![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Please NOTE: The following cautioning welcome was written by a Wikipedia administrator (who happens to like astronomy!) because I had linked from Wikipedia to my website, which had links back to my main website that has advertising images. As a result, I created a new website just like the old one, but without any links back to my main site. I hope to one day place the facts on The Planet Moon website directly in Wikipedia. First I need a consensus. Maybe what I really need is a miracle? .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:
If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Ckatz chat spy 23:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Note my response to your recent edit to Talk:Galileo Galilei. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There has been lots of "unofficial" talk about whether or not the Moon, supposedly Earth's "satellite", is actually a major planet in its own right. When you read the present definition of " planet", recently changed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), you find that this new definition actually includes our Moon. The Moon orbits the Sun in the very same manner as a planet, always falling toward the Sun. The Moon is massive enough to be nearly round in shape. The Moon has completely cleared its orbit around the Sun and is gravitationally dominant in that orbit.
So I would like to propose a discussion on this topic. Isaac Asimov, before he died, wrote science books on the Moon, and he came up with several reasons why the Moon ought to be thought of as more than just a satellite of Earth. Asimov proved with undeniable facts that the Moon is a full-fledged planet in its own right.
You can read more about this fairly controversial subject at the "official" website of... The Planet Moon. This website is dedicated to Isaac Asimov.
Whether or not you read the above website, your opinion about this topic would be very interesting to hear. So let's us talk about whether or not the "Solar System" still has NINE planets, or just eight. -- Paine Ellsworth ( talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
On a separate topic (separate from the section above), I read your website about how the moon should actually be considered a planet. I thought it was pretty interesting. It has a lot of stuff I didn't know before. But I still dispute the conclusion. I have some notes, if you're interested. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
First of all, it might be nice if, at the bottom of each section, you added a link to the next section. That way people wouldn't have to keep going back to the table of contents. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In both of the sections INTRO and SELENE, you said that the ancients thought of the moon as a planet, and that's one reason we should too. But keep in mind that they thought all the planets orbited the Earth. Now we know that they don't, so the ancients don't have any credibility when they say the moon is a planet. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In the section FALLING FOR YOU you said:
Satellites, all the moons in our Solar System, including Pluto's Charon, as they go around their planets, actually spend some of their time moving toward the Sun and the rest of their time moving away from the Sun. The Moon, however, *always* falls toward the Sun. There is always an "acceleration" of the Moon toward the Sun.
The Moon never actually goes all the way completely "around" the Earth.
That first paragraph above is true. But the second one isn't. I think your second paragraph misinterprets the first paragraph. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a continuation of the section above.
In the section TUG OF WAR you said:
Asimov talks about two types of satellites... "true" satellites and "captured" satellites. The true ones are believed to have formed along with their primary planets way back when the Solar System was very young. And the captured ones were, well, captured. At some point in the history of our Solar System, they were passing near a planet and were caught in the huge gravitational field. And they became part of the planet's satellite system...
It's too far out to be a true satellite of the Earth, if we go by my beautiful chain of reasoning--which is too beautiful for me to abandon. It's too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up a nearly circular orbit about the Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.
First of all, I don't like that terminology. I don't like using the term "true" satellites for the first type. "Captured" satellites are true too. I prefer the terms "original" satellites and "captured" satellites. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, it may be true that the Moon is too far out to be an "original" satellite of the Earth, and too big to be have been captured while it was passing by. But there's a third option, and I think that's the one I've heard scientists say applies to the moon. I've never heard them mention it in this context, but I think it applies. My understanding is that billions of years ago the moon and the Earth were on separate paths, then they collided. That collision caused the moon to slow down, and that's what allowed the Earth to capture it as a satellite. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
But the part of your website that I found most interesting of all was the section BARRY'S CENTER. I was going to raise an objection to one of the moon things in it, and I was going to make a comment about Jupiter. But you already brought up both of those topics later in that section. So I'll address those later comments. You said:
You could argue that, in a double-planet system, the barycenter of the two planets ought to be *outside* the surfaces of both planets. And once again, you might be right. However, if you really think that's important, you might also consider that Jupiter could easily be thought of as a small star simply because the barycenter of the Sun/Jupiter system lies outside the surface of the Sun! But there are other tests that Jupiter would have to pass to be thought of as a star. So the location of the barycenter probably isn't all-important, is it?
