User talk:Serendipodous
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1: Up to December 2006
Archive 2: Selections
Contents |
[edit] BTW (re: Solar System)
I wanted to mention that my comments on Solar System shouldn't be taken too seriously if you don't like them (i.e., I won't be offended). Actually, I think it's a really good article already, you've done a stellar (ha ha) job with it. I just thought combining the planet sections might be one way to be more concise and shorten the article (although I understand that it may be no easy feat). I'm going to very much enjoy seeing this article at featured status someday.--Will.i.am 09:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, it wasn't misleading. I got the gist both times. :) And I really didn't think that you objected, I just wanted to emphasize that "these are ONLY suggestions." I'm hoping that over the holiday I might get in to give Solar System a good copy-edit (which I see you've been working on). I was also going to mention that another way to get more opinions would be to go after specific people in the Space Exploration, Spacecraft, etc. Wikiprojects. Generally they're very willing to give a read through if you just leave a note on their talk page. The more people that look at it the better (and all that). Cheers!--Will.i.am 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- And now I HAVE seen it as FA! Congratulations!--Will.i.am 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I read the rather lengthy FAC page for Solar System and it looked rather toxic dumpy as well. Your patience throughout that process impressed me! These days I've been pretty reclusive trying to finish up my degree, hence the "diverse" (read that random) and rather few (unfortunately) smattering of user contributions. But don't worry, if I need an extra set of eyes on anything I'll come a calling. :-) Let me know if you need anything else reviewed! --Will.i.am 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- And now I HAVE seen it as FA! Congratulations!--Will.i.am 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You're welcome
I hardly did anything, you deserve all the credit. But it seemed unfair to let you struggle on alone where I could chip in. I'll give the whole thing a proof read for you today. Spiral Wave 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll take a look, but I doubt I know any more than you. I'll see if I can dig up a reference or two I can understand. BTW, I had a quick scan (again) and the science content at least seemed in order, but I left off a full proof read since it seems there are still changes being made. Spiral Wave 16:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- There, I've had a go. I'm sure someone with any real knowledge of the subject will come along and think 'Oh my God, what has he written?!' but it's the best I can do in an afternoon. Hopefully such a someone will feel compelled to fix whatever's factually incorrect. But it should satiate your redlink critics, at least. Spiral Wave 19:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, I'll have a go. As it happens I have a little bit more to add to galactic tide - tidal tails/collisions is in itself a big topic and it should have more than a single sentence in the text. Plus it will let me move the Mice image down a bit when it's done, so the page looks nicer (I like the images, but they feel a bit cramped at the moment). I had printed myself off some reading materials so I can get it right, but I was just thinking much of this new stuff would be better in interacting galaxy. So I guess now you've been asked, we might as well do it. I won't have much time till the weekend though. And hey, it's nice to feel wanted, eh? ;) Spiral Wave 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- A colleague gave me some extra stuff to read, so I can make a passable attempt at knowing what I'm talking about here. Not got through it all yet, but just thought I'd let you know I'm still working on it. Spiral Wave 01:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was initially worried about the overlap too, but it turns out there's plenty to go on the interacting page that doesn't belong on tides. (By rights, it should be much bigger than tides, but I know nowhere near enough to get that sort of detail.) I'll see to it, don't worry, it's just that I'm out of my depth too! So I have to do a little reading first. I'd like you to have a read through once I've done it though - your fine-tuning really helped with galactic tides. I've added subheadings to that, see what you think. (Unfortunately it's made the similarity between the two worse, at least until I add to the other article.) Spiral Wave 11:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, thank you! It was a team effort. And congratulations on your graduation! Spiral Wave 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] E-mail?
You should confirm an e-mail for this. John Reaves (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jill Murphy
I am sure that I read an interview somewhere with Jill Murphy, where she explictly said there were no bad feelings towards Rowling, and that in fact the success of the Harry Potter books had rekindled interest in her own. Unfortunately, I have not been able to track down that quote. Looking back, it's probably well over five years since I read it, who knows if the interview still exists online. The first time I ever ran a search for "Harry Potter" on altavista (this was before I had ever heard of google) I only got 6 hits for the phrase, so you can imagine I've been into this for a while... --woggly 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite of interacting galaxy
I saw your work at galactic tide. Since you seem to be on top of the subject, could you please rewrite interacting galaxy? Dr. Submillimeter 15:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Solar system suggestion
My suggestion was flippant, but basically what I was saying, is your article could point to another Main article about "When you can see the planets in the sky", and "original observations that led to certain deductions that can be spotted by the barenaked eye in the sky, and the "circular arcs you can trace in the sky over many hours, and how you can determine south, north, east, west with them". It's another article, and though related to this article it doesn't have any bearing on your FAC. But a good book on the subject is Thomas S. Kuhn's The Copernican Revolution.-BiancaOfHell 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hi Serendip
I'm OK, though a little busy with WP:FAR. I've not been working much on Astro-bio articles lately (though I did bring Barnard's star up to FA late last year). Right now, I'm working on Norte Chico, which I'm enjoying.
Re the Definition of article, my point from a while back still stands: I believe the IAU definition should be the first point made, and from there the intro should move backward to historical ambiguity. I haven't looked at it closely beyond the lead recently, but will try to soon. Good to hear from you, Marskell 15:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I didn't actually realize it was on FAC when you posted to me. Kudos on the re-promotion. Marskell 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] British Isles
See BI talk re the Faroes. Hughsheehy 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Turok
Hi. I've responded to your comment at User talk:Flyguy649#Turok's back. Flyguy649talkcontribs 19:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just so you know, this has gotten really crazy. This person (or people) have over 45 socks. See the following: "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Turok 1" and "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Turok 19". You can link them from the bottom of User:Turok 01 and User:Turok 19. Regards, Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- We've actually moved all the socks to the Turok 1 Acct. This is likely a long-term sockpuppeteer who does this to have fun. Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Aha! We're both leaving messages at the same time. If you're into vandal patrol, then I'd say watch the new user creation logs for suspicious names and new users who start editing suspiciously. In general, if you happen to revert the same vandalism from different users, it's likely sockpuppetry. In that case when you report the user to WP:AIV (assuming the vandalism is at that point), add a note that the user is a sock of the other user. Attacks like yesterday are unusual in how long it went on, though. And feel free to ask questions of me or any other experienced user. Cheers! Flyguy649talkcontribs 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Galactic tide
Hmmm, i didn't know the user changed it to B-class, but B class isn't a big deal (unless it needs to go through some sort of review in the Wikiproject). A GA reviewer will eventually review the article, i took a brief look but science isn't my area, but i spotted two minor things - only text in the first sentence should be bolded per WP:MOS and the one paragraph sentence under Effects on external galaxies should be merged into the paragraph under it. There's currently a big backlog at the GA page - 183 to be exact, someone will eventually review it but it can take awhile. M3tal H3ad 10:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your GA nomination of Galactic tide
The article Galactic tide you nominated as a good article has failed 
, see Talk:Galactic tide for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't know about you, but I expected that. I thought it was a bit short for a GA, TBH. But to only fail on three points... I think it's worth trying to finish, and get that promotion. I'll have a think about what "major aspects" can go in. Hopefully that will provide/contribute towards an "adequate introduction"; then that just leaves the jargon, which presumably refers mostly to the italicised terms. Those can be explained easily enough. Spiral Wave 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- PS Thanks for all your help so far! I would never have bothered to submit it for review in the first place... :) Spiral Wave 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
