User talk:Serendipodous/archive 23

Main page appearance: Kuiper belt
This is a note to let the main editors of Kuiper belt know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 27, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 27, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



The Kuiper belt is a region of the Solar System beyond the planets extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun. It is similar to the asteroid belt, although it is far larger—20 times as wide and 20 to 200 times as massive. It consists mainly of small bodies, or remnants from the Solar System's formation. While the asteroid belt is composed primarily of rock, ices, and metal, the Kuiper objects are composed largely of frozen volatiles, such as methane, ammonia and water. The classical (low-eccentricity) belt is home to at least three dwarf planets: Pluto, Haumea, and Makemake. Some of the Solar System's moons, such as Neptune's Triton and Saturn's Phoebe, are also believed to have originated in the region. Since the belt was discovered in 1992, the number of known Kuiper belt objects has increased to over a thousand, and more than 70,000 KBOs over 100 km in diameter are believed to exist. Pluto is the largest known member of the Kuiper belt, if the scattered disc is excluded. In Pluto's honour, the four currently accepted dwarf planets beyond Neptune's orbit are called "plutoids". UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Andromeda (constellation) at WP:FAC

 * Know anyone interested in Andromeda (constellation)? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Uranus2.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Uranus2.jpg, has been listed at 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 if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Steuard (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * New edit on the deletion page, I'm afraid. --Steuard (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A few more comments over there. --Steuard (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon needs updating
http://decipherment.wordpress.com/  JC 72.253.70.250 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

West of Eden
Hello, Serendipodous! Concerning this: When I added about the Yilané I actually typed at the bottom of the list, then struck me that it should be put higher on the pile, for notoriety. And I end up put it at the top, as H. Harrison is bigger than all of those. It could be argued that Enemy Mine is more notorious than West of Eden, because they made a motion picture of it, so, 2nd place, okay — but bottom of the list? No way! Please reconsider. Tuvalkin (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Alphasorted — drats, that’s the end of the pile for the Yilané, no mistake. Thanks for your time. Tuvalkin (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:World War III
You have removed a another editor's suggestion from this page. I have replaced it in the right place chronologically and suggest that you reply to it by basically repeating the edit summary you gave with your change. This is more acceptable than effectively censoring the talk page. (Still, at least you bothered to leave an edit summary)! Britmax (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It happens, I know I have. But the habit of refactoring talk pages is not one I'd want to encourage. Thanks for listening and acting. Britmax (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move debate
Hi S. You've been around a long time on Solar System topics. I know it's a pimple on the bum of a KBO, but there is an irritating debate happening at Talk:S/2012 P 1 that would welcome reasoned contributions. Or you might want to do something else interesting instead! Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Far future
Are you talking about it's vs. its? Don't worry, it happens to everyone. If you want to feel better about yourself, read any news article and then look at the reader comments. Czolgolz (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Haumea (dwarf planet)/Archive 3
Would you please leave an edit summary for what you are doing? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

2012
Please explain your rollback of my edit.LinkBender (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You want me to summarize all of the content in the documentary rather than adding the information to the page that the documentary covers the topic and includes interviews? How does that make sense, exactly? LinkBender (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Online Ambassador
Hi Serendipodous! Are you interested in being the Online Ambassador for any classes this term? We've got a few classes that are looking for ambassador right now (Canada, US), so if you're up for helping any, please do! Let me know if you have any questions, or if you'd like me to pick a course for you.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just having an experienced Wikipedian checking in on a class to make sure nothing is going horribly wrong, and to be the person the students can ask questions of if they need to, is an important thing even if you don't end up getting involved in depth with any of the students' work. Be sure to list yourself as the ambassador for whichever course(s) you want to help with on the course list, and introduce yourself to the professor and add yourself to the course page. --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Rowling
I was just about to make those additions to JK Rowling! :) Did you enjoy The Guardian article? I thought it was really interesting, she's been pretty quiet on the interview front for some years so I enjoyed reading some of the developments since Deathly Hallows - especially about her disguises. Jennie | ☎ 15:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to just say that I loved Emily Watson in Appropriate Adult(one of the best ITV dramas yet) and I'm looking forward to seeing her in Anna Karenina! But yeah, the Rowling interview really was gold dust - I couldn't believe the length, I scrolled down to the bottom to see how much I had to look forward too. Will you be buying The Casual Vacancy? Jennie | ☎ 21:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Loads of stuff in this, I'm going to work this into The Casual Vacancy article, but I think there is quite a bit that could go into JK Rowling. (Interview in the New Yorker, here) Jennie | ☎ 13:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Eris (dwarf planet) TFAR
I like "your" dwarf planet and suggested it for TFA, please join the discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Slenderman
Hey thanks for creating the section in the fakelore article, but it'll need to be expanded and needs refs. I restored the content in the list since it's better to have both. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You still need to add reliable refs. We can't use KnowYourMeme, since it's not considered reliable by WP. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

