User talk:Serendipodous/archive 18

email, blowup

• I sent you an email a while back. I've been following things. If I had one US dollar for everyone I have raked over the coals, Good Granny, I could buy a nice VCR. I'm trying to tone down my act, but not because i thought it was wrong... Lighten up; cut yourself some slack... seriously.  :-) • Ling.Nut 16:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Saw your post over at Ruslik's talk. Don't quit, please. If the "depressive spiral" and whatnot are over, keep it that way. ceranthor 17:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Where?

My talk page has a comment posted by you which tells me that I cannot use a Wikipedia article as a reference. I have found the original reference on a web page and directly quoted it. I placed the correct reference into the Wiki article in question. I removed, once again, the weasel words from that article.

I must say that this rule against using Wikipedia as a reference is odd. It is entirely possible to use an article in a science journal as reference in another article in the same journal. I have 20 years as a research scientist and practically every paper I have read has done this.

Nick Beeson (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I clicked your signature in note you posted to my talk page which is a beautiful color with distinctive typography. It led me to the page I posted on. I assumed that was the page you wanted me to post on since your signature led me there.

I had not thought of the mutability of Wikipedia articles. That is a good reason to prohibit using them as references.

I agree that "if Wikipedia only cited itself, it could say anything at all."(emphasis added by me) But Wikipedia does not cite only itself. And in fact the Wikipedia reference I used was to a sentence with an outside reference. Although I was careful about that outside reference I am sure that many would not be. So I will agree that the outside references do not invalidate this argument against self-references.

Nick Beeson (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick – relevant info at WP:Secondary sources. • Ling.Nut 06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Moon

I have nominated Moon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Serendipodous, just wanted to ask: when is a good time to do a lead-replace? I was thinking perhaps after all the rest of the article has been checked over and cited, but wanted to have consensus on the replacement text first. Would having my draft lead on the talk page instead of the FAR help with this? Iridia (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Thanks for going through and adding those citations. I have to get Moon#Human understanding and Moon#Current_era:_1990-present sorted out, then I'll be joining you. There's a lot of nice content in Human understanding that I don't want to take out, but it needs to be about half its present length - I'll probably stuff it into here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridia (talk • contribs) 06:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Still have to figure out what to do with In culture. Calendar, mythology, art...anything else? Plus I wonder if there should be some coverage of lunar effects on the biosphere, and of Earth albedo measurements from earthshine in Orbit and relationship to Earth. But it's 95 kb and growing... Iridia (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Neptune archival

Hello Serendipodous,

I noticed you archived all of the discussions on the Neptune talk page, including some that have recently been active. In fact you archived a recent topic where I was trying to post a reply.—RJH (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Saturn

In case you are interested there is a new book about Saturn. Ruslik_Zero 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Toes

My toes are fine. I can't say that I've noticed any of your changes to my edits that weren't at least as good, if not better, that what I'd contributed. RandomCritic (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

Hello Serendipodous. First of all, I want to tell you that it is not true that I feel badly about the article. The opposite is true: I feel enthusiastic about it. That is why I am trying to study it in detail, including reading some of its sources, and so from time to time I come across something which seems to need more clarification, so I point it out.

I do not think it is necessary to send the article into FAR, because the problems I have pointed out are just minor. I asked for FAR with some other article (which suffered much more serious problems) some time ago, and the FAR administrators expressed the opinion that the problems should be discussed just on the article's talk page first and the article should go to the FAR process only if nobody tries to solve them.

I would also like to ask about the last ref which you added after my request. I cannot see anything about 30% likelyhood of the Sun being ejected in the provided source, there is just written that "In all likelihood, these interactions will push the Sun out into the new galaxy's outer halo".

Thank you very much. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

2 billion +

There are that many potential dual language English speakers from China, India and the East and their names for Neptune in there own script was neglected but the 20 million upper limited dual language Hebrew speakers were given preference. That's two orders of magnitude notability gap which I don't comprehend. Help me understand this. I was watching Nova last night and ended up at Neptune and was totally baffled by that dropped in naming statement. I read Science News, Scientific American, watch Nova faithfully and it just seemed totally out of place. Alatari (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Tritonfrost.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tritonfrost.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

:)

Aww, thanks! Am enjoying watching all the videos. Working on that was a lot of fun: cheers for helping out with the referencing! Iridia (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Listrow

I added density to this template and created documentation. Ruslik_Zero 12:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter: Evanna Lynch

WikiProject Harry Potter has been rather inactive recently. I've been working on the Evanna Lynch article lately, and have based it off the featured article Emma Watson. I thought I'd ask if you would like to collaborate on the article, as part of a possible WikiProject revival. Leave your response at the article's talk page. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ben Gascoigne