I do argue that the barycenter of two planets must be outside one of them in order for it to be considered a double-planet system. So that would mean the moon is a satellite of the Earth, rather than a planet of its own. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
And in fact, now that you bring it up, I suppose the solar system could be considered a twin Sun/Jupiter system.
But that doesn't mean that Jupiter is a star. I'd say the solar system is a twin system, where a star (the Sun) is a twin of a planet (Jupiter). I guess you could say that makes them fraternal twins, rather than identical twins. You seem to imply that Jupiter would have to be considered a star in order to be part of a twin system. But I think they're separate issues. So Jupiter can be part of a twin system even if it's not a star. I think a star is defined as something with so much mass that it triggers nuclear fusion. Jupiter doesn't do that, so it can't be considered a star. But it can still be considered part of a twin system. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The newest (2006) official IAU definition of the term "planet" Reference:
A planet is a celestial body that...
And since "planet" is a term that can also apply to other types of celestial bodies by the use of an identifier, such as " dwarf planet", I like to clarify by using an identifier for the above defined body, as in " major planet". However, it can be noted that the term "planet", when referring to bodies defined above, does not require an identifier.
There is also another inconsistency that I don't like. It's the usage of the word "celestial", which is defined as "of or relating to the sky, the heavens, space". One could make an argument that this technically excludes Earth as a planet. A better term might be "astronomical body", which would include the Earth.
Lastly, under this definition the Solar System still has nine planets. Earth's "Moon" can be considered to be quite dominant gravitationally, as it has shielded the Earth from many a blow from objects large and larger, as evidenced by photos of the far side. For that matter, even the craters on the near side show that the Moon is a gravitationally dominant "rock magnet". Also, there are no other bodies in its neighborhood of comparable size other than Earth, which is definitely under the Moon's gravitational influence.
What does all this mean? It means that technically, according to the IAU, there are still nine planets in our Solar System (color me flighty, but i doubt that the IAU meant to exclude the Earth). And they include the Moon as a full-fledged major planet in its own right. There are many more reasons to think of the Moon as a planet instead of just a satellite of Earth. You'll find them listed and explained at the "official" Moon-as-planet website: The Planet Moon
(Disclaimer: There are no promotional materials, links, etc. on The Planet Moon website. The Planet Moon was created solely as a tribute to Isaac Asimov for his great nonfiction science works, including his views about why the Moon deserves reclassification as a full-fledged planet in its own right. The creator of the website is not responsible for how smart you become when you read nonfiction works by Asimov.)
Indelibly yours,
Paine (
talk)
07:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I added one of the arguments from your webpage to Wikipedia here. You'd listed them as two separate arguments on your webpage, but I think that actually one of them causes the other one. I linked to your website for a reference. I hope, and thoroughly expect, that you don't mind. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I also took the topic about Jupiter from the section above, and brought it up here. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is just to document (pronounce that "brag" or "boast") that I created a new sig. --> .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`.
And let me tell *you*! That "raw signature" block is pretty dern picky about that HTML code. If you don't get it *just right*, it comes back in bright red letters: "INVALID RAW SIGNATURE -- CHECK HTML CODE!!!". So I played with it a little (a lot) and finally got it right. Bedtime. G'night ya'll. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 07:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
You left the following message at my talk page:
"Just a note that I edited this page and section. I'm a little new here and therefore curious as to why you didn't just make the change yourself? .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 04:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)"
I have no idea of what you're talking about or referring to, since that I have not had a discussion with anyone or edit articles in several days (have other important things to attend to besides Wikipedia these days). Could you enlighten me here as to what your message is about or whether you have even contacted the right person? → Lwalt ♦ talk 04:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Note my latest comments above from a few days ago. You still haven't responded to them. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 13:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This link that was cited on this page is broken. I looked all over that website and could not find where Edison said or wrote about "under" and "stand" coming together in the word "understand". I also checked other "quotation" sites and found nothing about him separating the "under" and the "stand". So if Edison did say this, then it's probably in one of his biographies. Can the article's author or someone else cite a reference? .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following statement from the above cited section (in the Understanding article) because the reference link is still broken, I've not been able to find a citation anywhere, and no one else has added a proper citation...