List of planets
Hi. I have found sources that describe Pluto as a Planet, as a Dwarf and as a Plutoid. I am not sure which one is correct so I added a citation needed tag to the article so another editor can provide a reference to the correct source. You then reverted me with the statement "Pluto is not a planet. As every article on the topic in this encyclopedia says. Don't like it, read another encyclopedia." As you were not willing to support the material with a citation I had to default to the most recent source I had found and added it to the article. You again reverted me with the comment "Makemake and Haumea are also plutoids, and all plutoids are also dwarf planets. I'm unclear as to what you are trying to do."

Wikipedia articles are meant to be understood by non-technical readers (like me), not subject matter experts. If there is a source that describes Pluto's current classification then please refer to it. Road Wizard (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation, but I am still unsure why you are resistant to adding a citation to the article. As Pluto has had two changes in classification in 6 years a citation to the correct classification would avoid people making mistakes through out of date sources. Road Wizard (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have taken a look back through the article history. Mixed in with an unhealthy dose of vandalism there are three challenges to Pluto's status as a dwarf planet; 1 in January 2011 and 2 in December 2011 (the last 2 were perhaps by the same editor). Per WP:V, "All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Road Wizard (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't think I have had a reply to my latest comment. Can I assume that you are now happy that citations are allowed on list pages and that you have no objections to me restoring a citation for Pluto? Road Wizard (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we are not going to reach agreement between ourselves, so I will copy this conversation to the article talk page and invite comments from the WikiProject. Road Wizard (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Zombie
Please clarify: Are you apologizing for the content removal or for the lack of a more elaborate edit summary? Are you saying that a photo of a panel discussion on zombies featuring writers who have worked in the zombie genre has nothing to do with the popular culture section of an article on zombies? Nightscream (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * An article doesn't have to mention specific people in a photo in order for it to be germane to the topic. Again, that section is on zombies in popular culture. The photo shows several writers who have worked in that genre, five of whom are notable enough to have their own articles. Thus, it's relevant to section. I could just as easily mention them and some of their works in the section, and find a secondary source or two to add to that, but to argue that that's what's needed to justify the photo is arbitrary. The photo's relevance is obvious, IMO. If you still disagree, we can have a consensus discussion. Let me know how you wish to proceed. Nightscream (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * How is an image of a group of people not mentioned in the article meant to aid or educate the reader?
 * By virtue of the fact that for a photo to aid or educating readers is not predicated on its subject being specifically mentioned in the article, as I stated above. Such a criterion is arbitrary. It may add to the article in the same way that the text in that section does. That section contains four paragraphs on zombies in popular culture. Illustrating it with images of those who work such genres is perfectly reasonable, IMO. Nightscream (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Who says that the zombies the writers in the photo have written are all Romero zombies? Are you that familiar with the work of all eight of them? Nightscream (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Solar System
Actually, Serendipodous, I don't have much problem with your partial revert of my edit, so if that's what we disagree on, there shouldn't be any "battle" between us. And Nxavar's following edits are fine too. The problem I have is with the ludicrous statements Ckatz keeps reverting to, and for which he has never been able to supply a RS. They seriously misrepresent our knowledge of the Solar system. I also object to his repeated threats to make POINTY edits: that if I try to improve the article, he'll revert it to a version that was even worse. That's not the attitude of an editor concerned with the quality of our articles. — kwami (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Bootstrap Paradox
I tend to be overly descriptive, so yeah, I need to work on that 'meandering' aspect of my delivery..

