User talk:Spacepotato/Archive 7

GA reassessment

An article that you have been involved in editing, Astronomy in medieval Islam has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun Powder Ma (talk • contribs) 10:34, 25 July 2010

USCIRF

Commissioner is nominated because of his position at a Private Organization. Thus, His and his organization's freedom of religion record is relevant. Check the USCIRF website for details. This is true for all sectional advocacy group.

For example, If Walmart VP is a commissioner of a free-labor sectional advocacy group then VP, and Walmart's free-labor track record becomes relevant. More-over, Is walmart VP abusing his commissioner position by opposing mom & pop business and pushing walmart agenda is also a relevant question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talk • contribs) 02:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not respond to this message here as you have placed an identical message at Talk:United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Spacepotato (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roll Hardness Tester listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Roll Hardness Tester. Since you had some involvement with the Roll Hardness Tester redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this notification, and see my further comments at the RfD. Spacepotato (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Betelgeuse is growing not shrinking...

Hi spacepotato, a new and very keen editor has expanded Betelgeuse greatly and I am helping along the way to get it to GA and FAC. I am not great at physics but am trying to keep abreast of everything. I was hoping for some feedback on the article and how it's going - any glitches/omissions/undue weight/OR concerns etc. All input welcomed :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. Spacepotato (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated - duh, should have realised Ulugh Beg wouldn't have spoken Latin :/. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Science in the Middle Ages

Hello. You are invited to take part in the discussion on Science in the Middle Ages. The question is should we keep or remove the section on the Islamic world. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I replied at Talk:Science in the Middle Ages. Spacepotato (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the vote at Talk:Science in the Middle Ages#Ballot box as an attempt to establish a consensus. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremes on Earth

I noticed you undid 82.252.164.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the IP is likely a sock of Weatherextremes. Bidgee (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syntaxis

Are you on the Almagest? I saw a image from it linked to you. I was but had not the guts to write about. Do you know the work of RR Newton on it? I wonder why nobody mentioned it. -- Farinol (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to revise this article. I have not read R. R. Newton's book on Ptolemy. Spacepotato (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newton found that the observations Ptolemy claimed for himself never happend. He presented calculation data from his theory as observation data. Newton found that J.B.J. Delambre in 1819 already noted that but it was ignored by historians. Like Newton today.

"So far as I know, Delambre`s was the first publication of any of the calculations, and he was the first person who produced the unanswerable argument that Ptolemy's alleged equinoxes and solstices were fabricated. I do not know of any publication of the argument between Delambre's and mine. (Newton, 1977, p. 93)"

"The remarkable thing is that Delambre’s devastating and irrefutable proof that Ptolemy lied about his "observations" of the equinoxes and solstice was ignored for so long." (Thurston, Hugh: "R. R. Newton versus Ptolemy" DIO 8.1, (Nov. 1998), pp. 3ff)

I heard evidence that an astronomer with Kepler and Tycho at Prag found the same and published it. And Copernicus mentioned suspicion that Ptolemy may have faked some data. Newton said the Syntaxis was worse then no Syntaxis at all. Because some data there was such out of natural sequence that it caused Copernicus problems to fit his new theory or complicated it. He had no other old data. -- Farinol (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here something for your work with the Almagest.

-- Farinol (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Active galactic nucleus‎

I just reverted all the edits by 72.254.128.201, but I had to edit over your latest two edits. Take a look, the article is back the way it was before the IP changed it. Slightsmile (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Spacepotato (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass of planet Gliese 581 d

I noticed that you changed the figure for the mass of the planet Gliese 581 d from 7.1 Earth masses to 5.6, in the Gliese 581 article (this edit [1], in the table). But it clearly states in all the references I can find that the planet's mass value is 7.1 (see the article for sources). I assume that this may have been a simple mistake when you were changing all the values, but since you're an experienced user I thought I would inform you in case you really did mean to change the figure. I have reverted the mass to 7.1, but if you believe this is wrong then by all means change it back. --Hibernian (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vogt et al. recently made a new orbital fit to the radial velocity data, which, as well as indicating the existence of two new planets (Gliese 581 f and Gliese 581 g), gave a lower mass for Gliese 581 d (m sin i = 5.6 M_⊕.) See Table 2, arXiv:1009.5733. For self-consistency, I revised the system table in Gliese 581 to use exclusively data from the new fit. Spacepotato (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but no one has changed any of the figures in the planet's actual article. They all still say 7.09 Earth Masses. This is where the confusion comes in as I was reading that article and saw the table was inconsistent with it. Anyway, that's fine if that's the new estimate but you should change it in the main article as well then. --Hibernian (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. I'll revise the planet articles soon, unless someone else beats me to it. Spacepotato (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mu'ta

