User talk:Serendipodous/User talk:Serendipodous archive 8

Planet X

Ugh. I was tired when I added the info about the Japanese study. Thanks for correcting it! BWH76 (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Neptune

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I also owe you an apology. During Triton's FAC Sandy told me that the "First/Last" fields made the authors' names disappear in the "cite" format. So I changed all the names to "author=" format. I was attempting to do the same to Neptune, got about 15 citations down, and then fell asleep. Serendi^podous 07:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. They only disappear when the field cases don't match. I.e. "first=" works but "First=" doesn't. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to give RaveDave what he wants, Neptune is going to have to have an atmosphere section, much like the one Ruslik gave Uranus. I've gone looking, but I can't find anything like a broad overview of where the troposphere begins or ends, where the stratosphere begins or ends, or what's in each, like Ruslik's section has. Unfortunately, Ruslik seems to be on a wikibreak, so I can't ask him. Not sure what to do. Serendi^podous 16:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to just withdraw the nomination then so we can address that issue.—RJH (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruslik is back (yaay) and says he can get going on it tomorrow. Still, no need to withdraw the nom; we're probably going to get promoted anyway, but this needs to be done. I've started on a stub section, though the source Ruslik gave me is WAY over my head. Serendi^podous 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's good news then.—RJH (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've reworked the article just enough to answer RaveDave's objections. Let me know if you think I went too far. Serendi^podous 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is now too much redundancy between "Atmosphere" and "Clouds".—RJH (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That picture's beautiful. :-) I think we've dodged a bullet. If they liked it before, they'll have to pass it now. Serendi^podous 21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but there's always room for improvement. I'm sure that Ruslik will have some interesting additions. =)—RJH (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out that ref issue. You stressed yet? I'm stressed. Serendi^podous 20:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Me? Nah, I've been working on another article. =) Thanks for all of your trouble.—RJH (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I will write something tomorrow. If you want you can read this [1]. Ruslik (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can send you additional articles about Neptune. Do you need them? Ruslik (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just sent you an e-mail. Ruslik (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar mate :) I fell honored. Although I almost didn't help a lot. Most congrats goes ro RJHall and you with source finding and checking :) Now, tag-team to get oort cloud to FA? Samuel Sol (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible Harry Potter addition

There's a documentary showing at the South by South West film festival called We are Wizards (review here). It's about fan works inspired by the Potter series, and is created by the guy that made Wizard People, Dear Reader. Not sure if this is worth adding just yet, but I figured I'd mention it in case you wanted to do something with it. Hewinsj (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nebular hypothesis

Yes, I am still planning to merge them. Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Associated Content

This site pays anyone to write articles on any subject. The writers are paid by the numbers of visits their stories receive. Thus it qualifies as both self-published and spam, as they have clear economic reasons to create these links. Because of this (and a few others) it has now been blacklisted, or not allowed as an outside link. Please see Admin Noticeboard and WP:SPAM for more information. Stealthound (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nebular hypothesis

I have just merged Talk:Uranus/new subpage with that article. I think it can be made featured fairly quickly. Ruslik (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Steve Vander Ark.jpg

Image has been tagged for deletion. Thought you might want to know. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikicharts - a belated answer to your question

I can't access Wikicharts anymore. Has that site been discontinued? I found it really interesting. Serendi^podous 13:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it is down permanently. But you can find the same thing (actually, better) at this location. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oort Cloud

Hello, Serendipodous. You have new messages at Samuel Sol's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What do you mean in your message? Do you mean my edit here?

Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 23:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. I wasd just confused. Sorry. Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 11:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pushing back the date for FAC start

FA for this article is not far. All we need is images and more information within each heading. Maybe we should search NASA's site, this could turn up some good information. But I would give the editors like us a week or so to get this done, not 2 days. Otherwise, I believe we will fail FAC. I have already notified Samuel Sol of this thought. Do you agree?

Thanks, Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Few fast things mate. You seem to prefer leaving the cite as horizontal style instead of vertical (I usually prefer this for reading purposes) Is that something from the MOS that I didn't get, or just personal preferences? Samuel Sol (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving to Scattered Disk for now?

