User talk:Serendipodous/archive 21

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your note

Hello, Serendipodous. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 31, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 31, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of planet has comprised many different things. Over the millennia, use of the term was never strict and its meaning has blurred to include or exclude a variety of objects. By the end of the 19th century, the word planet had settled into a comfortable working term. It applied only to objects in the Solar System; a number small enough that any differences could be dealt with on an individual basis. After 1992 however, astronomers began to discover many additional objects beyond the orbit of Neptune, as well as hundreds of objects orbiting other stars. These discoveries not only increased the number of potential planets, but expanded their variety and peculiarity. The issue of a clear definition for planet came to a head in 2005 with the discovery of the trans-Neptunian object Eris, a body larger than the smallest then-accepted planet, Pluto. In its 2006 response, the International Astronomical Union released its decision on the matter. This definition, which applies only to the Solar System, states that a planet is a body that orbits the Sun, is massive enough for its own gravity to make it round, and has "cleared its neighbourhood" of smaller objects around its orbit. Under this new definition, Pluto, along with the other trans-Neptunian objects, does not qualify as a planet. (more...)

Main page appearance (2)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 8, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 8, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oort cloud (artist's rendering pictured) is a hypothesized spherical cloud of comets which may lie nearly a light-year from the Sun. It is thought to comprise two separate regions: a spherical outer Oort cloud and a disc-shaped inner Oort cloud, or Hills cloud; the outer extent of the cloud defines the boundary of our Solar System. Objects in the Oort cloud are largely composed of ices, such as water, ammonia, and methane and are thought to have formed close to the Sun, later being scattered into space by the gravitational effects of the giant planets early in the Solar System's evolution Although no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud have been made, astronomers believe that it is the source of all long-period and Halley-type comets entering the inner Solar System as well as many of the Centaurs and Jupiter-family comets. (more...)

Hello, Serendipodous. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
Watching out for the class as a whole
Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Pod suggestions

Hi Serendipodous! I'm in the process of trying to find Online Ambassadors to support each of the classes for this coming term, and I want to recommend a few to you: Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/MPP Integrative Core I (Mark Henderson) and Wikipedia:United States Education Program/Courses/Introduction to Sociological Theory (Dan Ryan). If you're up for it, please check out the Memorandum of Understanding (linked above) which sketches the expectations for Online Ambassadors this term, and then you can sign on to a class and get in touch with the professor.

If there's another class you'd rather support (or if you're up for joining more than one pod), feel free! We're shooting for at least about 2 Online Ambassadors for each class.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Serendipodous. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 14:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halley's Comet

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I apologise for both mistyping the year in that source and missing that the Giotto business was indeed already mentioned in the main text. I have since read through the whole article and summarised the few changes I made with this post to the talk page. I hope those changes are OK (if they need discussing, I'll be watching that page for a few days). I did have one more thought, which I'll mention over there. Also, the 1759/1765 thing may still need sorting out. Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DPs

Hi,

Actually, magnitude is not part of the definition of DP. It's a parameter used only for naming. The definition is still whether they're in equilibrium and do not dominate their orbit. We have a RS that there's virtually no doubt that these bodies meet the criteria, & :. are DPs. 'Candidate' implies some reasonable doubt, as there is for smaller bodies. — kwami (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Started a discussion on the DP page. — kwami (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mardyks

What's the deal with you and Mardyks on the 2012 phenomenon page? I provided a direct quotation and a reference and even offered to send you a e copy of the publication and yet you deleted his inclusion. The fact is that he was publishing on the "galactic alignment" for 2012 before John Major Jenkins, who continues to present that idea as if he were the first to think of it. He wasn't, and that merits documentation. Hoopes (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got email...

--Ckatz^chat _spy 21:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:8TNOs.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:8TNOs.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem might be that it's a jpg whereas the original is a png. I think you'll need to load it as a separate img (and note each in the other's 'other versions' box), unless you want to redo it as a png. (Which BTW is a ridiculous huge file. Should be scaled down anyway for those with slow connections.) — kwami (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf planets

Hey, not a fun request I know, but I'd appreciate whatever input you can give with respect to the DP issue. I honestly don't care if the consensus changes what we use as a standard, as long as there is a consensus. I find Kwami's repeated insertion of his perspective to be very frustrating. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update on courses and ambassador needs

