number two. It has the most indenting, but for the informed it will make the most sense. Marskell (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formation and evolution of the solar system

I add about 6 or 7 more online sources-wow we have 62 now. Pretty moch of the section is fine now only the first section still needs work. I think we only need about 10 to 15 more sources now.--Freewayguy (Meet) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violate this

Don't edit the article during the discussion. Your reverts could be seen as bad faith edits. Don't test me. Keep the discussion to the discussion page of the relevant article. Adraeus (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: reverting Talk:Venus

Yes, I think you're right, I certainly haven't any inclination to engage in any debate about that ;) .. But as far as personal attacks on talk pages, the policy is pretty clear about reverting on sight so I'll stick to that. MURGH ^disc. 14:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triton

I can send you the paper you desire on Triton. PLease send me an email so I have your email to attach the pdf. Joelito (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Planet

Happy to help, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question about the changing post-Copernican conceptions of the planets. A point to remember is that before Galileo, astronomers were more concerned with the motions of the planets than with their physical nature. They did what we would call positional astronomy.

Concern with the physical nature of the planets was mainly the preserve of cosmologists working in the Aristotelian tradition and only began to make its way into astronomy with Galileo's telescopic observations and the increasingly physical astronomy of Kepler and Newton. (It's interesting that disciplinary boundaries continue to change and today the physical nature of the planets is increasingly the preserve of planetary geologists than of astronomers). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things

The Science article is on my to-do list, but my to-do list is large at the moment. I'm getting lots of copyedit requests. I'll try over the next two days.

I have opposed planet at FAC. If you're not comfortable, I'm not comfortable. I think we need a specific injunction against people who have never edited articles launching nominations. Marskell (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hello... sorry it took me a day to reply. I'd forgotten about the sub-article; there is some material in the text you had removed that I would like to keep, but since there is a sub-article it could be significantly reduced from my initial revert. Would you mind if I went through and tweaked it and then ran it by you? Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC: Planet

I added one long paragraph about magnetic fields of planets. I am afraid, but it is not possible to explain all those differences in just one or two paragraphs. Ruslik (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you actually have the most edits on the article and I am assuming you are the one 'taking care of it'. You also seem not convinced that in the present state it is FA-worthy. Why do you think that, or what do you think is missing? Nergaal (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune/Poseidon: Sorry, I got confused with something. Nergaal (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Greek/Babylonian connection: some thoughts:

There are too many concordances between Greek and Babylonian naming conventions for them to have arisen separately. needs a decent reference. I didn't have the time right now to go through the reference in detail, but I couldn't really find a statement about concordances between greek and babylonian. I will check this later today
There does, however, appear to have been some confusion in translation. For instance, the Babylonian Nergal was a god of war, and the Greeks, seeing this aspect of Nergal's persona, identified him with Ares, their god of war. However, Nergal, unlike Ares, was also a god of the dead and a god of pestilence while this is good/interesting/worth putting in, it is slightly overly detailed for the topic. I would suggest making the comparison slightly less verbose. Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the barnstar! I am not really used to this custom but I relly appreciate it. Thanks for the cooperation & keep in touch! Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the Extrasolar planets section: I have noticed something troublesome about the information given in that section and that is that all the given masses are stated as certain. In over 90% of the cases of extrasolar planets the actual reported mass is the minimum one! Rigorously speaking, the reported mass is in fact (real mass) x sin(angle between the star-Earth line and the plane of the orbit of the exoplanet) - or maybe the cos. In other words, unless the plane of the orbit of the exoplanet includes Earth, the actual reported mass is smaller that the actual mass. Check the bottom of this page. Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination of Formation and evolution of the Solar System

Hi there. I've just done a GA review of the above article you recently nominated. I thought about suggesting 'on hold', but figured 'fail' (which BTW just generally seems to me not to be a helpful word) was the right option at this point. I've set out suggestions on the article talk page. I always figure if I'm going to criticise I'd better do something constructive, so I'll try and hop in and work over some of the existing references and perhaps some of the structural suggestions. New content, esp. re history etc is not, however, my bailiwick (I'm pretty sure that's misspelt, too). I enjoy and often refer to WP's solar system and astronomy pages, and I see you have done a lot of work on them, so thanks for everything you're contributing. Your tag is fabulous! Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - can you stop editing for a sec - i'm losing all my work on the refs in an edit conflict with you!! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving Talk:Uranus

I added the MiszaBot template, which should cause the page to be archived automatically henceforth (no activity for 14 days is the current threshold, feel free to change it). Let me know if that doesn't work for some reason. Happy‑melon 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:I've hesitated asking you this...