" Thomas Edison believed that the concept of understanding comes from the two simple words under and stand. When one acknowledges that she/he stands below someone or something else, she/he makes him/herself receptive to obtain and retain information from it, thereby allowing for understanding to occur." citation needed "(comment following) -- [http://www.thomasedison.com/biog.htm]. This link is broken. I looked all over this website and could not find where Edison said this. I also checked other "quotation" sites and found nothing about him separating the "under" and the "stand". So if Edison did say this, then it's probably in one of his biographies. - Paine Ellsworth (comment end)"
Please do not undo this until and unless a proper citation is found. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm just writing to thank you for your recent fixes for some of the citations on the Social Contract page. I've tried to fix it a bit over the last little bit, but don't really understand some of the technical details of wikipedia yet, and so had left those weird glitches in. My thanks for rectifying them! 173.32.35.78 ( talk) 19:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been making very small edits to Wikipedia for a long time, now. And I always saw those accursèd "redlinks" as looking extremely unprofessional! So when I recently opened my own Wiki account and read all that stuff about editing policies and procedures, I guess I somehow blocked out the part about the importance of redlinks. Yes, I said the IMPORTANCE of redlinks. To those who don't know, redlinks are links to pages that don't exist. I still think that it was the "mouseover" message, "PAGE DOES NOT EXIST", that turned me off all those years. Maybe if someone added, "WHY NOT CREATE AN ARTICLE?", maybe then it would have a more professional appearance.
Oh! and by the way, if you happen to come across a redlink that you know something about, consider writing an article about the subject. You will be helping Wikipedia grow into an even better encyclopedia than it already is! And you will be playing an important part in supporting the best encyclopedia that's ever been written --> Wikipedia
I hope my response to your post didn't sound too much like blowing off the point. I've tried to deal with User:XxTaylor15 for a while now and at times, her/his (?) POV editing that seems to convolute the text and references just exhausts me. The article sounded fairly good until that editor began dabbling with it and about the time you posted your question, I'd had it up to my eyebrows with trying to sort it out. I guess I knew it was for Taxi Driver but I was just too weary to check it. I've had problems with harassment from a sock puppet this weekend and at the moment, I just couldn't deal with another "What now?!?" Thanks for looking into it. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! You've done some excellent clean-up work on Poe-related articles! I wanted to mention, however, that the proper possessive tense of Dr. Joseph Evans Snodgrass (mentioned in Death of Edgar Allan Poe) is definitely "Snodgrass's", with the apostrophe s. See Wikipedia:MOS#Possessives for examples. By the way, if you have time, would you consider going through the entirety of The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket? I'm thinking of nominating it for GA soon and could use the clean-up help. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 13:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I occasionally come across numbers over 999 that use a no-break space rather than a comma to separate the thousands, as in 1 000 (actually appears as 1 000 in an article) rather than 1,000. In some articles, where mostly commas are used to separate the thousands, I'm tempted to replace the no-break spaces with commas in each case for the sake of consistency. It occurred to me, though, that the no-break space might keep the number from breaking in two if it falls at the end of a line. My assumption was that the Wiki software does not have the ability to sense the difference between a comma followed by a number and a comma followed by a (normal) space. So I tested this, and the software does have this ability. Whenever a comma is followed by a number, it behaves in the same manner as a no-break space. Therefore I will remove the no-break spaces and replace them with commas when consistency-within-an-article demands. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 03:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for helping bring The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket up to Good Article status. I'd like to see it Featured some day, but I'm going to step away from it for now to work on other things. I may call on you when it's FAC time! -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 13:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
As I was doing some minor edits on the S. I. Hayakawa article, I found that a reference link was broken. It was this link. I'll check it time to time over the next few days and if it comes back to life I'll reinstate it. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 07:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Today I marked this link with a {{brokenlink}} ( dead link ) template. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And on this day I added the <delete> tag to the link.
