User talk:The shaggy one

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, The shaggy one, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Centaurs

Please give me minute to finish my draft, then you're welcome to edit. Regards Eurocommuter 11:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. When I didn't see an edit for 20 minutes, I assumed you were done editing the article. shaggy 11:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work, by the way!
No problem, Sir (and thanks!). I am happy someone actually reads this obscure stuff! I have to stop for now, anyway. (real life calls) but should be back to complete this draft, and provide a short list of references. Regards Eurocommuter 12:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New look for box headers

There's a discussion on the WikiProject Astronomical objects page regarding a new look for box headers. I was hoping you could drop by and comment. Thank you. — RJH 14:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highest inclination

Hello, I’ve noticed (a month later…) that you removed my comment of 2002 XU93 being the record holder for the ‘Solar System’ in trans-Neptunian object. I’ve read this in some serious paper I’ve forgotten, and it’s of no importance, anyway. But by sheer curiosity, what object in the solar system is orbiting directly the Sun on an orbit more inclined than 78 deg? (No comets please...) Cheers. Eurocommuter 12:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple of the Damocloid asteroids have more inclined orbits, but they have a dynamic relation to comets. I think I removed that particular line because it used absolute language that didn't make it clear some objects weren't being considered in calling it the "most inclined". shaggy 17:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
That’s fine. Thanks Eurocommuter 18:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Shaggy!

Been meaning to say, I've resubmitted the definition of planet article for review since it's been completely overhauled, and there was some concern that the "Sphericity" section's mathematical discussions weren't wholly sourced. Since I know nothing about this issue, I was hoping perhaps you could locate a few sources for me. Thanks! Serendipodous 17:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eris

Hello Shaggy, I don't understand your comment "(there should be no links here, per wp:style)" when you removed the link to the asteroid catalogue on the Eris page. My feeling about the catalogue number is that there is no sense in quoting it in the article if it is not explained. Could you please let me know why you feel this is wrong. Cheers Paul venter 18:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, Looked at your context link

What generally should be linked In general, do create links to:

   * Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.
   * Technical terms, unless they are fully defined in the article and do not have their own separate article. Sometimes the most appropriate link is an interwiki link to Wiktionary.

If the link to the list of asteroids is not in the lead sentence, then it certainly should be immediately after. Not explaining the catalogue number would be a careless omission. Have an excellent day! Paul venter 18:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of solar system objects by mass

Shaggy, on List of solar system objects by mass, you changed the shapes of Neptune's moons Tethys, Enceladus, Mimas, and Uranus's moon Miranda from oblate to prolate spheroids. Where did you find this information? --Iamunknown 01:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota meetup

A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 23:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Alert

An editor has nominated the article Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000) for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000). Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000) during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Urhixidur 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Backpacking

Hello, I noticed you seem to like Backpacking and was wondering if you'd be interested in WikiProject Backpacking, a new project geared towards improving backpacking related articles on Wikipedia. If you'd like to join, show support by signing your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Backpacking and by helping to edit our beta project page at User:Leif902/WikiProject Backpacking. Thank you, and have a nice day! -Leif902 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 You're invited to be a part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. To accept this invitation, click here!


[edit] Chariklo

Hi, I was wondering if you had a picture of the centaur Chariklo, seeing as you made the article. I'm just curious what the planetoid that has everyone stumped about it's rotation looks like.

--IdLoveOne 17:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alaska boundary map

Hi; already commented on the AK Boundary Dispute talkpage but might as well ask here too; the British claim as shown omits the mainland between the Portland Canal and Revillagigedo Island; shouldn't the British claim-line run right down the Portland Canal? The British claim was, after all, the mainland, with only the archipelago percieved to have been Russian (as was indeed what the Russians meant when accommodating British re Fts Taku/Durham and Stikine). Ultimately the article could use closeups of the Pearse Island and lower Portland Canal area boundary adjustments, also the area of Skagway-Bennett Lake and the location of the RNWMP post at the former etc......anyway just thinking that the map, to me, is wrogn; but I haven't read the British claim history in general; but given teh weight palced on the Portland Canal in negotiations it seems unlikely that a line west from Stewart/Hyder to the sea wasn't on their menu.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)