User talk:Samuel Sol/Archives 1

Brazil DDD
Hey mate, I saw the change you made to add back (0aa)on the area code, I just want to know the reason why? I don't see any other number these days been written like that. Only old ads. That´s why I thought it should go. Samuel Sol 10:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be better then to just add a note saying it's the historical way of writing DDD numbers. Wikipedia is not only about the present. --cesarb 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi, if you don't mind me saying, it would help others (especially vandalism patrollers) if you'd make better use of edit summaries, especially when making massive edits like this.

I came swooping down ready to rain fire and brimstone on your head, only to find what you'd done was perfectly fine after all. Luckily, I don't have an itchy trigger finger, but if you can explain your edits with a summary that'd help enormously.

Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * by the way, if you find it hard to remember to complete the edit summary (most of us do) there's an option in the preferences that you can tick, which means Wikipedia will automatically remind you. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria
Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability
I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism
The user you reported is not vandalising articles so WP:AIV is not the correct place to raise this. I would suggest in the first instance that you address any concerns or queries about their editing to them via their user talk page. Regards. Adambro (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the msg Adambro. I wasn't clear on where to report, because I thought that probably the England-United Kingdom choice would be a hell of a debate. And I couldn't find a discussion about it and if he was vandalizing agains a consensus. Samuel Sol (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding a personal note, this applies to as well. They may be the same person or friends, but each has only edited once. If the article is subject to ongoing vandalism by variant IPs, you might want to see page protection for it. If these IPs persist, please let us know! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

barnstar

 * Sure. Sounds like a plan. And easier than the one I was going to do by myself...  Serendi pod ous  12:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Neptune
Hi, I noticed you reverted my last edit in Neptune. I intended to do a correction. You see, a difference of 10C equals a difference of 10K (you can see that in Kelvin). Obviously, the difference is not 283K. Also, 283K is approximately 10C, obviously, not the average temperature of nowhere in the planet.

Thanks, 99.231.26.15 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Regards, 99.231.26.15 (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oort cloud
I've now doubled the article's length and number of references, but I can do no more. This article might be good as is, but most serious FA contenders that I've seen have been about ~10K longer. I have to say, you picked a hard one. It would have been a lot easier to get Scattered disc up to FA than Oort cloud, since there is a lot more information on it and we have actually observed it. Still, I wish you the best of luck.  Serendi pod ous  13:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for staying away since wedsneday mate. Family issues kept me away from the computer this whole holiday :/ I will check the article and run with it. I've printed two of the papers and going to work with them. I agree that it was a hard pick, but I didn't know it would be that painfull when I choosed that. Samuel Sol (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Serendipodous completely. Please excuse this, as my computer is acting up so I culdn't leave this on Oort Cloud's talk page. When are you going to nominate for FAC? Just wondering. =) Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me just give a run on the article the next 2 days. I will ask orange to run the en-dash tool and we will probably be good Wednesday or Thursday. Samuel Sol (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. Thanks,  Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions  19:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 trun 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 FAR.  Thanks,  Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions  19:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. And Serendipous clearly needs a break. heeh. I said two days as this is how long it would take me to copyedit and recheck all references. About the pictures, we are in sorry ground there. There ain't more. Since this topic is still pure theorical (the cloud is still a hypothesis), there ain't many pictures, even graphs like those. I will see on the NASA site if there are any artistic expression, or maybe plotings of probability distribuition of objects inside the cloud. But I doubt.


 * I'm still reading 2 of the papers, and trying to understand it enough to add the info from them into the article. I say we work in the article through the rest of the week, until sunday


 * Samuel Sol (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just personal preference. FAs get passed with both styles together so it isn't really much of a problem if you prefer the other way.  Serendi pod ous  20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool Samuel Sol (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should begin wroking on scattered disc as Serendipodous suggested as this would be easier to get to FA. The oort cloud is a tough topic, and I think we should come back to it. Thanks,  Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions  20:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm all for it mate, if you two thing it is better. Again, as I said before, I "choosed" Oort cloud, because I knew of it, but didn't knew about the scattered disk, so I (wrongly) presumed it would be an easier topic. Samuel Sol (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be quite a slog; there's a lot of available material on the scattered disc, not much of which is covered in that article. There are a few more things I'd like to add to the Oort cloud article before we say fie and end it. But by all means have a look at Google Scholar's papers on the disc. The abstracts should give you a starting point.  Serendi pod ous  20:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. Hopefully we can easily bring scattered disc to FA and come back to oort cloud after.   Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions  19:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

usercheck
Maybe. Not sure what the criteria are for a usercheck. In these sorts of situations I usually like to assume good faith, and doesn't each IP have its own computer terminal? In that case I'm not sure a usercheck would be any help.  Serendi pod ous  07:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)