User talk:Serendipodous/User talk:Serendipodous archive 9

Your request
Hello... sorry it took a while to respond. How are things going on the page - it seems to have settled down a bit for now, no? As far as I can tell, you were being very reasonable in how you addressed the concerns. --Ckatz chat spy  07:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA
I am thinking that you are ready to apply for adminship. Of course, it is up to you, but I would be willing to nominate you. Shortly after this I will be checking your edit count as well. Please reply on my talk page, simply because I will not check this page again. Thank you,  Meldshal42 Hit me What I've Done 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wondering, what is your edit count? The wannabe-kate tool is slow so I figured I could get it from you directly.  Thanks,  Meldshal42 Hit me What I've Done  15:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are too humble. If you examine some cases in RfA, there are new users with less than 1,000 edits applying, or at least during the last time I checked.  17,500 edits is more than many users even have doubled.  Hell, that's more than mine doubled eight times!  You have a chance here, I think you should take it.   Meldshal42 Hit me What I've Done  16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright then. I would reccommend one of the coaches with less coachees, because they are the ones who always get their coachees through. For example, Alison would be a great coach if you could get her to coach you.  Good luck.  Meldshal42 Hit me What I've Done  16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for asking about me Serendip. I can't say I'm back for good. I'm working more and it's simply not possible to edit as much as I did last year. I feel sort of guilty (wiki-guilt?!). Anyway, keep me informed what you are up to. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the cake. I suppose the next FA is History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses? Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I only meant it would be logical to do this article first. Ruslik (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am not offended by your comments :). However it may be possible to go to GA instead. Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Formation and evolution of the Solar System
Hello. I'm afraid that while I do specialise in astronomy, the solar system is rather too small scale for me: I mostly work at galactic scales or larger. You're probably best off asking for help at the Astronomy wikiproject. That said, I'll take a look at the article and will leave some comments at the Peer Review. Mike Peel (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think now the article can be nominated. Ruslik (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC) For me the article looks good, but I am not an expert in english language. Ruslik (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was the sentence about possible merges of asteroid belt's embryos with terrestrial planets confusing? If they were ejected from the asteroid belt, some of them could have travelled to the inner Solar System. The Earth was formed by merging of 10–20 embryos; one of them may have originated in the asteroid belt. The water content of a single Moon-sized embryo (10–20%) is more than enough to explain all water on Earth! In fact, such mergers are frequent in all simulations of the terrestrial planet formation. Small icy planetasimals (Jewitt's main belt comets) may have brought some water either, but their contribution was probably smaller. Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Vaporization of water is not the same as the loss of water. Earth is a planet with strong gravity capable of retaining a thick atmosphere. Water is also vaporized when a small body hits the Earth. By the same logic, if all vaporized water is lost, it may not be possible to bring water on Earth at all&mdash;a paradoxal conclusion! You also may want to read this paper. Ruslik (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The article refers to Gomes, at.al. (ref 39), but I can not find anything about the loss of oceans in this paper. Ruslik (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Earth lost its oceans during LHB. I have never read about this in peer reviwed literature. In addition at the time of LHB asteroid belt was already severaly depleted to less than 1% of the Earth's mass. Even if it had contained 10% water by mass it would have brought the total mass of water to 0.1% Earth masses&mdash;the amount of water on the Earth today. It means that to acquire its oceans during LHB Earth would have needed to accrete all remaining water from the asteroid belt, which is impausible. Comets could not help either because of differerent D/H ratio. The conclusions is that the water that is currently on the Earth was acquired form the asteroid belt during the formation of the planets. Ruslik (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think only the second paragraph in LHB section needs a rewrite. Currently it rightly states that the comets can not be resposible for the Earth's water and that the water originated from the asteroid belt. However it should mention that the water was brought to Earth during its formation (not during LHB). The bodies that brought water were probably embryos, but part of the water could be delivered by small planetesimals (i.e. Jewitt's comets) as well. I also noticed that you inserted a kind of timeline. However I think it may not be accepted well in FAC, because it is a long list. It may be beneficial to use a timeline template or move it to a separate article. Ruslik (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just rewrote it. Ruslik (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point
And that is why I have decided to start chipping away at the Middle Earth articles. Don't worry, I want my favorite books, the Lord of the Rings, trimmed back as well as Star Wars and Harry Potter, its just that harry potter is much more advanced in its consolidation than LOTR or Star Wars. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
I mean something like this. Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You can put the event list into a separate article. Ruslik (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say...
That I meant to put a smiley face after my last edit summary. It reads a lot more nastily than it was intended. Sorry. :)  Serendi pod ous  14:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem (no offense taken), but thanks for the note. I was about to start a discussion of whether I should undo the switch to scientific notation; is that unnecessary? :) ASHill (talk | contribs) 14:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC
I think it is time to go. Ruslik (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. I'll tinker forever, but it's ready. ASHill (talk | contribs) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Phobos collision
Hey-