Serendipous, melkshar is thinking about following your suggestion and move to Scattered Disk and leave Oort Cloud for the time been. What do you say? Samuel Sol (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wizard People, Dear Readers

An editor has nominated Wizard People, Dear Readers, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard People, Dear Readers and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

Thanks for the information. I do not have any objections. Ruslik (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I nominated Nebular hypothesis artilce for peer review. Ruslik (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oort Cloud

Hey Serendip. I've been editing very infrequently, so sorry if I don't respond quickly. I think the article is close and I don't see a problem with the length. Before any nomination, sit down for an hour and do all the boring little things that get brought up with regard to formatting: date formats in refs, consistent capitalization of author names, blue links etc. A PR would be good first; ping me again and I'll try to comment.

What's up in Scientific American? I suppose you've come across the new Planet X rumours[2] :). Marskell (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why change my Harry Potter contribution

I don't want a back and forth editing feud, so I will give you my aurgument for my contribution to the "butterbeer" entry on the Harry Potter topic which you appear to have edited out. Perhaps we can come to an agreement.

My point: "By comparing butterbeer to butterscotch, Rowling probably revealed the inspiration for the name. Roald Dahl used a similar word-play in his book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in chapter 23 when he mentioned the Oompa-Loompas getting drunk on butterscotch and buttergin." seems a valid addition (or at very least parts of it are valid). If we can discuss unintentional links between deatheaters and nazis, then mentioning links between Rowling and earlier writers is valid. It is a literary comparison on very similar wordplays, and should be left for people to read and consider.

Sincerely, token1914 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Token1914 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I do see that the speculation should be left out. Would you agree that the comparison could remain without claims as to what the similarities mean? I do not feel wirters generally rip-off material, only that material influences them directly (if they read it) or indirectly (they are influences by the culture that is influenced by the material). It is inevitable and allowable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Token1914 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you, or perhaps do you know someone who could...

give Oort cloud a copyedit? Everything on its FAC page has been addressed, but it needs a going over by someone who hasn't worked on it. If you know someone who could spare the time, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. :-) Serendi^podous 11:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to go through it when I have a block of free time available. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'm done.—RJH (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony's back and apparently neither you nor I were good enough to pass the article. I've accepted that I'm not a good editor (I miss details); Tony asked me to find a good copyeditor in the field, but the best I can find in the planetary area so far is you. I really don't know who to ask about this. Are there any expert copyeditors who know astronomy? Who should I ask? I don't really know what to do. Serendi^podous 14:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no good suggestions to make.—RJH (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Serendipodous but I find myself having to withdraw my support after another read through. Some changes have been made to the article that are not beneficial. I listed more comments on the FAC page.—RJH (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Serendipodous, thank you for the Barnstar you left on my userpage on 3-14-08. I would have responded earlier but I have been busy with the passing of my father on March 2nd. I do appreciate the complement. Wikipedia has always been and continues to be a fun place to spend leisure time. You do great work. -- (Kevin Heider) Kheider (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

Glad to help; I'm having fun learning about it. (I didn't know much about this topic before reading for this article.) How do you think the article stands now? I no longer see any substantial holes or issues. ASHill (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's ready for GA. I don't think it's far from FA, but it's not there yet. However, I'm on vacation now, so my contributions will be limited the next few days, and I can't give it a thorough last read-through. ASHill (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the accidental revert, as you can imagine I'm flat off my feet with vandals at the moment and when i saw such a huge change I automatically changed it back, Sorry again. Prom3th3an (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up

I've reverted formation and evolution back a few versions because there were a number of changes that shouldn't have been made; for example, 'disk' was changed to 'disc' in the title of a cited publication, where it really ought to stick with the original spelling. I know you were working on fixing all that when the vandalism snafu interrupted. I tried to get to a status where only correct fixes had been made. (I know I'm largely responsible for the American spelling; it's all that comes naturally to me, I'm afraid.) ASHill (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Oort cloud

