User talk:Serendipodous/archive 16

Exploration of Jupiter

Do you think it is ready (or nearing) for FAC? Nergaal (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just a block YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titania

Hi! I think we can congratulate ourselves that Sun was kept as FA. :)

I have also finished with Titania article. May I ask you to give it a reading?

I know it is summer right now. The weather is really hot. Ruslik_Zero 18:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

What is that fellow up to on Planet Hab? Is it just a matter of changing the title for the sake of it?

Anyway, thanks for your welcome note back. I'm not really back until I start editing the main space; at this point, I'm just nibbling at the edges. I don't imagine plowing into something until the end of September but I'll let you know when I do. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You accidentally supported changing Planet Hab's title! Marskell (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I haven't been around in a while, it's probably appropriate that I've dug back into this of all articles. Just watch it over the next little while to see if you have any opinions on my changes. I added a bit tonight on extremophiles (and the Atacama Desert!) and shuffled the headlines slightly. Panspermia also deserves a (short) section—it's the only real gap in coverage that has occured to me. Finally, I'll probably consolidate the exotic mentions (Venus, gas giant cloud tops, stars etc.) into a short "Alternatives" section to meet the complaint on the talk page. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and do you think "Good Jupiters" are actually all that good? I've read a couple of things that suggest otherwise and the whole section doesn't make intuitive sense to me reading it again: nice of Jupiter to send volatiles our way in the early solar system but now it keeps them away? Marskell (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

My blackberry is screwing up.Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESO pictures

Pictures of the European Southern Observatory (ESO) are free for use—they are under a creative commons license (see [1]). You probably confused ESO with ESA. Ruslik_Zero 11:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear

It looks like Ling might be gone for good. I suspect it might be because of User talk:SandyGeorgia#Saddens me to say it ... and the resulting discussion. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, I literally gasped when I saw Ling's signature as a red link. ceranthor 11:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the drama is a result of this; Ling was one of Mattisse's mentors and Sandy and her TPS'ers were, fairly, I guess, criticizing Mattisse's mentors as she was blocked. (Mattisse is an extremely prolific copyeditor and was active at FAC). 12:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you online now, or was the reversion of Torah automatic?

I think the introduction needs greater clarification of the terms "The Torah" (Pentateuch) vs. "Torah" (much wider meaning in Judaism), "Written Torah" vs. "Oral Torah" etc.- Like my edit described. Did I make the introduction now too long? I'm a sincere editor, and want to improve the page. If you reply, I'll know why you reverted the edit. I could move some of the content of my introduction into the main article. Please clarify- a.s.a.p.! 86.171.1.174 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply

Thanks for reply. Sorry to take up your time. Looking back, I've certainly noticed that my edit made the introduction visually unattractive! Thanks for advice. So was your reversion automatic (within one minute) or manual? I also have a wikipedia account name, though I don't always use it. I go to various internet cafes with different computers. Most of my edits are fairly good/at least better than the previous versions of often very undeveloped pages. My editing style is usually balanced, and what appeared here as biased ("highest spiritual activity") was rather an unsourced description of Rabbinic Judaism's view. Torah is a central, developed page, and I can see that my edit was a bit rushed and not ideal for an introduction! But still, the points behind my edit were valid!

Also, when I'm logged in, why when I preview an edit do I often get logged out???? I would really like to know about that.