Being a citation pain: You added a timescale of 40 Myr for the Phobos collision from Holsapple (2001) to formation and evolution, but I don't see it in the cited paper; did you mean to cite something else? I tagged it as citation needed. ASHill (talk &#124; contribs) 20:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
As an experienced editor, you can be trusted to use rollback in a safe and productive manner. You may want to read this page for more information pertaining to rollback. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page. Malinaccier (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.
 * You should apply for adminship. I will gladly nominate you if you wish (though I do see a previous message about this). Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It should work automatically...Check in the edit history of an article...A link next to "undo" that says "rollback" should be there... Malinaccier (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Solar evolution
Hi, I just want to one thing. The Sun will become a red giant in about 5 billion years, but long before that the temperature will increase. And the Sun is growing brighter at a rate of roughly ten percent every 1.1 billion years. If this is the case, then within 1.1 billion years, the temperature will increase by 10%. So extinction of civilization/land animals will occur within 1.1 billion years right? (if you consider the solar evolution only as the cause of extinction) Or before 1.1 billion years?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let clarify one thing "my understanding" means you mean land animals will be extinct in 1.1 billion years. My question is if Sun's luminosity increases by 10%, will it destroy major land animals?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Planet Feature Topic
As I've stated before, I like the idea. Outside the alticles that are ok, I think that only 2006 definition of planet and Minor planet require to be in the topic. As for Cleared the neighbourhood, Gas giant and Terrestial planet, they do not have to be a part of the topic. I would rather have Extrasolar planet in the topic rather than any of the previous 3.

As for me contribuiting (I am assuming that is the main reason you contacted me), I am not going to say that I will or that I will not contribute. I have less time these days, but if I get particularly excited about something I will definately help. Otherwise, I will still give a helping hand, but I won't necessarly spend too much time.

Let me know what you think, Nergaal (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * About minor planets: I know it will be hard, but since the definition states 3 categories, I think all of them need to be included. As for the merge, I personally am confused to why are, or why aren't asteroid and minor planets the same thing. Nevertheless, the merge seems to be the way to go. Once this is done, I believe that there will be enough covered for the topic and only stylistic details will need to be solved. Nergaal (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I must be tired. You are right. I looked core closely and here is what I think:

Nergaal (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) minor planet/asteroid issue needs to be solved. Either merge them or clearly state in the articles why aren't they the same thing.
 * 2) 2006 definition of planet needs to be as a part of the topic
 * 3) Gas giant, Tettestrial planet, and Rogue planet are only types of planets and they do not need to be a part of the topic in the beginning. They could though be a part of a future expansion fo the topic.
 * 4) Cleared the neighbourhood is probably covered well enough in the definition, so it does not necessarly have to to be a part of the topic.
 * 5) forget about small solar system body.

Mercury's FAR
Do you know when that will be wrapped up? I need to know because I was wondering when to start work on the final Solar System FT article (Scattered disc), but didn't want to be right in the middle of it if Mercury was suddenly downgraded to B-class.  Serendi pod ous  14:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know because that is up to the FA director. But why would it matter? You can always work on the Scattered disc article first.&mdash;RJH (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Because if Mercury were downgraded to B-class, then the entire featured topic would be on three months' probation before it was removed, whereas Scattered disc can remain up there for good, since it's a GA.  Serendi pod ous  15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The featured article removal candidates last for 2-3 weeks. It appears that Mercury was moved May 4th, so that would make it next weekend at the latest. But nobody has stated keep or remove yet, so I don't know.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Hello,