Sorry but I do not have access to that document. :-( Joelito (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Triton

RJ, I always appreciate your support but do you mind if I take that ^{[citation needed]} down? The entry is currently the standard used for the Solar System's moons, featured and not. Yes you may have a point that pronunciations should be cited, but since this issue is one that covers all of Wikipedia and not just this article, I think it is one best suited for the higher boards. As it is, the ^{[citation needed]} might unfairly affect this article's chances of being featured, and I'd rather not lose an FA over something common to every other featured moon article on Wikipedia. Serendi ^pod ous 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be resolved for now by moving the unsourced entry to the talk page. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, but to be fair you'd have to do that to every other uncited IPA on Wikipedia. Serendi ^pod ous 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing it on the few pages I watch and references are being added. So I think it's fair.—RJH (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for clarification of the MoS page regarding pronunciation entries. Your input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (pronunciation)#Referencing would be appreciated.—RJH (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel paper

Can you e-mail me and I'll send you Herschel (1790)? Your last e-mail is buried in my inbox. Marskell (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went and dug up your e-mail and passed it along. (I've never created a contact list, and really need to.) Marskell (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I took four days to reply, after all. Marskell (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need something to do with myself

Habitability in the jovian system? What do you think? (I'm such a geek!) Marskell (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you ask, because as I was typing the last it occurred to me that habitability is actually a poor word. Really, it's "life sustainability." Yes, I meant it in general: one page that would cover the life under ice business. Saturnian moons also deserve mention. The problem is I can't think of an article title that isn't a full phrase. Possibility of life on large satellites in the Solar System. Ha! Really, the topic does deserve a page. But what's a logical title for it? Marskell (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet X

Hello... just thought I'd ask why you removed this line from the Planet X article. It seems to check out from the reference; did I miss something? (By the way, since I haven't said so for a while, great work on all things astronomical. You really seem to know your stuff.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite family and Citation

Hello Serendipodous,

Sorry for any extra edit work you needed to perform, I thought that Citation was generally preferred over the others in that it allows for Harvard references to be used, it has more controls/args and it allows for a single template that can be applied to all the different types (book, journal, etc.) Wouldn't the two styles be able to live side-by-side in an article without a viewer of the article being able to discern any difference? Help me understand the need for them all to be cite family and not mixed with citation. Perhaps it only impacts the editors and you feel this leads to confusion when mixed?

Thanks for all your edits!

WilliamKF (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you remove?

You mentioned earlier you wished to see some sections of the xenomorph article removed. Which ones do you mean particularly? Me, I'd simply remove the intelligence and physical characteristics subsections (not the content) and summarise what was previously written in a tidier form.

On another note, do you perchance have any info into the design of the dog alien (or a better picture)? I once had a book on the subject, but I lost it long ago. Giger had apparently done the first designs, but they were rejected in favour of Woodruff's. Dark hyena (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The title was "H.R.Giger's Film Design " Dark hyena (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Alien

" Hello! "

Thank you for contributions. I have realized that you have edited an Alien related article. If you wish there is a Alien WikiProject which you can join and help us edit Wikipedia’s Alien articles. Wikipedia also has the following Alien related projects:

If you have any questions just ask at the Alien WikiProject.

Again, Thank you for your help!

Also, here's a barnstar!

Thanks! Moved to my vanity closet. :) Serendi ^pod ous 08:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--IllaZilla (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalf

Re:[2] - Dalf passed away last September. Raul654 (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

order & captions of Europa images

Hi, Serendipodous. I don't want to get into an edit war with you over the placement of the Europa images, but to be honest I disagree with both of your recent assertions. "Image:PIA01092 - Evidence of Internal Activity on Europa.jpg" actually shows a much more detailed view of lineae, and gives a much better idea of their structure and mechanism of formation than does "Image:europa g1 true.jpg". The latter shows lineae primarily as albedo features, whereas the former at full size reveals their 'triple-band' structure, and shows that their formation is often associated with transverse faulting. Thus, from my perspective, the latter is at least as appropriate as the former for an illustration in the "lineae" section. The reverse order also has the advantage I pointed out earlier of maintaining a sequence of images showing progressively greater resolution. The captions for some of these images are longer than normal, but there is no harm in this; the information in them is specific to the images, and if it was moved to the text the impact would be lost. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The other picture shows the lineae as they would appear to someone who was not familiar with Europa, as the moon's primary visible feature." I agree; that's why I think it wouldn't hurt to put that one first. Whether its actually in the lineae section seems less important to me. However, its not really a big deal in the grand scheme of things. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Serendipodous/Vanity closet

I'm sure you didn't mean to, but as well as your new "vanity closet" user sub-page, you have actually created an encyclopedia page User Serendipodous/Vanity closet in the main space. If you didn't mean to, the quickest way to get rid of it would be for you to blank it and put {{db-author}} on it, which would get it speedied. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune

Hello again,

I'm essentially finished making the changes I wanted to include in the Neptune article. (Nice addition on the planet's orbital resonances, by the way.) It could perhaps use a going over by another set of eyes for grammar and such, but I think it's getting close to FAC ready now. If you agree, are you interested in taking it through? (I'll be away most of next week so I can't do much to it.) Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]