Hello, Serendipodous. You have new messages at Meldshal42's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are a great writer, maybe brilliant. In fact, you should probably think about an Rfa. Oh, and I am now marking the prose as brilliant (done). Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 14:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

3 Earth masses is for the outer cloud (according [1]). The mass of the inner cloud is not known but can be comparable to the outer (see [1] again). Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the mass - 3 earth masses is about right (Although one of your refs said two - it's really not well constrained) but it was at 10^38 ... anyways. The Sun probably formed in a cluster of 10^4 - 10^6 stars, I didn't look too closely at Levison & Duncan's paper, but that point's worth checking - is the 200 a limit or a real guess? Additionally, I've heard it suggested that the passage of the spiral arms may be the bombardment trigger, rather than the up-down bounce or nemesis - but I'm not aware of any refs. You didn't run across any in your research, I guess? WilyD 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to five earth masses then, which is 3e28 gs. The spiral arms & the up down have the same frequency, but I don't think they're required to - I can try and check up on it more (spiral arms aren't flawlessly understood though). WilyD 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, no problem. I don't mean exactly the same frequency, just similarish (I'm not sure either is really that well known, either). WilyD 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your skills are needed

Hey i noticed that your a good writer, a very good writer. I need your assistance. Would you mind giving up half an hour of your time to study and copy edit the Thriller (album). It needs to be checked for grammar and spelling, something my language barrier makes hard. I put it up for FA and all points were resolved aside this copy edit. I am a man in need of your assistance, please help. Realist2 (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, you were very helpful. Realist2 (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Kuiper Belts

Presumably, 9 was the number of resolved Kuiper-belt type disks in 2006. Trilling et al. 2007? has a couple hundred such, but they're not resolved, only inferred from the spectral energy distribution. This is probably better, though I never know what's in press yet. Here, Wyatt et al 2007 (ApJ 663:365-382 July 1, 2007) has 46 examples, just to pick a paper I'm reading at the moment. Debris Disk quotes over 900 in 2001. I can't find the perfect cite anywhere - as far as I can tell, the number of "extra-solar Kuiper belts" is so big that nobody cares anymore (certainly I don't - I know the percentages, it's typically 20% of stars have detectable Kuiper Belt type structures - the Trilling et al. paper has good statistics for FGK stars.). If this book is in print, it probably gives a much more accurate picture of what's going on. I'd fix it myself, but I'm always loath to mess too much with articles that are already good. WilyD 14:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it's often because I know what I'm talking about that I'm loath to say anything - I never start at the beginning and I often assume knowledge inappropriately and can be obtuse and pedantic and whatnot. And I probably rely too much on original research (since my research area is debris disks, asteroids, comets and dwarf planets). I'm not a featured -class article writer, I'm a B-class article writer. But if I remember, I'll try and work that out. WilyD 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

JK Rowling

Hi, I noticed you moved a short para about the success of the Harry Potter series from the lead of the above article. Can I ask why? Regards, RaseaC (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair shout, I've added my view so will wait and see if any one else agrees/disagrees. RaseaC (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oort cloud

IT MADE IT TO FA!' Congrats! Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 01:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just another example of your fine work. You should probabaly think about an Rfa. I'm willing to nominate you. Meldshal42_{Comments and Suggestions}^{My Contributions} 12:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you yet again for helping me get Oort cloud to FA. As usual, I couldn't have done it without you. Been a bit busy (That perennial thorn in my side, Formation and evolution of the Solar System is acting up again), but I wanted to let you know I appreciate it. Serendi^podous 21:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thank you for the note.—RJH (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Formation and evolution of the Solar System GAN

Hey, no problem about complaining about my review, I didn't take it personally, believe me. I tend to be a little rough on articles when reviewing them, so I'm used to it. Whether or not I'm treating the review as it is an FA is debatable, and hopefully I can explain why I think my criticisms of the article are founded in the GA criteria. As far as the scope of an article goes, the criteria says a GA article should be "broad" (as opposed to "comprehensive" for FA). I don't know if I'd consider an article about the formation of the solor system almost exclusively from a single scientific view to be broad – in fact, I'd say it's pretty narrow. Especially when such a thing as the solar system has so many differing ways of being approached.

The article suggests there's other scientific hypothesis, but barely scratches the surface of them (two paragraphs I believe). And, I'm assuming this is the last thing someone writing for Wikipedia from a scientific viewpoint wants to hear, but what about religious/cultural/historical viewpoints? Surely the Bible has an explanation? The Koran probably does too. The Aztecs were really into astronomy, what was their hypothesis? Now, obviously, it would be impossible to make an article that covers every single cultural/religious viewpoint, nor should that be expected of an article for GA status. But something is better then nothing right? Right now the article is completely a summary of the phenomenon of the Nebular hypothesis, something which I'm sure alot of people would disagree with whole-heartedly. Granted, this is all my interpretation of the criteria, but I just can't see how an article that does one thing and one thing only can be considered broad. Please let me know if you still disagree, and hopefully we can work this out. Drewcifer (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I will go over this article tomorrow. By the way this is [3] a good source about alternatives to Nebular Theory. Ruslik (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

SNDM has many roots. Some of them are mentioned in Woolfson, section 9. One of the founders of the modern theory was Victor Safronov, who showed that terresrial planets and cores of giant planets can in principle accrete from planetesimals (see refs for his works in Woolfson's article). There is also a book of Woolfson [4] published in 2007. It can be freely downloaded. In this book Woolfson pushes his own Capture Theory, which is highly speculative, in my opinion. However the book provides a good historical overview. Ruslik (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See also George Wetherill. Ruslik (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

These can also be interesting [5] [6]. Ruslik (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The origins of this ideas can traced back to William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin and Helmholtz (see [7] and Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism), who first suggested that the Sun would evetually die. They thought that the energy source of Sun was gravitational contraction. After them was Jeans, who had some ideas about stellar energy sources and then Eddington. However the first person, who developed correct understanding of red giants, was George Gamow (see [8] and [9]). Later the theory of stellar evolution was developed by Martin Schwarzschild (see [10]). Ruslik (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Formation and evolution restructuring

I like the restructuring you're working on. I won't edit much until you're done to avoid conflicts, but do you think the history section ought to be moved to the end of the article, after the modern scientific understanding is presented? ASHill (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter legal disputes

Oh wow, thanks, I didn't even know there was an entire article devoted to that. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks. You merit one too, as you did the lion's share of the work on formation and evolution, but I'll hold off until this gets to FA. Good work.

Once the history expansion is completed, my preference would be to let it sit for a few weeks so we can look at it with fresh eyes before a FA push. ASHill (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will recover soon

I want to finish Nebular hypothesis article first and nominate it to FAC. Then I will take Solar System Formation. I actually understand your feelings after the trauma. I myself damaged the right knee this winter (tore a ligament); it was unpleasant experience. So I hope you will be OK. Ruslik (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Serendipodous. I hope your knee gets better. I know my right knee use to give me a lot of trouble. It took years for recovery. But as an active West Coast Swing dancer it didn't stop me from dancing. -- Kheider (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

History section split

The section looks amazing! And to think, you guys thought I was crazy! =) As far as splitting the article off like you suggest, I'm kind of torn with the idea. On one hand, the section is getting a little unwieldly, and I would hate to see you pull back on the reigns just because it's getting big. On the other hand, the Formation/Evolution article could already be considered a sub article of Solar System, so now you'd have a sub-article of a sub-article. Tricky stuff.

My gut says to err on the side of making things as accessible/readable as possible, which would mean separate articles. Perhaps a good solution would be to try and make both articles (Formation/Evolution and the History article) as equal as possible. In other words, in the Formation/Evolution article have a small section outlining the History of our understanding and list the most important points with a "Main article" link at the top. Then, do the reverse on the History article: have a small section about the modern scientific interpretation of the phenomenon with a "Main article" linking back to the other article. Though, this may require a slight readjustment of the Formation/Evolution article's title.

Anyways, that's probably more advice then you wanted, but do with it what you will! Let me know what you end up doing. Drewcifer (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)