Please remember to use them. They make life a lot easier for other users. This may appear as page blanking if you don't provide one.--Bit Lordy (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Mercury
I'd like to help with this article, but I don't really know where to start. Could you give me an idea of what is still required?  Serendi pod ous  18:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Serendipodous. The FAR has some useful comments. I think that the bar for meeting FA has simply been raised since Mercury was passed and the article is in need of an update. My concern was that, compared to the other planet articles, this one is insufficiently cited. Ruslik also had some valuable points about lack of comprehensiveness.
 * I've been trying to add some citations and corrected a few (to me) significant errors, but I think it needs much more work to be satisfactory. Also the Messenger mission will undoubtedly provide much more information, so that will need to be merged in as well.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of the issues raised for Mercury are also true for Venus and Mars. Should they be considered for FAR?  Serendi pod ous  18:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of those articles appear well-referenced, compared to how Mercury (planet) was a couple of months back. Perhaps they just need some light housekeeing? If there particular issues, maybe those could just be mentioned on the respective talk pages for now? Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Though the bot hasn't archived it just yet... ding. Now that that's polished off, do you have a game plan for Scattered disc? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And it's official. Congrats on a team effort. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And thank you for the ticket - it'll come in handy, if and when. Much appreciated, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you...
...see the Socratic Barnstar (awarded to good crafters of arguments) that I gave you? Jagun (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

rupes, not wrinkle ridges
You get the prize for most puzzling edit summary. --Doradus (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello there, I noticed on your user page (not your edit history as the template says) you stated an interest in Germanic mythology, and so I'd thought I'd send you this invitation: Maybe you're interested? bloodofox: (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Discussion" at Main Page
Hey there mate :) Checking the discussion about evolution, would a checkuser be warranted, I do suspect the IPs are sockpuppets of Andycjp . I may be wrong, but it does looks really similar. Samuel Sol (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More or less mate. ADSL, usually, everytime you DC and come back later you get assigned a new IP. I do like to assume good faith, but those edits looked pretty fishy to me. Anyone. it is 4 hours past bedtime. I will be broken for work tomorrow. Samuel Sol (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice edit
This was quite interesting! &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 15:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Planet X
Hey there,

First of all, sorry for any pigheaded edit behaviour on my part that might have been perceived as flippancy towards your work... I should reassure you that I'm a big fan of some of the key work you've put in on planetary astronomy topics.

You were quite right to point out that Hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets hadn't been the greatest article in the world, and in most respects presented a lot of the same information as the Planet X article but in an inferior manner, in terms of detail, degree of citation and updatedness (for instance, it seemed a little too obsessed with how Eris was the latest greatest new thing). After whacking away at the two articles for an hour or so, though, I think I've managed to bat the information back and forth such that there was less duplication of content and that the superior versions in terms of quality have prevailed.

I've posted a note at Talk:Hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets, if you'd care to comment. The Tom (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR Block
 You have been blocked for 24 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Selket Talk 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe this block should be lifted. The ONLY edits 155.150.142.156 have done are related to Creationism. -- Kheider (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Best thing to do, though, is to avoid 3RR by getting someone else to look and see if the edits you're reverting are inappropriate. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jpgordon is right ... ask for help. The edits by the anon were clearly crap, but weren't truly vandalism, so it's best to ask for a fresh set of eyes. Fortunately, the anon has been blocked as well.  I've added Oort cloud to my watch list, although I wouldn't have thought that it would be a controversial article.  You also might want to consider filing on WP:AN/I if the anon resumes posting fringe stuff.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment The block on Serendipodous should be lifted - given the exceptional record for contributions, the fact Serendipodous reported the problem, and the IP's history, a warning/opportunity to self-revert would have been more appropriate. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to deal with these issues that doesn't involve lengthy and often pointless requests for arbitration? I mean I understand Wikipedia's desire to retain neutrality but when it comes to creationism in science articles there really cannot be any allowance whatsoever. Such additions may not be vandalism, but they are dangerous misinformation, which is worse. And for the record Jim, this isn't the first time I've had to deal with creationists in this article; though the last one was a bit more civil. The Oort cloud appears to be their foothold in astronomy, where they can let the God of the Gaps in.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  07:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The critical issue is that, if there is any doubt whatsoever that a user's edits are anything other than blatant vandalism, one should seek an outside opinion before reverting a third time or more. If it's clear to you, chances are good it'll be clear to someone else, too. I've contacted the blocking admin on your behalf, and I'm hopeful that, if you were to agree to seek outside counsel in future cases such as this, Selket might consider an unblock. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I'll be unblocked in three hours anyway. Nice to see you fired up about Scattered disc. Lots to do, though, I'm afraid. I'll give a rundown of everything that I've been mulling over once the muzzle comes off.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  14:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Hello? My block's expired. Why am I still blocked? Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  18:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Scattered disc
Hmm. I am facing problmes right now because I passed a couple of articles that were not ready for GA status. Plus, I am trying to get Mt. Baker to FA and anahim hotspot to GA. however, I think that scattered disc is closer to FA status, so I'm willing. Meldshal42  (talk)  19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)