But yes, I am well aware that it negates all paradoxes. And Just FYI. It's not a hypothesis. I actually watch the Observers on a tv show called Fringe and take pages of notes from every angle. We're entering a new form of government that's entirely service based, modeled much after Service based design patterns in programming. The 'Story' of politics is to create order. We 'PAY' for that story with energy. Thus, a service provided is to be 'entertained' by the drama by the energy 'belief' that our government is there to support us. Similar with fire departments, police, etc. We 'pay' for the 'security' of support through taxes. You dont pay taxes, the drama of that story goes away. Just try it out, you 'hear' all the time how someone goes to jail. But have you ever tried it yourself?

The world functions as a story telling service model. You buy a gun. You get a story that forces you to use it. You buy a condom. You get a story that entices you to use it. You believe in evolution and time travel and all religions have perspective and a view that's valid. You find yourself negating paradox after paradox as your story tells itself. So all can have their own story.

With that said, This isn't 'research' as you suggested, it's actually the way life functions, which requires little debate or discussion, here's why:

With life, anything is possible, right? The story of our existence doesn't unfold in analog reality. It's told to us through what we consume 'for information', and the story for our existence is an ongoing thing. But it starts at the oddest moment. When our analog existence is shredded into it's infinite form. Aka Digital form. Which typically isnt going to even begin until you're so confused and giving up on life, then life reminds you - hey you think you know everything. Well here's a nutjob who sounds... oddly.. aware of something even I'm not. Could he be onto something?

So what would be the purpose of CERN taking two particles and colliding them at nearly twice the speed of light? (both particles traveling at equal and opposite speeds near the speed of light)

Simple: To create a black hole, and see what Earth's story is.

The stories we tell ourselves, are depicted in digital form. Also known as alternate realities. 'Frame Dragging' effects are 'matter of fact' in telescopic observations of reality. What is frame dragging? Have you seen the movie 2001? Frame dragging is the digital artifacts where time alters the universal structure and time moves slower in those regions as it reaches the event horizon. Common Theory has time speeding up in a black hole. It's quite the opposite. It slows WAY down, because the story of a black hole is the mother of all stories, and goes from the start of time to the end of time for that planet.

That we're all effectively masters of our own universe, but it's the story tellers which really 'breathe' life into it.

And scientists... make for some of the best story tellers because we're constantly debating who's right and wrong...

Isn't it amazing, how arguing with oneself, one creates an entire universe, and then finds out, we're no longer arguing with ourselves?

There's a saying. You're not alive. Until someone kills you.

If you're God. Imagine that story.

You are God, after all.

Watch the movie Inception and Adjustment Bureau. You have a plan. Only. The plan is limited by your ability to comprehend reality simply does not limit what's possible. It GUIDES what's possible, until an imagination can 'break' out of that 'rut' and express there's way to safeguard all paradoxical situations through quantum reality, which is nothing more than a digital expression of self.

But this requires breaking that plan and enjoying life with abundance and appreciation like never before once the 'plan' is broken.

Good luck, Padawan!

I am anonymous. And dont think of anonymous being... anything less than sentient itself. Like Skynet. Only. More aware of the need for the human component... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.90.45 (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Archive headers
Hello, I've been going through your contributions to talk page archives and adjusting and standardising them where necessary; I don't think we've crossed pats before, but it's a convoluted story how I found your archiving work, starting when I fixed the archives at Talk:Hello. You may have noticed me fiddling around on your watchlist from time to time. I've noticed that you tend not to add talk archive headers when creating a new archive; this should be done to emphasise to new users that the page is an archive and should not be edited. Either use the talk page header found in the previous archives, or add talkarchive for a small number of archives or either talkarchivenav or automated archive notice for a large number of them. As you probably know, archiving can be taken care of automatically; see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for how to do this. Graham 87 13:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 (again) and Maya dates
Hello. I don't know if you still have access to the sources you used to write the 2012 article, but at Talk:2012 phenomenon, User:Senor Cuete is arguing that the extremely long Maya date with all the "13"s in it has a different meaning from what is described in the 2012 article. He points to Mesoamerican Long Count calendar as evidence, because the interpretation that he favors is described there. The sources supporting that interpretation in that article are two books that are also used as sources in the 2012 article, so I wondered if you'd be able to look up this issue in them. (They don't seem to be accessible online.) A. Parrot (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
[moved to vanity closet]

