User talk:Spacepotato/Archive 5

Thanks!

Thanks for your help with applying the argument of periapsis to exoplanets. — Aldaron • T/C 19:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Future of an expanding universe

Hi! I get your comment on the number of protons, however I think current explanation/formula is confusing, and should thus be improved. Besides, what is wrong with displaying calculation for the total number of protons left? George (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The article after your edit was wrong as it said there would be 10^-221 times as many nucleons left as exist today. There would be 10^-301 times as many as exist today, or an expected number of 10^-221 in all (assuming 10⁸⁰ exist today.) Spacepotato (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

small style issue

One of your edits to log-normal distribution prompts this comment:

c>1/2

c > 1/2

The second format here is standard and I think it's prescribed by WP:MOSMATH. (I've made the spaces non-breakable—no line-breaks can interrupt this things as browser window geometry changes.) Michael Hardy (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. [This is prescribed by WP:MOSNUM#Common_mathematical_symbols. Also, my edit was to Central limit theorem.] Spacepotato (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

La maison où j'ai grandi (album)

Hello, please checks your update...today I made 2 correction on this page: 1) Celentano wrote music, NOT words (by Beretta & Del Prete); 2) Vianello wrote music, NOT words (by Eliana De Sabata). Regards, --Vito.vita (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:User en-gb-5

Template:User en-gb-5 is a humour template, and there has been quite some discussion (first time and second time) about leaving it or deleting it. If you need the real language template, then it is here. Cheers Law Lord (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Source not reliable

Template:Source not reliable has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning on expanding Jupiter mass any time soon?

Because if you're not willing to take responsibility for bringing it up to code, then its one sentence of useful information is best merged with the main Jupiter article. Serendi^podous 10:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Jupiter mass is a widely used unit of mass and so it's better for it to have a separate article. Spacepotato (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But it is plainly visible in Jupiter#Mass. All the information in this article is also in Jupiter#Mass. Yes, I agree, the Jupiter mass is a notable unit, but if this article is only ever going to remain one sentence long, then it's obviously not strong enough to stand on its own. Serendi^podous 06:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I will not respond to this comment here as you have moved the discussion to Talk:Jupiter#Should_Jupiter_mass_be_merged_with_this_article.3F. Spacepotato (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

So-called Islamic Science

Greetings, oh tireless worker! I might not have as many barnstars as you, but I've made a few edits in my time. So I appreciate all the work you've been doing in distinguishing between genuine "Golden Age" inventions and things which were merely imported or slightly improved. I guess the point is to avoid taking away "credit where credit is due". --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed many bogus claims about who invented what when, such as that the p-n junction "was invented by Isamu Akasaki in 1989", and that "the thin-film transistor was invented by Shunpei Yamazaki and the Semiconductor Energy Laboratory (SEL) in Tokyo, in 1984." Spacepotato (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia:Inventions guideline, telling us contributors how to write about who invented what when? (Especially when there are conflicting claims) Or how about a Wikipedia:Portal like Portal:Inventions? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have such a guideline. Spacepotato (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Open source optics

I would be glad to learn the reason for removing this tag. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That tag is for vandalism (which may include blatant hoaxes.) The page appears not to be vandalism. Therefore, it is not a CSD G3 candidate. Spacepotato (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought {{db-vandalism}} is for G3 vandalism per Speedy_Delete. This article is a blatant hoax as there is no way to use open source in optical design. I admit the closing admin needs some understanding of the topic, but speedy deletion might be more appropriate here than Afd. Shall I revert you? Materialscientist (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No. I think both your statements, that the article is a blatant hoax and that there is no way to use open source in optical design, are incorrect. But in any case {{db-g3}} is wholly inappropriate as this article appears to be a good faith creation and therefore not vandalism. Spacepotato (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No hard feelings here at all. I just wish people do not take things at face values, search Google before believing in good faith and try clicking the links of that article. They are based on open source computing with no relation to optics. Materialscientist (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a very good article, but I see no reason to think it's a hoax. Spacepotato (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Glass

The source says "Here they introduced contemporary techniques of glass manufacture". If you have a supported evidence that those were not first glass factories - please provide it. If not, please do not remove referenced (even unreferenced, though true) material. Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Glass was manufactured in Christian Europe throughout the Middle Ages. See for example pp. 18 ff., Glass: a world history, Alan Macfarlane and Gerry Martin, ISBN 0226500284. The claim that this began in the 11th century is not correct and is a misinterpretation of the Hassan source. Spacepotato (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, so please add and correct (this) information to the article, not just strip information. Middle ages is vague, was it earlier than 1047? Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) Yes, read the source if you like. It explains at length that glass was produced continuously in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire until the Renaissance. (2) I am focussing on removing misinformation at this time as this is also a gain to the encyclopedia. Spacepotato (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

HD 41534

If someone mentioned about HD 41534 in a number of papers, you represent any of them, please.--Bay Flam (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Papers which discuss HD 41534, or any other star, can be found by searching for the star in SIMBAD [1] and examining the papers shown in the "References" section. In the case of HD 41534, we have for example Ap. J. 48, 144, Ap. J. 51, 254, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the Netherlands, 15, 301 ff., and PASP 92, 691-695; SIMBAD also lists many more. The star is a so-called "runaway" star; these are of special interest because of their unusually high space velocities. Spacepotato (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, adding references for HD 41534.--Bay Flam (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

question of empirical verifiability of the ultimate fate of the universe

Dear Spacepotato, I have written a note to you about this in the discussion section of the article about the heat death of the universe.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[I replied to this at Talk:Heat death of the universe.] Spacepotato (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age

Hi. I appreciate the way you support your edits by references and thought you would like to know that someone reverted your well-referenced edits wholesale. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, GP, and thanks for your note. Mostly, the material that was just added is material from the 16th and 17th centuries, as Jagged explained in this edit. I think that much of this material is not within the scope of the article, as, according to the title, the article is meant to be about inventions from the Islamic Golden Age. Also, some of it is wrong. But, anyway, the added material has nothing to do with my recent edits to the list and is not a reversion of them, so I think you might want to revert your recent edit to Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age. Spacepotato (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. Spacepotato (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Reverts

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Americas: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Hi Spacepotato! It’s great that you are reverting vandalism, but that’s only half the job. You also need to place a warning on the offending editor’s page. You can find the appropriate warning templates at WP:UTM. By placing these warnings on the offender’s page, as they escalate, the offender gets his access blocked. I went ahead and added the missing warnings, one warning for each of your reverts to America and Talk:America, and now that editor is at Level 4. Without your two warnings, he would only be at Level 2. Now, one more vandalism edit, and a report will be filed at WP:AIV. Thanks! SpikeToronto 05:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

factory

Good catch. I missed that part of the vandal's work. Alatari (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

{{Starbox detail}}

Per this template, it might just be easier to add a new field that gives the age in Gyr. That way we can transition the change. Other than that it makes sense to me, except possibly in cases where the star is very young.—RJH (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, adding a new age_gyr field seems reasonable. Spacepotato (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to work. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)