.`^) Paine
diss`cuss (^`.
02:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
In a couple articles you've changed the spelling of some words such as labelling to labeling noting that if the stress is on the first syllable the letter is not doubled. This is not the case for all local variations of English. For example in Canada (and other countries that use general British spelling), major newspapers and government agencies do use labelling [1] [2] and worshipping [3]. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that while the different spellings are acceptable in Wikipedia, that "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style".
On another note, the Manual of style of disambiguation pages states there should be no extraneous internal links. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 12:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I left the following question at the Wikipedia:Help desk#Shirley Temple vs. Categories:
My question has to do with editing of category lists. I've been improving the "Shirley Temple" article, and I noticed that all the many categories that list her do so by her childhood name rather than by her present legal name. I suppose this is due to the fact that her main article is titled by her childhood name. The page "Shirley Temple Black" just redirects to "Shirley Temple". It is my contention that categories like "California Republicans" and "American Diplomats" and several others should list her by her present legal name, alphabetized to the "B's" for Black, rather than to the "T's" for Temple. I have searched pages and faqs on categories and can find no way to correct this error. Please help. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 05:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
But the OP wants to use one name in some categories, and a different name in other categories. To do this, first use a {{defaultsort}} template prior to all of the category statements at the bottom of the article to give the most common sort in the Shirley Temple article, the defaultsort is already set to {{defaultsort|Temple, Shirley}}. Then, for all catecories taht should use a different name, place thedesired name as a paramater within the category statemant, (e.g., [[Category:politicians|Black, Shirley Temple]]) to override the defaultsort for that particualr category. - Arch dude ( talk) 16:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is the final resolution: Since piping the full name, "Black, Shirley Temple", to specific categories only partially worked, I had to devise a different solution. When I piped in that name, and then checked the category, the alphabetization did change, and the name was placed in the "B's" in the proper position. However the name placed there was still only "Shirley Temple" (without her present surname, "Black"). I surmised that this was because the category was tied to the specific page on which it is placed. Sure enough! I placed the appropriate categories on the redirect page (titled "Shirley Temple Black"), and the full name was then placed in the category lists. Unlike the other names, it is in italics, and I assume that this is because the category links are on a redirect page. The links on the category pages look and act like this: Shirley Temple Black. This has resolved the situation to my satisfaction.
Administrators may want to seriously consider updating the entire article by swapping the "Shirley Temple" page with the "Shirley Temple Black" redirect page. I tried to do this, but it was beyond my present ken. Thank you all for your help, comments and counsel. You too, ukexpat! .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 05:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you're interested in Tom Paine. You might wish to look at Talk:The Age of Reason and maybe get involved with that article. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 10:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You recently inserted the following edit as a comment in an article about the Moon; it read like this -- HELLO DAWGS!!!" - Bro0010, you're better than this, aren't you? Please become a serious editor and put a stop to this BS! ty-tyvm! - Paine. You were clearly being constructive in the intent that you had, to try to encourage Bro0010 to edit more seriously and constructively in the future. But you might want to bear in mind two things: Firstly that a more likely place to successfully bring such messages to Bro0010's or any other user's attention is their user talk page. Secondly, such dialogs really are extraneous to an encyclopedic article, and they not only clutter it up, but they also risk having their origin misunderstood, with the additional risk, that you might end up getting accused of vandalism yourself! Good luck with your constructive edits, and good wishes, Terry0051 ( talk) 18:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Please NOTE: The following cautioning welcome was written by a Wikipedia administrator (who happens to like astronomy!) because I had linked from Wikipedia to my website, which had links back to my main website that has advertising images. As a result, I created a new website just like the old one, but without any links back to my main site. I hope to one day place the facts on The Planet Moon website directly in Wikipedia. First I need a consensus. Maybe what I really need is a miracle? .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:
If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Ckatz chat spy 23:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Note my response to your recent edit to Talk:Galileo Galilei. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There has been lots of "unofficial" talk about whether or not the Moon, supposedly Earth's "satellite", is actually a major planet in its own right. When you read the present definition of " planet", recently changed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), you find that this new definition actually includes our Moon. The Moon orbits the Sun in the very same manner as a planet, always falling toward the Sun. The Moon is massive enough to be nearly round in shape. The Moon has completely cleared its orbit around the Sun and is gravitationally dominant in that orbit.