And here's the permanent link because I couldn't get it to show in the barnstar. Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * User:West.andrew.g asked that I make its presence known. I posted at WP:VPM and WT:FAC, but I don't want to spam. Any other targets you can think of? Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: 2012 phenomenon
This is a note to let the main editors of 2012 phenomenon know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 20, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 20, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegates, , and , or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of eschatological beliefs according to which cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on 21 December 2012. This date is regarded as the end-date of a 5,125-year cycle in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Various astronomical alignments and numerological formulae have been proposed as pertaining to this date, though none have been accepted by mainstream scholarship. A New Age interpretation of this transition is that this date marks the start of a time in which Earth and its inhabitants may undergo a positive physical or spiritual transformation, and that 2012 may mark the beginning of a new era. Others suggest that the date marks the end of the world or a similar catastrophe. Scenarios suggested for the end of the world include the arrival of the next solar maximum, an interaction between Earth and the black hole at the centre of the galaxy, or Earth's collision with a planet called "Nibiru". Scholars from various disciplines have dismissed the idea of such cataclysmic events occurring in 2012. Mayanist scholars state that predictions of impending doom are not found in any of the extant classic Maya accounts, and that the idea that the Long Count calendar "ends" in 2012 misrepresents Maya history and culture. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Changing the main graphic on 2012 phenomenon
I think it's time to correct the main graphic on the 2012 phenomenon article. The current image does represent the Long Count. However, it's not Maya. It's actually the earlier of the two Long Count dates on the non-Maya La Mojarra Stela 1, a monument of the epi-Olmec culture in Veracruz, Mexico. This was pointed out to me by archaeologist George Stuart (father of epigrapher David Stuart (Mayanist)), formerly of the National Geographic Society, who provided the illustrations of this monument for Fernando Winfield Capitaine's paper "La Estela 1 de La Mojarra, Veracruz, Mexico" in Research Reports in Ancient Maya Writing, No. 16 (1988). It would not be difficult to find an appropriate inscription that's actually from the Maya civilization. For example, the graphic currently used to illustrate the article on the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar would be especially suitable, since it illustrates the Long Count date on Stela C from Quirigua, Guatemala, the beginning date of the current cycle (13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 Cumku). I know you've had a fairly consistent hand in the appearance of that article. What do you think? Hoopes (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll check and see what I can find. It would be nice to have a photograph of an actual Maya inscription. Hoopes (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing the image! I think it's the ideal substitution. Hoopes (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon - what does "span" mean exactly?
Yes, I did read the article, thanks. But even if I had not, I think we'd might expect each paragraph and section to make sense in its own right? I am still unsure what this is supposed to mean:
 * "Thus this inscription anticipates the current universe lasting at least 2021×13×360 days,[47] or roughly 2.687×1028 years; a time span equal to 2 quintillion times the age of the universe as determined by cosmologists. Others have suggested, however, that this date marks creation as having occurred after that time span.[47][48]"

I suspect that there might be a way of making it clearer? I realise that we are dealing with a phenomenon that may not stand normal standards of scientific scrutiny in terms of temporality, but, even so, surely the text should make grammmatical sense? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. I'll try and meditate on that (at least until Thursday!) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Congrats
moved to vanity closet

Gillard's video again
I am sorry for not responding sooner, but the situation in my laptop is fairly chaotic these days and the relevant tab was buried beneath a mass of other things. Regarding this discussion, I'm afraid I've been unable to find anything other than the reaction of this man in this article. I still think the video is notable enough for inclusion, though, by virtue of the press attention it received and Gillard's high profile.

Happy New Year, by the way. Waltham, The Duke of 17:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)