| Revision as of 09:22, 3 October 2010 editDaedalus969 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,809 edits Undid revision 388395148 by HalfShadow (talk)declined unblock requests cannot be removed during the duration of the block← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:23, 3 October 2010 edit undoDaedalus969 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,809 edits rm unrelevant bitsNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Suspended retirement:== | |||
| My local TV news has said ] is '''"habitable for humans."'''<br />So I have temporarly suspended my retirement to address the usual Misplaced Pages insanity.<br />] (]) 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent behavior == | |||
| Uh, actually, you edited with earlier today, although I myself don't see a personal attack directly in it. "Ok, buddy" as per could be taken badly, but I don't see it myself. Telling someone to "get back on their meds" as per your edit summary probably does violate ], even though on your own talk page, so is probably a misstatement. Just reminding you to try to be a bit more careful with the language, OK? ] (]) 19:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah Ok, old friend, you know false accusations of attacks put me on the attack, thanks.<br />Thanks for reminding me to be tolerant of stupidity. ] (]) 19:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: habitable zone ring == | |||
| ] | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#ffbb00;"| | | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#33ff33;"| | | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#7777ff;"| | | |||
| |- | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#ffbb00;"| Inner fringe | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#33ff33;"| Habitable zone | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#7777ff;"| Outer fringe | |||
| |- | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#ffbb00;"| | | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#33ff33;"| | | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#7777ff;"| | | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| I would say the only way this image could be more perfect is if you added the habitable zone ring.<br />I don't need a reply, it's just a suggestion.<br />] (]) 08:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the suggestion. The reason I don't put habitable-zone boundaries in the orbit diagrams I make is because of the large number of different definitions out there of how to define the habitable-zone. Not all of these can be plotted easily on an orbit diagram, for example if the calculation depends on orbital eccentricity or planetary mass. Extrapolating a model developed for an Earth-mass planet orbiting a G-dwarf to the cases for 3 or 6 Earth-masses planets orbiting an M-dwarf is probably not going to give reliable results. And given the controversies that always seem to arise in discussions of planetary habitability on Misplaced Pages, I can't see much prospect for agreement on such matters. ] (]) 15:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't want to debate or disagree with you, but is sounds to me like you are making the irradiance of the star dependent on the size of the planet, if looked at in the most simplistic way. I'm also aware of all the dimesion that need too be looked at specifically for the status of the planet itself, but I added the chart regarding zone limits in the ] article so I right away think since that figures are there, you can just scale them for Gliese's luminosity. Plenty of independent references also exist () | |||
| "In our own solar system, the CHZ is thought to extend from a distance of 0.725 to 3.0 astronomical units, based on various scientific models:" | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#eeeeee;"| | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#eeeeee;"| | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#ffbb00;"| Inner fringe | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#33ff33;"| Habitable zone | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#7777ff;"| Outer fringe | |||
| |- | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#eeeeee;"| Sol System | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#eeeeee;"| L = 1.0 | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#ffbb00;"| 0.725 | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#33ff33;"| | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#7777ff;"| 3.0 | |||
| |- | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#eeeeee;"| Gliese system | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#eeeeee;"| L = 0.013 | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#ffbb00;"| ?? | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#33ff33;"| | |||
| |align="center" style="background:#7777ff;"| ?? | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| I don't know if it's a linear relation so I'll leave the math to you. ] (]) 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think just scaling these for Gliese 581's luminosity is going to provide a good estimate of where the HZ should be. See for example table 3. This shows that the habitable zone moves to lower values of the incident flux for cooler stars. Apparently tidal locking effects were not included in that table, this would again cause the boundaries to change, though I'm not sure what the precise effects would be. Table 1 in that paper shows effects of planetary mass: the reason for the effects they show is because the scale height of the atmosphere is smaller on a high-gravity planet, thus changing the greenhouse properties. On the other hand they don't seem to attempt to model the different rates of geological evolution on such planets, which is also going to be a factor. ] (]) 18:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == October 2010 == | == October 2010 == | ||
| <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 -->{{z8}}<!-- Template:uw-hblock --> | <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 -->{{z8}}<!-- Template:uw-hblock --> | ||
Revision as of 09:23, 3 October 2010
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)