So I would like to propose a discussion on this topic. Isaac Asimov, before he died, wrote science books on the Moon, and he came up with several reasons why the Moon ought to be thought of as more than just a satellite of Earth. Asimov proved with undeniable facts that the Moon is a full-fledged planet in its own right.
You can read more about this fairly controversial subject at the "official" website of... The Planet Moon. This website is dedicated to Isaac Asimov.
Whether or not you read the above website, your opinion about this topic would be very interesting to hear. So let's us talk about whether or not the "Solar System" still has NINE planets, or just eight. -- Paine Ellsworth ( talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
On a separate topic (separate from the section above), I read your website about how the moon should actually be considered a planet. I thought it was pretty interesting. It has a lot of stuff I didn't know before. But I still dispute the conclusion. I have some notes, if you're interested. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
First of all, it might be nice if, at the bottom of each section, you added a link to the next section. That way people wouldn't have to keep going back to the table of contents. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In both of the sections INTRO and SELENE, you said that the ancients thought of the moon as a planet, and that's one reason we should too. But keep in mind that they thought all the planets orbited the Earth. Now we know that they don't, so the ancients don't have any credibility when they say the moon is a planet. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In the section FALLING FOR YOU you said:
Satellites, all the moons in our Solar System, including Pluto's Charon, as they go around their planets, actually spend some of their time moving toward the Sun and the rest of their time moving away from the Sun. The Moon, however, *always* falls toward the Sun. There is always an "acceleration" of the Moon toward the Sun.
The Moon never actually goes all the way completely "around" the Earth.
That first paragraph above is true. But the second one isn't. I think your second paragraph misinterprets the first paragraph. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a continuation of the section above.
In the section TUG OF WAR you said:
Asimov talks about two types of satellites... "true" satellites and "captured" satellites. The true ones are believed to have formed along with their primary planets way back when the Solar System was very young. And the captured ones were, well, captured. At some point in the history of our Solar System, they were passing near a planet and were caught in the huge gravitational field. And they became part of the planet's satellite system...
It's too far out to be a true satellite of the Earth, if we go by my beautiful chain of reasoning--which is too beautiful for me to abandon. It's too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up a nearly circular orbit about the Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.
First of all, I don't like that terminology. I don't like using the term "true" satellites for the first type. "Captured" satellites are true too. I prefer the terms "original" satellites and "captured" satellites. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, it may be true that the Moon is too far out to be an "original" satellite of the Earth, and too big to be have been captured while it was passing by. But there's a third option, and I think that's the one I've heard scientists say applies to the moon. I've never heard them mention it in this context, but I think it applies. My understanding is that billions of years ago the moon and the Earth were on separate paths, then they collided. That collision caused the moon to slow down, and that's what allowed the Earth to capture it as a satellite. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
But the part of your website that I found most interesting of all was the section BARRY'S CENTER. I was going to raise an objection to one of the moon things in it, and I was going to make a comment about Jupiter. But you already brought up both of those topics later in that section. So I'll address those later comments. You said:
You could argue that, in a double-planet system, the barycenter of the two planets ought to be *outside* the surfaces of both planets. And once again, you might be right. However, if you really think that's important, you might also consider that Jupiter could easily be thought of as a small star simply because the barycenter of the Sun/Jupiter system lies outside the surface of the Sun! But there are other tests that Jupiter would have to pass to be thought of as a star. So the location of the barycenter probably isn't all-important, is it?