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 phenomenon

Will you PLEASE refer to editor Doug Weller's comments on the 2012 phenomenon discussion page supporting my citation of a publication by Ray Mardyks? You have already demonstrated that you don't know much about astrology, even as it is represented in articles in Wikipedia. You also seem to appreciate little about the nature of scholarship on either pseudoscience or pseudoarchaeology, which relies upon citation of the content of specific fringe literature. There is no question about the fact that Mardyks published a specific comment in an article in The Mountain Astrologer, a publication that is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry. The issue of reliability is irrelevant and the issue of notability is assumed to have been answered by the existence of an entry for The Mountain Astrologer. It is not an issue of whether Markdyks is an authority, or whether what he said is correct. The only issue that matters is the fact of what he published in a "notable" publication.Hoopes (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: Triton (moon)

This is a note to let the main editors of Triton (moon) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 8, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 8, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Triton is the largest moon of the planet Neptune, discovered on October 10, 1846, by William Lassell. It is the only large moon in the Solar System with a retrograde orbit, which is an orbit in the opposite direction to its planet's rotation. At 2700 km in diameter, it is the seventh-largest moon in the Solar System. Because of its retrograde orbit and composition similar to Pluto's, Triton is thought to have been captured from the Kuiper belt. Triton consists of a crust of frozen nitrogen over an icy mantle believed to cover a substantial core of rock and metal. The core makes up two-thirds of its total mass. Triton has a mean density of 2.061 g/cm³ and is composed of approximately 15–35% water ice. Triton is one of the few moons in the Solar System known to be geologically active. As a consequence, its surface is relatively young, with a complex geological history revealed in intricate and mysterious cryovolcanic and tectonic terrains. Part of its crust is dotted with geysers believed to erupt nitrogen. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Serendipodous. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 16:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Serendipodous. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 16:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Serendipodous. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 16:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Serendipodous. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 17:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Living Dead

Any reason why you removed "DVD", "flight", "video game" and "insomnia" from the article? Sottolacqua (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issue at Undead. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 19:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bootstrap paradox in fiction for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bootstrap paradox in fiction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bootstrap paradox in fiction (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ravendrop 01:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Serendipodous! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours

Hey Serendipodous/archive 21! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not to see you at the session; the logs are here. In the meantime, the Foundation has started developing a new version of the tool which dispenses with the idea of "ratings", amongst other things. Take a look at WP:AFT5 and drop any comments, criticisms or suggestions you have on the talkpage - I'd be very grateful to hear your opinions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project

There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of archives for Talk:Pluto

I'm answering a CSD request associated with your blanking of the archives of Talk:Pluto. Why are you blanking these? --RA (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Serendipodous. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, --RA (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solar system is a stellar system

Hi. I respectfully disagree, but would be open to the use of a more accurate term, if you know of one. I have consulted several general and science dictionaries and find that they all concur with this use of the term. I specialized in astrophysics in college (although my degree is simply in physics) and have kept up with the field in the 35 years since. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have enjoyed discussing and researching this subject with you and hope that our discussion leads to increased clarity for all. I don't have an unabridged OED or the Oxford Dictionary of Science here, but next week I will visit a library and see what they have to say. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

Saturn is running on the mainpage Dec 4-- an old FA, a bit rough (someone put it up at TFA/R without review), in case you can do anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The article deals with a list of Universes. Yes, by virtue of existing, both Wessex and Lake Wobegon do exist within a fictional universe, but leaving it so open makes this a virtual dumping ground for anything fictional. That aside, I personally have no issue with Lake Wobegon being in the list, except for the fact that I feel it doesn't really have a "universe" to write about. All I know is the article, as it was / is (I assume you've probably reverted my edit) was very listcrufty, lacked any inclusion criteria, and had no standard for the grouping of universes except for subjective material such as "Dying Earth" and "Realistic Earth" etc.

Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, What exactly do you think should be done? Regardless, please feel free to add anything you think belongs on this list. I'm not going to father the article anymore.Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that you had been working on this before I did all that.... I'm sorry. Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry if I made you angry at all. I tried to find a definition but nearly everywhere I looked referred back to wikipedia's article. Do you have any suggestions to make the article better?Ncboy2010 (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see now. Well, in the most general sense a fictional universe is any location that exists outside OUR universe, but the only universes that are notable enough (to warrant an article for wikipedia) are those that encompass several novels, shows, movies etc. Is that where our wires got crossed? Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok then, well consider them added back in, friend. (Also, I'll remove the bit about "fictional universes that are the same as our Earth" Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]