About Torah page, I've got little time, and so many more important edits I want to make on undeveloped wikipedia pages, mostly related to Kabbalah and Hasidic philosophy. I have so much I would want to improve to these often badly covered areas, and little time, so I usually end up doing editing "binges" every few months! The edits would be acceptable to wikipedia as these are often highly undeveloped areas. When needed, I can be very careful and concise and sourced! Your advice of needing to work hard would certainly apply to the great, developed areas of wikipedia. The Sciences and Arts, for example are so well written, but so few people are editing Kabbalistic and Hasidic topics. I end up with too much responsibility! It's not fair! So I may not have time to revisit this edit thread on Torah. If you do look over the points of my edit to Torah, you may like to incorporate the points into a new introduction, perhaps shortened? Much of the introduction could be moved into a new "Overview" first section, with the introduction reserved more for the kind of definition clarification I was looking for.........But, I apologise, you probably have far better things to do! And anyway, you may not like my edit points! Thanks. 86.171.1.174 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there, and thanks for inviting me into the discussion. To be honest, I think parts of it are definitely POV-ish, but my biggest complaint is that the whole just seems excessive and unnecessary. I tend to believe that the purpose of WikiPedia is to be an encyclopaedia, not an all-inclusive repository for the sum total of human understanding on any given topic. It's just too much....

Good luck, and please keep me posted on developments. Hope all that helps. RavShimon (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Gabriel

Over the last couple years, you have been nothing but nasty to me, which is weird, because I have done very little to you to deserve such rancour. I know you're pissed off that your article was deleted, but I had nothing to do with that. I want to offer you a compromise. As Ruslik points out, Planetary Habitability doesn't mention humans at all, so there is a way for you to restart your article without it being deleted. From what I gathered, your article was deleted because it basically consisted of information that already existed in planetary habitability. Therefore, if I were to restart your article, I would create a single paragraph that dealt with habitability in general, and link it to Planetary habitability. Then focus specifically on human habitability issues. That means, leave out things like sable habitable zone, high metallicity, stable axial tilt etc, as these are vital for ALL life, not just human life, and can be left to the main habitability article. Also, planetary habitability deals with the evolution of life on other planets, which a Planetary Human Habitability article would not. Rather, it would be better in such an article to discuss the possibility of human adaptation to life on other planets, with paragraphs on terraforming, bioforming or constructed environments like dome habitats. There is a rather pathetic article called space and survival that ties in to what you are dealing with, and I think you might be interested in beefing it up or merging it with your article. Please take this under advisement. Serendi ^pod ous 13:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You enjoy writing lies, I've never been nasty to you. and your accusation reads like an attack on me, so I'm just going to delete this. The article that was delete was not my article, you are just writing that to provoke me. Basically an attack within an attack. You really don't know what you are talking about either, life needs the protection of a magnetosphere, that's in the referencing in the article, so your comments on "metallicity" don't make sense. Rotation is a habitiability issue for people on various levels, you talk like you know something but haven't even read the referencing. The only thing you said I can see worth considering is the merger with space and survival, which I am surprised hasn't been deleted. As for attacks on you, that's your opinion, because you don't like to loose arguments you have to call other people attackers. Don't bother me with that again or I'll start the review process. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being nasty right now, Gabriel, when Serendip is nothing but cordial. I think working on Space and survival is the best idea. Start with a rename, perhaps Human habitability in space and much of the material you've wanted to include could be moved to it. I think a two paragraph summary of Planetary habitability with a main article link could be included as part of it. I'm tempted to start it myself. Marskell (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Timewave_zero#Redirect proposal

Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero an RfC has been opened on whether this article should be merged. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting languages on Harry Potter in Translation

Hi again: I made those last two IP edits, forgot to log in. I actually think that splitting the Chinese on basis of what I was trying to do with Portuguese is justified, because in both cases the two variants are a whole different publication: different country, different publisher, different translators and different book titles. I'd vote for splitting Portuguese vs. Brazilian Portuguese, Greek vs. Ancient Greek etc. based not only on linguistic differences but upon the fact that these are entirely different editions. Whereas with English, though there are different publishers in different countries and some slight variations in the text, it's basically the same edition (and not strictly speaking a translation at all). The various English publishers collaborated with each other, whereas the different translators into Chinese, Greek, Portuguese etc. had virtually nothing to do with each other. But anyway I leave the decision up to you as you seem to be the one mainting the article right now. Also, this might interest you: http://www.notes.co.il/gili/60123.asp (didn't want to use my own blog as a source, but YOU certainly could). --woggly (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's because the different English editions are basically the same text, adapted in collaboration, whereas the different translators into Chinese worked completely independent of each other (and indeed, politically may even be hostile to each other.) That was my argument for keeping Serbian seperate from Croatian, though one editor argued they are one and the same language; ditto the new Occitan separate from Catalan. But I agree that all this is not clear cut which is why I am perfectly willing to defer to your judgement. --woggly (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persephone (planet)