I do argue that the barycenter of two planets must be outside one of them in order for it to be considered a double-planet system. So that would mean the moon is a satellite of the Earth, rather than a planet of its own. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
And in fact, now that you bring it up, I suppose the solar system could be considered a twin Sun/Jupiter system.
But that doesn't mean that Jupiter is a star. I'd say the solar system is a twin system, where a star (the Sun) is a twin of a planet (Jupiter). I guess you could say that makes them fraternal twins, rather than identical twins. You seem to imply that Jupiter would have to be considered a star in order to be part of a twin system. But I think they're separate issues. So Jupiter can be part of a twin system even if it's not a star. I think a star is defined as something with so much mass that it triggers nuclear fusion. Jupiter doesn't do that, so it can't be considered a star. But it can still be considered part of a twin system. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The newest (2006) official IAU definition of the term "planet" Reference:
A planet is a celestial body that...
And since "planet" is a term that can also apply to other types of celestial bodies by the use of an identifier, such as " dwarf planet", I like to clarify by using an identifier for the above defined body, as in " major planet". However, it can be noted that the term "planet", when referring to bodies defined above, does not require an identifier.
There is also another inconsistency that I don't like. It's the usage of the word "celestial", which is defined as "of or relating to the sky, the heavens, space". One could make an argument that this technically excludes Earth as a planet. A better term might be "astronomical body", which would include the Earth.
Lastly, under this definition the Solar System still has nine planets. Earth's "Moon" can be considered to be quite dominant gravitationally, as it has shielded the Earth from many a blow from objects large and larger, as evidenced by photos of the far side. For that matter, even the craters on the near side show that the Moon is a gravitationally dominant "rock magnet". Also, there are no other bodies in its neighborhood of comparable size other than Earth, which is definitely under the Moon's gravitational influence.
What does all this mean? It means that technically, according to the IAU, there are still nine planets in our Solar System (color me flighty, but i doubt that the IAU meant to exclude the Earth). And they include the Moon as a full-fledged major planet in its own right. There are many more reasons to think of the Moon as a planet instead of just a satellite of Earth. You'll find them listed and explained at the "official" Moon-as-planet website: The Planet Moon
(Disclaimer: There are no promotional materials, links, etc. on The Planet Moon website. The Planet Moon was created solely as a tribute to Isaac Asimov for his great nonfiction science works, including his views about why the Moon deserves reclassification as a full-fledged planet in its own right. The creator of the website is not responsible for how smart you become when you read nonfiction works by Asimov.)
Indelibly yours,
Paine (
talk)
07:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I added one of the arguments from your webpage to Wikipedia here. You'd listed them as two separate arguments on your webpage, but I think that actually one of them causes the other one. I linked to your website for a reference. I hope, and thoroughly expect, that you don't mind. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I also took the topic about Jupiter from the section above, and brought it up here. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is just to document (pronounce that "brag" or "boast") that I created a new sig. --> .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`.
And let me tell *you*! That "raw signature" block is pretty dern picky about that HTML code. If you don't get it *just right*, it comes back in bright red letters: "INVALID RAW SIGNATURE -- CHECK HTML CODE!!!". So I played with it a little (a lot) and finally got it right. Bedtime. G'night ya'll. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 07:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
You left the following message at my talk page:
"Just a note that I edited this page and section. I'm a little new here and therefore curious as to why you didn't just make the change yourself? .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 04:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)"
I have no idea of what you're talking about or referring to, since that I have not had a discussion with anyone or edit articles in several days (have other important things to attend to besides Wikipedia these days). Could you enlighten me here as to what your message is about or whether you have even contacted the right person? → Lwalt ♦ talk 04:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Note my latest comments above from a few days ago. You still haven't responded to them. - Shaheenjim ( talk) 13:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This link that was cited on this page is broken. I looked all over that website and could not find where Edison said or wrote about "under" and "stand" coming together in the word "understand". I also checked other "quotation" sites and found nothing about him separating the "under" and the "stand". So if Edison did say this, then it's probably in one of his biographies. Can the article's author or someone else cite a reference? .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the following statement from the above cited section (in the Understanding article) because the reference link is still broken, I've not been able to find a citation anywhere, and no one else has added a proper citation...