Hi Serendipodous, i know you're interested in Astronomy / solar system stuff. If you were willing to take a look at the above article, about a recently-deceased Australian astronomer, i'd welcome any suggestions before i take it to FAC. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC nomination of Harry Potter

I have just nominated Harry Potter to be a featured article. I just wanted to let you know, since I saw you were it's top contributor, so maybe you could help me on some of it's processes. Thanks.Guy546^(Talk) 16:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me fix "The Elephant House" picture? It has a caption, but it got messed up when I put alt text on it. Thanks.Guy546^(Talk) 17:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks.Guy546^(Talk) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing out sections that are duplicated elsewhere

Hi - if you chop out a section from an article because it's duplicated elsewhere as you did with this edit [1], you need to put in a link to the other article. Your edit left the list without any reference to Lu Tze. I've restored the section with no content but a link to the History Monks section with the information about him. Exxolon (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nano?

I thought you'd snuck "iPod" into the name on purpose, and then I read your explanation on your user page. Well, I least I won't be mispronouncing your name anymore :D – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review of Harry Potter

Per the failed FAC, I am putting Harry Potter up for another peer review. I would extremely be grateful if you helped me fix some of the things listed on there to make it easier for me to fix up alot of the article. Thanks. Guy546^(Talk) 02:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoxne Challenge

Hey, did you get my message re. the "Hoxne Challenge"? Can you come? Witty Lama 14:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If your concern is area of expertise (rather than interest or time availability) then I wouldn't worry about that! We do have some subject area expert wikipedians attending and we will, of course, have the experts in the form of the curators. What I want to make sure we have is not trying to match them in their area of expertise but to have our required skillset (namely - people who can write FAs) well represented. In that case - you fit the bill in spades! Hopefully that will convince you to come along, really, you would be most welcome. What do you say? Witty Lama 17:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ping? This event was largely born out of our discussion at the wikimeetup so it would be a shame not to have you there if you're unsure about whether you would be of use. Yes - you would be of use :-) Witty Lama 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your signup - you sell yourself too short, too modest :-) I was hoping you might be able to join us in person when I originally invited you. Is that possible? Or, as you say on the signup, you're not sure if you have the time. Witty Lama 22:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

History timelines

Mention them at the talk of relevant wikiprojects (history, is there a timeline wikiproject?). Mention them at the talk of relevant articles (history of the world, etc.). Link them from articles; maybe create some nice template that would fit in more articles - and add it to them. Bottom line: advertise :) Good luck, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Hello, Serendipodous. You have new messages at Talk:Titan_(moon)#Circulatory.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mkdw^talk 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Moons of Neptune

I have just finished the last list of satellites. Sorry to bother you, but may I ask you to look at this article before I nominate it? Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit. The sentence refers to the past. I tried to clarify this. Ruslik_Zero 19:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Discworld thing

Personally, I don't think the data I removed from the technology article needs to be preserved. The stuff on the Clacks in particular was just a condensed version of Going Postal, and I believe there's a Discworld wiki for that amount of detail. My main concern is bringing up the quality of the technology article, and shifting the info rather than deleting it seemed like it would annoy people least. --Helenalex (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Trans-Neptunian objects

I know a bunch of us have been less than keen for a while on the state of Template:Trans-Neptunian objects, and I finally felt motivated to try and go through the necessary bureaucratic steps to put the old girl out to pasture. Please consider contributing at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Trans-Neptunian objects. The Tom (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Pluto

75.67.112.79 here. An entirely acceptable compromise. Rolls off the tongue a bit more than my wording, and still resolves the issue that encouraged the edit in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.112.79 (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sitchin Due Diligence

Thank you for riding herd on the yahoos who keep wanting to inflate Sitchin's biography. Personally, I am aghast at the gullibility of so many "gentle readers" out there. One does not need to be a genius to see through the egregious silliness of Sitchin's scenario in which intelligent life, similar to Earth's (because the Nibiruans can mate with Earthlings), arises on a planet that spends over 90% of the time beyond Pluto, where it is dark and cold (Sitchin's rebuttals to these criticisms are pathetic) millions of years sooner than intelligent life arises on Earth which is the ONLY planet in the Solar System that resides in the Sun's habitable zone. Phaedrus7 (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my Talk page. It seems as though all the skeptics exhausted their interest in ancient aliens with von Daniken (and even then I do not recall any academics who participated in the debunking). However, in his recent book Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-Religions, Ronald Fritze takes on Sitchin quoting/citing other commentators. James Oberg reviewed The 12th Planet scathingly in a 1978 Skeptical Inquirer, which is not mentioned in the entry. Back in late 1995 on sci.archaeology Michigan Assyriologist Piotr Michalowski posted several critiques of Sitchin's linguistics/translations, but he vowed he'd never polish it up for formal publication. Despite this, about a year or so ago editor Doug Weller uploaded some of Michalowski's posts to the Sitchin talk page, which by now may have been archived. The point of my first comments today was that were any rational, thinking person to step back from Sitchin's presentation and look at the incongruity of the relation between Earth and Nibiru, they'd have to conclude Sitchin was a "professional crank", a term coined by Manchester geographer Richard J. Huggett in a 2002 article in Area, "Cranks, conventionalists and geomorphology" which he applied to Velikovsky. Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Signature.