After you reversed my edit that Theophanes` account doesn`t contradict Muslim sources, I made research to find Theophanes` Chronicle, to see what precisely does he say. As far, I was able to find only Russian translation, but English speakers may use Google Translate to verify its contents. I don`t want to start edit war, my point was only that Theophanes account doesn`t contradict very much Muslim sources. Are you really objected to this? I apologize for any misconduct, if there was, on my behalf, I didn`t mean to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.186.147 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the translation of Harry Turtledove (p. 36, The Chronicle of Theophanes, University of Pennsylvania, 1982, ISBN 978-0-8122-1128-3), the passage runs:

Muhammad was already dead, but had appointed four emirs to attack Christians of Arab race. As they wanted to attack the Arabs on the day of their own sacrifice to idols, they came to a country called Moukheon, in which place was the vicar Theodore. When the vicar learned this from his servant Koutabas, who was a man of Quraysh, he assembled all the desert guards. He determined from the Saracen the day and hour on which the emirs intended to attack, and attacked them at a place called Mothous. He killed three of them and most of their army, but one emir, Khalid (whom they call the sword of God), got away.

The passage is also discussed in the article on Muʾta in the Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd ed.), as follows:

Besides the Muslim account we have a Byzantine one, the earliest in the history of the Prophet, by the historian Theophanes, whose version bears the stamp of veracity. According to him, Muḥammad sent four chiefs to the land east of Jordan against the Christian Arabs there. They went, to a village named Mucheon, which M.J. de Goeje, Mémoire sur la conquête de la Syrie 2, 6 ff., takes to be a copyist's error for Maʾāb, while Musil, op. cit., 153, identifies it with Khirbet al-Maḥna which lies in a broad depression, in order to fall upon the Arabs on a feastday (ἠμέρἄ τῆς εἰδωλοθυσίας αὐτῶν, which seems to indicate a heathen rather than a Christian population), but the vicarius Theodorus there learned of their plans and, rapidly collecting the garrisons of the fortresses, fell upon the Muslims at Muʾta and defeated them. Three of the leaders and most of the force were killed, and Chaledos, who was called the “sword of God”, alone succeeded in escaping. The tombs of the martyrs who fell there used to be pointed out at Muʾta, where a mausoleum was built over them.

I edited the article again, for the following reasons:

If the article is to quote Theophanes, it's better to use a translation directly to English rather than a translation via Russian to English.
It contains your own analysis, such as that Theophanes "further implies that the bulk of the army escaped safely" or that he does not contradict the Muslim sources. I don't see this implication in Theophanes, and it seems to me that he does contradict the Muslim sources, as he says that most of the Muslim force (or множество простых воинов in the Russian translation [2] you give) was killed, but the Muslim sources say that there were only 12 casualties on the Muslim side. But in any case, it is not possible for Wikipedia editors to re-analyze the sources themselves. This is original research and not permissible.

I agree that Theophanes has got the date wrong (assuming that he is indeed referring to the battle of Mu'ta.)

Spacepotato (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agnès Bihl

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Agnès Bihl, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.speedylook.com/Agnes_Bihl.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a false alarm, caused by the fact that http://www.speedylook.com/Agnes_Bihl.html was an auto-translation of fr:Agnès Bihl and therefore closely resembled my new article, which was also a translation of fr:Agnès Bihl. Therefore, I am removing the template. Spacepotato (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

After the number of requests for speedy deletion and half-baked merges, I honestly thought I was the only person on Wikipedia who still cared about whether these super-second articles existed. For the record, the reason I redirected was that I realised that if I created articles called List of astronomical cycles and List of empires by duration, that would negate the need for those pages. Then I discovered those articles already existed. So I decided to do what I thought everyone wanted. Serendi ^pod ous 19:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]