" Thomas Edison believed that the concept of understanding comes from the two simple words under and stand. When one acknowledges that she/he stands below someone or something else, she/he makes him/herself receptive to obtain and retain information from it, thereby allowing for understanding to occur." citation needed "(comment following) -- [http://www.thomasedison.com/biog.htm]. This link is broken. I looked all over this website and could not find where Edison said this. I also checked other "quotation" sites and found nothing about him separating the "under" and the "stand". So if Edison did say this, then it's probably in one of his biographies. - Paine Ellsworth (comment end)"
Please do not undo this until and unless a proper citation is found. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm just writing to thank you for your recent fixes for some of the citations on the Social Contract page. I've tried to fix it a bit over the last little bit, but don't really understand some of the technical details of wikipedia yet, and so had left those weird glitches in. My thanks for rectifying them! 173.32.35.78 ( talk) 19:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been making very small edits to Wikipedia for a long time, now. And I always saw those accursèd "redlinks" as looking extremely unprofessional! So when I recently opened my own Wiki account and read all that stuff about editing policies and procedures, I guess I somehow blocked out the part about the importance of redlinks. Yes, I said the IMPORTANCE of redlinks. To those who don't know, redlinks are links to pages that don't exist. I still think that it was the "mouseover" message, "PAGE DOES NOT EXIST", that turned me off all those years. Maybe if someone added, "WHY NOT CREATE AN ARTICLE?", maybe then it would have a more professional appearance.
Oh! and by the way, if you happen to come across a redlink that you know something about, consider writing an article about the subject. You will be helping Wikipedia grow into an even better encyclopedia than it already is! And you will be playing an important part in supporting the best encyclopedia that's ever been written --> Wikipedia
I hope my response to your post didn't sound too much like blowing off the point. I've tried to deal with User:XxTaylor15 for a while now and at times, her/his (?) POV editing that seems to convolute the text and references just exhausts me. The article sounded fairly good until that editor began dabbling with it and about the time you posted your question, I'd had it up to my eyebrows with trying to sort it out. I guess I knew it was for Taxi Driver but I was just too weary to check it. I've had problems with harassment from a sock puppet this weekend and at the moment, I just couldn't deal with another "What now?!?" Thanks for looking into it. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! You've done some excellent clean-up work on Poe-related articles! I wanted to mention, however, that the proper possessive tense of Dr. Joseph Evans Snodgrass (mentioned in Death of Edgar Allan Poe) is definitely "Snodgrass's", with the apostrophe s. See Wikipedia:MOS#Possessives for examples. By the way, if you have time, would you consider going through the entirety of The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket? I'm thinking of nominating it for GA soon and could use the clean-up help. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 13:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I occasionally come across numbers over 999 that use a no-break space rather than a comma to separate the thousands, as in 1 000 (actually appears as 1 000 in an article) rather than 1,000. In some articles, where mostly commas are used to separate the thousands, I'm tempted to replace the no-break spaces with commas in each case for the sake of consistency. It occurred to me, though, that the no-break space might keep the number from breaking in two if it falls at the end of a line. My assumption was that the Wiki software does not have the ability to sense the difference between a comma followed by a number and a comma followed by a (normal) space. So I tested this, and the software does have this ability. Whenever a comma is followed by a number, it behaves in the same manner as a no-break space. Therefore I will remove the no-break spaces and replace them with commas when consistency-within-an-article demands. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 03:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for helping bring The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket up to Good Article status. I'd like to see it Featured some day, but I'm going to step away from it for now to work on other things. I may call on you when it's FAC time! -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 13:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
As I was doing some minor edits on the S. I. Hayakawa article, I found that a reference link was broken. It was this link. I'll check it time to time over the next few days and if it comes back to life I'll reinstate it. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 07:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Today I marked this link with a {{brokenlink}} ( dead link ) template. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
And on this day I added the <delete> tag to the link.