Yes, this is a headache. I checked the history of the article, and it started as an article about a hypothetical planet (which would now be a redirect to Planets beyond Neptune) but also had a subsection on Persephone in fiction (which would be a redirect to Fictional planets of the Solar System#Trans-Neptunian planets). Perhaps a disambiguation directing to both? -- which would, I suppose, be situated under Persephone (disambiguation).

Of course, the word "Persephone" doesn't even appear in Planets beyond Neptune, and I'm not sure if a section on the use of the name could be sustainably added -- there's nothing in the original article to support the assertion that "Persephone has long been used as the name of a hypothetical tenth planet of the Solar System, next after Pluto" except the citations from fiction. If it is in fact the case that Persephone has never been used for a trans-Neptunian (or trans-Plutonian) planet outside of fiction, then there's no case for a hypothetical referent, and hence none for a disambiguation -- it can just redirect to Fictional planets of the Solar System#Trans-Neptunian planets.

Should there be a separate Persephone sub-section? There are only four fictional references, and I don't see the evidence that the four Persephones form a natural group that is separated from the other fictional trans-Neptunians by anything other than a shared name. Outside of the name, they seem to me to be indistinguishable from the other "10th planets", whatever they are called.

RandomCritic (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be of assistance here. Persephone was the name given to a beyond Pluto "planet" by astrologer Dane Rudhyar, probably in the 1960s or 1970s. MARDYKS 63.232.20.2 (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brown's blog

It depends on what it is used for. I suppose your question is related to 2012? Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is Ok to use it as a source confirming that Brown made those claims. Such use comports with WP:SPS. Ruslik_Zero 19:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haumea

Could you please take a look at the controversy section? Just noticed that someone in Spain went through ten days ago and enlarged it, and it's got a little messy structure- and grammar-wise. I prefer not to change that section due to RL associations with participants. Iridia (talk) 04:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Let's Get Stupid About 2012 http://www.geocities.com/heartystar/2012]

POD, maybe you are right about Jenkins. Maybe there is no cure for stupidity. My mistake for trying. The end of the world is coming anyway so wtf? Sorry the BLOCKS don't work, try "denial" or better yet, read his book! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ... MARDYKS.

Revert notification

I've reverted this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, RJ :)

Ouch, ouch, ouch. I didn't even know there was a "bottom importance" level. :D Serendi ^pod ous 18:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it's not intended as a slight. :-) The importance is just meant as a measure of the relevance to the scientific study of astronomy.—RJH (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flight of the Hippogriff

Hi. I wanted to let you know that your recent changes to the article for Flight of the Hippogriff have been undone. While I believe you were working in good faith, such page merges should be discussed with other editors in order to build consensus for the change. Please feel free to discuss your proposed merger on the talk page for the article. Thanks, and happy editing! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment of Harry Potter influences and analogues

I have done a GA Reassessment of Harry Potter influences and analogues as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to be sound and to nearly meet the GA Criteria My two concerns were numerous dead links in the reference section and the lack of images. I have placed the article on hold for a week and I am notifying you as the primary editor of this review. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this review please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter

No, I didn't mean to remove it, I just meant to move it. But looking at it, it's just a passing quote from a documentary, it doesn't seem important enough for the section at all. I don't have any strong feelings about it, but I'll put it back if you want, or you can.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar and Peer review

I replied on the PR page itself and sent you an email with some hopefully useful information. Please ask if I can be of further help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - thanks for your note back, which I got as I saved this (maybe all this cosmic coincidence stuff is accurate after all!!!! ;-) ) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I've never even seen all the world's gold before, let alone been given it - thanks very much, and do let me know if I can be of more help. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hole Alignment

So far it reads quite well and you did a far better job that I could have. I'm just hoping the series "The Universe" runs that episode again. It was bugging me that I couldn't get that info. Thanks again.--Hourick (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I wasn't quite thinking of this when I delete it from my programming. I believe the title alluded to cosmic collisions and disasters. They also referred to Earth's theory of the moon being formed by a collision. They are bound to show it again and I have my TiVo hunting it down. :)--Hourick (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does look about right, I looked at the last section and it wasn't there, but didn't have time to look at the other 4. --Hourick (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 2012

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'd love to help, but I'm writing a thesis right now (you can read a little of it here). I was mostly working over the summer. Maybe next summer, after the movie hype dies down :) Shii (tock) 19:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's location in space

This article, which you have contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. thought you should know, if you dont have it on your watchlist.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

instead of (just) a table, make a template with the axis being a logarithmic scale of distances, and put on this template the features. The general idea would be similar to {{FIFA World Ranking leaders}}. It would be something like: from Earth to [insert something here] => [logarithmic axis here] => actual value of the distance & perhaps some notes; where something may be: center of Earth, surface of Sun, inner SS, outer SS, etc. Does it make any sense? Right now, going from one row to the next, a non-expert doesn't get much. Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP

Was this protection request a mistake? I couldn't seem to find any dispute. CIreland (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. CIreland (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

coordinates on Titan

I found a couple sources that describe how longitude is defined on Titan. Unfortunately, I didn't find anything clear and authoritative, but I can certainly add a cite or two before I go to bed. --Stepheng3 (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created ENA Page

Technique critical to the recent surprising IBEX observations of the heliosphere so I created a page titled Energic Neutral Atoms. How can I make it show up if someone searches for ENA as well, as that is how they are customarily referenced?Canuck100 (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help with redirection and references. I added references to Geomagnetic storms and to Plasma Recombination to clarify where ENAs fit w.r.t these phenomena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuck100 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed a revision of this page and added the appropriate links to it from the IBEX Mission page and the heliosphere page. I will add links from the magnetosphere page as well but first have to add a bit about ENA imaging to that page. I am not happy with one section so I tagged it as needing clean up though I plan to do this myself. Feedback would be appreciated. thanksCanuck100 (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to raise FT criteria to requiring 50% featured

Hi, there is currently a proposal to raise the percentage of articles featured topics need to have featured to 50%, from 1 September 2010, and as someone with a topic with less than 50% of articles featured, this change if passed will directly affect you. Any input on your part to the discussion, and opinions both for and against the proposal, would be most welcome - rst20xx (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MFD nomination of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom

Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2012

Do you mean formating and style of the references? Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do tomorrow. Ruslik_Zero 20:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Discovery Channel in the US will air a special on "2012 Apocalypse" The blurb on their web page says "December 21, 2012. Doomsday fanatics claim that this is when life on Earth will come to an end. But what does science have to say about this looming apocalypse? What real threats could possibly bring about cataclysmic changes on Earth in 2012?". The science part sounds it could be useful for the articles you've nominated at PR on 2012 (and perhaps Nibiru). see here Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references still need some work. For instance, I do not know what Peréz de Lara & Justeson (2005) refers to. The remaining books should be moved to the references section as well. Page number are desirable too. Ruslik_Zero 17:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ref called 'South 2009', which leads nowhere. The remaining books that should be moved to references are in ref 27. Ruslik_Zero 19:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Minor Discworld concepts

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Minor Discworld concepts. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor Discworld concepts (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UniverseNav

I hope you don't mind what I've been doing with it. I should tell you, I deleted {{UniverseNavSmall}}; it was too similar to {{Earth's location}}. But now your main template is a sourced mainspace article. Serendi ^pod ous 22:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks excellent. Thanks for your work! -- Beland (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]