Sir
I am experienceing some difficulty in imputing this:

as my signature. It says "Please check HTML tags". Can you see anything wrong with it?
Regards,
I, Englishman (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

<b>[[User:Serendipodous|<font color="#00b">Serendi</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Serendipodous|^{<font color="#b00">pod</font>}]]<font color="#00b">[[User talk: Serendipodous|ous]]</font></b>

Sir,

I am forever indebted to you.

Regards,

I, Englishman^{Wouldst thou speak? • Handiwork} 00:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Signpost article

Would you care to comment on your article, 90377 Sedna, in reference to Wikipedia:FCDW/3000? As in what your feelings working on the article? Nt: This is the 3000th FA by section as well. Regards, ResMar 23:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi! It's Marskell

Hi Serendip! I'm here under a new account. My old account at User:Marskell had its password scrambled accidentally; I believe something similar happened to you in the past.

I'd like to start contributing again to space FAs, etc. I need the admin tools to edit-protect FA and User pages and whatnot but the Wiki interface has gotten so confusing I don't know how to (re)-self-nominate myself.

Do you want to do an old friend a favour and nominate me? Newer editors might find it weird but I'm sure I can handle the questions. I have more than 22,000 edits and various "badges" that should impress the newbies.

About 24 hours from now would be fine. Cheers, Timothymarskell (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look for the transclusion on the RfA page tomorrow. Timothymarskell (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Serendip. There's been a flurry of discussion on my talk as expected. No need to push back regarding it.

So what's new in the world of Titan? You really also ought to get the August edition of National Geographic. The photography is exceptional. Timothymarskell (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

is an admin, but went on an extended wikibreak . . . .

Heh, this is not how that works. He would just need to get the old account password reset. Or ask to have the admin flag moved to the new account. I know of no instance where one person anc hae more than one admin flagged account. Also, there are references of another ArbCom related issue that has bearing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Breaking intentional disambig links.

Please do not create false positives in disambiguation link reports by breaking intentional disambig links, as you did with this edit. WP:INTDABLINK mandates that these links route through "foo (disambiguation)" redirects. bd2412 T 03:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello from William! WilliamH (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

why did you revert this?

[2] - I'm not sure it was the best source (I posted one to the talk page) just as a matter of principal - why the reversion? Smkolins (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah - I had missed that it was below. Last time I looked it wasn't there. Thanks. Smkolins (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful of 3RR violations

I noticed with great interest your edits to the Solar System article. While I understand your eagerness to make the language correct, Wikipedia has a pretty hard-and-fast rule against reverting edits to a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. My understanding is that the process is supposed to be BOLD-REVERT-DISCUSS (see WP:BRD), not BOLD-REVERT-REVERT-REVERT-REVERT-REVERT-REVERT-DISCUSS. I'm not gonna make anything of it but someone else might and I thought you should know. L8R! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved your reply (just below this line) to this page. As requested on my Talk page, please reply where I wrote, not somewhere else. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 03:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood, but I only made two reversions, and the issue was resolved on the talk page. Serendi^podous 19:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

First, please do not mislabel your edits. When you updated my Talk page, you marked the edit "(→False accusations of vandalism at Goddard)", which it most certainly is not. If you need help with the editing tools, just ask; there are many people that will be happy to assist you.

Second, I never said you had exceeded 3RR; your edits were contentious, though (a reversion of a reversion is usually a violation of WP:BRD), and it looked like it was worth mentioning, especially since your knowledge level seems to be quite high and we don't need to lose brainpower like that to petty bickering. You can be sanctioned for "edit warring" even if you don't exceed the 3RR limit; that's what I wanted to tell you.

What should have happened: Eduardo Sellan III makes a BOLD change. You don't like it and REVERT it. You both go and DISCUSS it on the Talk page. Neither you nor anyone else should revert the reverts, which is what was happening.

This was just some friendly advice; please take it at face value. I can assure you, though, that if you engage in contentious editing, someone will complain. I just don't want you to be caught by surprise. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 03:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Caught!

...Ha, I nearly did the same: there I was, thinking "bloody IPs", but like you I guess, checked the ref and there it was, clear as day. Good to know we're all on the case! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Serendipodous's Day!

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)