.`^) Paine
diss`cuss (^`.
02:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
In a couple articles you've changed the spelling of some words such as labelling to labeling noting that if the stress is on the first syllable the letter is not doubled. This is not the case for all local variations of English. For example in Canada (and other countries that use general British spelling), major newspapers and government agencies do use labelling [1] [2] and worshipping [3]. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that while the different spellings are acceptable in Wikipedia, that "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style".
On another note, the Manual of style of disambiguation pages states there should be no extraneous internal links. Regards, -- Jeff3000 ( talk) 12:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I left the following question at the Wikipedia:Help desk#Shirley Temple vs. Categories:
My question has to do with editing of category lists. I've been improving the "Shirley Temple" article, and I noticed that all the many categories that list her do so by her childhood name rather than by her present legal name. I suppose this is due to the fact that her main article is titled by her childhood name. The page "Shirley Temple Black" just redirects to "Shirley Temple". It is my contention that categories like "California Republicans" and "American Diplomats" and several others should list her by her present legal name, alphabetized to the "B's" for Black, rather than to the "T's" for Temple. I have searched pages and faqs on categories and can find no way to correct this error. Please help. .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 05:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
But the OP wants to use one name in some categories, and a different name in other categories. To do this, first use a {{defaultsort}} template prior to all of the category statements at the bottom of the article to give the most common sort in the Shirley Temple article, the defaultsort is already set to {{defaultsort|Temple, Shirley}}. Then, for all catecories taht should use a different name, place thedesired name as a paramater within the category statemant, (e.g., [[Category:politicians|Black, Shirley Temple]]) to override the defaultsort for that particualr category. - Arch dude ( talk) 16:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is the final resolution: Since piping the full name, "Black, Shirley Temple", to specific categories only partially worked, I had to devise a different solution. When I piped in that name, and then checked the category, the alphabetization did change, and the name was placed in the "B's" in the proper position. However the name placed there was still only "Shirley Temple" (without her present surname, "Black"). I surmised that this was because the category was tied to the specific page on which it is placed. Sure enough! I placed the appropriate categories on the redirect page (titled "Shirley Temple Black"), and the full name was then placed in the category lists. Unlike the other names, it is in italics, and I assume that this is because the category links are on a redirect page. The links on the category pages look and act like this: Shirley Temple Black. This has resolved the situation to my satisfaction.
Administrators may want to seriously consider updating the entire article by swapping the "Shirley Temple" page with the "Shirley Temple Black" redirect page. I tried to do this, but it was beyond my present ken. Thank you all for your help, comments and counsel. You too, ukexpat! .`^) Paine diss`cuss (^`. 05:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I see that you're interested in Tom Paine. You might wish to look at Talk:The Age of Reason and maybe get involved with that article. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 10:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You recently inserted the following edit as a comment in an article about the Moon; it read like this -- HELLO DAWGS!!!" - Bro0010, you're better than this, aren't you? Please become a serious editor and put a stop to this BS! ty-tyvm! - Paine. You were clearly being constructive in the intent that you had, to try to encourage Bro0010 to edit more seriously and constructively in the future. But you might want to bear in mind two things: Firstly that a more likely place to successfully bring such messages to Bro0010's or any other user's attention is their user talk page. Secondly, such dialogs really are extraneous to an encyclopedic article, and they not only clutter it up, but they also risk having their origin misunderstood, with the additional risk, that you might end up getting accused of vandalism yourself! Good luck with your constructive edits, and good wishes, Terry0051 ( talk) 18:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |