| Revision as of 11:52, 5 September 2009 editFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,187 edits →NPA warning: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:42, 3 September 2021 edit undoPrimeBOT (talk | contribs)Bots2,053,271 editsm →October 2010: Task 24: removal of a template following a TFDTag: AWB | ||
| (129 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == October 2010 == | |||
| ] <br /> | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks''' for ''']''', as you did in . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the ] first. ] <small>(])</small> 01:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --><!-- Template:uw-hblock --> | |||
| ] | |||
| == Re:How about a new article on people, and planets, and tolerance limits? == | |||
| Sure, I am happy to help. | |||
| ] (]) 21:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=Malformed block template, <br /> no real info on reason for block, <br /> looks very fishy to me. <br /> GIVE A REAL REASON. <br /> What is this for and where is the proof?<br /> I don't have a real opportunity to request to be unblocked <br /> because requesting information on this will probably count<br /> as my only allowed request to be unblocked <br /> And I am sure that was done deliberately<br /> So being malformed I ask that it be dismissed.<br /> Also, what ever this is about, two weeks is ridiculously harsh.<br /> Where the improvements made recently considered? |decline=Far too many personal attacks to consider unblocking at this time. ] (]) 02:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability <br /> | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability | |||
| == Bit late but == | |||
| ==do you have a ref for this statement?== | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=55_Cancri_f&diff=226925523&oldid=226921166 | |||
| ] (]) 21:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| This is a bit late but it is completely unacceptable to add back personal attacks and threats of this sort . It could easily lead to a block if you weren't already blocked. In some circumstances, it may be acceptable to mention a comment was removed but in that case, the comment was completely worthless and inappropriate so there was no need. ] (]) 02:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| "FUNDAMENTALS OF ASTRONOMY" (QB43.3.B37 2006) by Dr.Cesare Barbieri, professor of Astronomy at the university of Pauda, Italy. ] (]) 20:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for prolific sockpuppetry compounded with severe, prolonged ] per discussion on ANI. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the ] first. ] <small>(])</small> 02:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> | |||
| == Planetary Human Habitability == | |||
| I've put my two cents worth in on the page. I'm afraid I'm strictly a novice when it comes to topics like this, my own skilsets are in areas other than extrasolar concerns, but I'm a decent copyeditor if this ever gets that far. I'll do some research after work and see what I can find. BTW, your page on Stargen is '''hilarious'''. --<font style="color:#FFF8E7;background:#333399"> '''Logical''' </font><font style="background:#E6E6FA">''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 19:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ]s vs ], ...] == | |||
| You (profile) look like the kind of person who would be interested in making a resonable distinction between what planet environments bacteria can survive and what planet environments people can inhabit:<br /> | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability | |||
| <br /> | |||
| Having difficulty finding the time to wrap up the article.<br /> If you are interested, your help would be appreciated. <br />] (]) 18:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, | |||
| :There is already a FA-quality article on ]. Is your goal to supplement this information with a specific focus on humans?—] (]) 19:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, I'm not touching the "Planetary Habitiablity" article. It is focused on what astronomers refer to as "astrobiological potential"<sup></sup> and not on people, and it is nearly over the limit for size. | |||
| ::The 214 page that Dole and Asimov wrote is about what type of planet people could live on and why, not extremophile survival. You mistake the two articles as related because they talk about the same universe. If I have an aricle on ]s on the one hand and ]s on the other, I don't ask the question which should supplement which just because they both use references to the Earth and the Sun's influence, etc. The question is simple: "what is habitable for people." ...if you re'''a'''d the 214 page they wrote you would not have to ask me any questions. The article is almost finished, each point can be referenced with Dole and Asimov's work alone, but it would be good to have more specific references for the individual parameters that need to be expanded on. I get distracted with discussions and other improvements, and my own studying which comes first, otherwise it would be finished by now. | |||
| ::The confusion most ediors make is that astronomers are talking about theoretical extraterrestrial life and/or "astrobiological potential," which is every type of life you can imagine, science and currently science fiction, '''whereas''' the Habitability Dole and Asimov were talking about was for people. Nevermind other planets, there are places on this planet where just being there can kill us, do you know what your tolerances are? Dole listed 1.5g as the maximum gravity for people, did you know that?? ] (]) 23:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I wish to request, if ] goes ahead, that there be some debate about what the article is actually ''for''. This was never made clear by its proponents (who tended to respond to any query by flooding my talkpage with abuse) after the AfD. Much of the material is already in the ] article and thus is redundant; as for the rest, Asimov is one thing, but Asimov imagined a future in which humans harnessed faster-than-light travel and colonised the galaxy, so seeking out human-habitable worlds had some relevance to his work. At this point in time, such ideas are science fiction and (if one is brutally honest) fantasy. If we are going to locate a habitable planet within our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our children, chances are it will be via telescope, and such a planet will care not a jot if it is habitable to us. Even if such a world is home to an intelligent civilisation, there is no reason to assume that it will have the same habitability parameters we do. So the question is, are we dealing with scientific concepts in this article, or science fiction? <b>]]<font color="#00b">]</font></b> 19:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You have to let go of the tunnel vision and the rabid territorial religious grip you have on that article Planetary Habitability. This is a whole other article as I said in answering ]. I'll repeat this much to you: "You mistake the two articles as related because they talk about the same universe. If I have an aricle on ]s on the one hand and ]s on the other, I don't ask the question which should supplement which just because they both use references to the Earth and the Sun's influence, etc." - It is not redundant, just some similar reference points. Asimov was a sci-fi writer yes, but he added his two cents to the book Dole had already written and Dole is a scientist of ]. If I missed one of your points feel free to repeat it. ] (]) 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Asimov was a scientist too; a biologist come to that. But that wasn't my point. My point is that unless we develop faster than light travel and colonise worlds around other stars, the issue of planetary human habitability is never likely to arise. <b>]]<font color="#00b">]</font></b> 10:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Look, I'm not trying to waste your time, if you are not interested in contributing to the improvement of the article then you are not interested, but you make no point there with me, I think what you have said is very nearsighted: ] is not that "far" away at any now-possible high speed (ie not sci-fi), and I don't think this ''article'' (or idea) is any less valid than the one on that planet (Gl 551) or on any other planet. The 214 page book on the subject of habitiablility for humans was written by (as you say) '''two''' scientist, I think you argument is with them... Mars is a reachable planet (and on the list, after the moon, according to GWBush.), Venus is a reachable planet, Europa is a reachable moon, but you would want to take the word of a scientist when it comes to survival there. And on top of that, I think you are just playing devil's advocate, and won't debate it with you any longer. I don't think of something as science fiction simply because it may only happen after my lifetime, for example going back to the moon, or going to mars thereafter. ] (]) 06:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I had nothing to do with the article's previous deletion, and I don't intend to have anything to do with the next, should it occur. But from what I've seen so far you haven't made much of a case for it not to happen. You've based your entire argument on one book, which effectively means your article is a book review. The article's notability will rest on the notability of the book. All I can say is good luck. You don't have to respond. I'm trying to help you. AfDs are a lot nastier than I am.<b>]]<font color="#00b">]</font></b> 08:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==RFC on "]"== | |||
| Is what is happening here what I think is happening here? ] (]) 20:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :IP from a City of Winnipeg network. Make what you will of that. . ], ] 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Artists impressions? == | |||
| Please point me to the discussion where a valid consensus was reached regarding the exclusion of artists' impressions from exoplanet articles. <span style= "font-family: papyrus; color:silver"> — ] • <small>]/] </small> </span> 05:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You have already started several discussions to change the concensus on this, without checking the archive. ] (]) 22:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::What consensus? Can you point me to the discussions? You seem to be familiar with them. <span style= "font-family: papyrus; color:silver"> — ] • <small>]/] </small> </span> 01:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: List of extrasolar planets == | |||
| I'm actually unconvinced that the present format and inclusion criteria of the ] article is helpful, so I only did that move to save lots of tedious back-and-forth argument at ] -- for the most part I'd rather leave the list alone until various things have been sorted out. I've started an RfC on the ] to discuss various points, including how best to do referencing, which at present is inadequate for the entire list. ] (]) 07:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Actually; FYI == | |||
| The problem is that the range of allowable masses needs to be taken into account as well. It's perfectly possible to input 5.36 Earth masses into a bunch of equations-of-state and end up with a bunch of radii, but the mass may well be more than that: the currently determined upper bound from dynamics gives a factor of about 2 in mass. This means we've potentially got a planet with a hydrogen atmosphere, and that causes significant increases in radius. I'm not aware of any estimates for the radius of this planet which take the upper mass bound into account, but ignoring it is somewhat misleading. | |||
| Incidentally I think the A&A habitable zone diagram you uploaded probably violates copyright, and in any case SVG is preferred for such things. I'll try to get round to taking another look at the von Bloh and Selsis papers to see if I can extract any numbers which would allow me to create a similar diagram (and move planet d to its correct location). ] (]) 10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :One possibility I've been considering is using the formulae in the with input masses of 5.36 and 10.4 times Earth. (Note that in table 4 of the arXiv version, the Mercury-like and Earth-like parameters have apparently been accidentally swapped around.) One problem is that the parameters for the "exotic" planet types (carbon, helium) are not given, but I am not particularly sure these are particularly likely possibilities anyway (especially not the helium planets, which are suggested to be tidally-stripped remnants of white dwarf stars, which is not a plausible scenario for Gliese 581's planets). Another is that the hydrogen planet relationship is not given either, but I guess it would be possible to get round that by using the graph in figure 4 (though there are still issues that the relationship is for cold hydrogen planets, not irradiated ones). Does this seem reasonable to you? ] (]) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Regarding the A&A chart - since both papers were published in A&A, A&A hold the copyright so they are perfectly within their rights to do whatever they want to their diagram. On the other hand, we aren't, so it would be better to redo it from scratch, and to use SVG which is a preferred format for diagrams: even without the potential copyright problems this image is a perfect candidate to go into ]. (Also I took the bait on the gas dwarf image of Gliese 581c - aside from issues of bias which you pointed out in the edit summary, I really see no point in using animation in an artist's impression if it isn't conveying something known.) ] (]) 20:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == {{Autotranslate|1=File:Missing_Star_masses_by_Kepler_3rd_Law.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw/heading}} == | |||
| {{Autotranslate|1=File:Missing_Star_masses_by_Kepler_3rd_Law.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}}] (]) 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == {{Autotranslate|1=|base=Please link images/heading}} == | |||
| {{Autotranslate|1=|base=Please link images}} ] 06:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *] is uncategorized since 10 July 2009. | |||
| <!-- Uncategorized notification --> | |||
| == RFC on suggested title change to "Habitability (Astrobiology)" == | |||
| I noticed this RFC. Really, it would fit more as a ] discussion (which would not auto-expire), but aside from that, where is the original discussion that the statement references ("In the discussion above")? ]''']''' 03:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent comments == | |||
| I can understand your being very put out by the comments of the other editor, and frankly don't disagree with you regarding at least the kind of reaction you gave them. But signing yourself as "Jesus Christ" and comparing that party to a twelve year old weren't what anyone would necessarily call really appropriate behavior either. We all know that conversations regarding political and religious topics around here can get quite heated at times. The new ], new religious movements work group, has six separate topics which are under probation that I've found so far, and I think I'm only about halfway through the main subcats yet. But it really in no way helps to encourage others to respond reasonably if they receive obviously inflammatory responses to their own stupid comments; actually, it will tend to make things worse. Even though the provocations are going to be in several instances profound, and, yes, even though I myself am far from being a good adherent to this guideline, I think it would be in everyone's best interests, including your own, if you were to refrain from such inflammatory comments in the future. Thank you. ] (]) 15:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Credit or blame possibly undeserved== | |||
| I doubt whether there was a realistic possibility that the article would have been deleted, but it might have been forced to be renamed to "Anti-trinitarianism". The reason I objected was mainly because the nomination seemed to be based a lot more on a dictionary "gotcha" than on a sincere desire to improve Misplaced Pages. By the way, through a somewhat convoluted sequence of events I ended up starting the "Non-trinitarianism" article on the Arabic-language Misplaced Pages (لاثالوثية), though my ability to write connected Arabic prose sentences is rather small... ] (]) 14:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==personal RFC on sneeky edit== | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Planetary_habitability&diff=311665773&oldid=311665338 <br /> | |||
| I'm curious to know, do you consider this kind of edit sneeky and/or not encyclopedic??<br /> | |||
| '''Of course I posted this here as well for sincere replies to my query'''.<br /> | |||
| ] (]) 15:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Re ] == | |||
| I am requesting that you retract and strike your against me from the talk page. Please see Misplaced Pages's core policies on ] and ]. My edit was in good faith. Calling my edit and edit summary stupid was unnecessary and confrontational. -- ] (]) 17:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}} <!--Template:WQA-notice--> Thank you. -- ] (]) 00:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This note is to inform you that above WQA has been moved to ] for the reasons stated there. ] (]) 00:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == NPA warning == | |||
| ] Please ] other editors{{#if:Thessaloniki|, which you did here: ]}}. If you continue, you '''will''' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> ] ] 11:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:42, 3 September 2021
October 2010
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
GabrielVelasquez (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Malformed block template,
no real info on reason for block,
looks very fishy to me.
GIVE A REAL REASON.
What is this for and where is the proof?
I don't have a real opportunity to request to be unblocked
because requesting information on this will probably count
as my only allowed request to be unblocked
And I am sure that was done deliberately
So being malformed I ask that it be dismissed.
Also, what ever this is about, two weeks is ridiculously harsh.
Where the improvements made recently considered?
Decline reason:
Far too many personal attacks to consider unblocking at this time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Bit late but
This is a bit late but it is completely unacceptable to add back personal attacks and threats of this sort . It could easily lead to a block if you weren't already blocked. In some circumstances, it may be acceptable to mention a comment was removed but in that case, the comment was completely worthless and inappropriate so there was no need. Nil Einne (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)