User talk:Ashill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Okajima

I thought I had switched that before when User:Yanksox notified me.

Thanks. I had forgotten to change it in both places.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sirius

Thanks for the luminosity bit. I placed it in the body of text as per MOS - can you get or have you got a ref for it? Much apprecaited. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The 25 solar luminosities number I used is from the sidebar of the Sirius page; I added no new information, but I'll copy the reference over. Ashill (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Spacepotato beat you to it. thanks anyway. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dashes on Planet

I see that you've converted a couple of spaced en-dashes to spaced em-dashes in Planet. Wikipedia has two possible standards for these dashes unspaced em-dashes, or spaced en-dashes (spaced em-dashes are incorrect). Since the article uses British English (e.g. the spelling of "neighbourhood"), I feel that spaced en-dashes are better, since that's the more common style in UK scientific literature. Bluap (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'd never noted en-dashes used in place of em-dashes before (and I'm not terribly wild about the form—it goes against everything I learned in middle school), but that's fine by me, as long as the article's consistent (which it wasn't before—some dashes were spaced, some not). I am American, FWIW. Ashill (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, Alex, I'd like to thank you for the writing the caption under my image of Parallax.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call

Clever solution to the Westover/Hartford issue. Calitorp (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the current version probably represents a decent consensus; sorry if this got a bit rancorous. ASHill (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Formation and evolution... GA worthy?

I've been trying to get this article listed in the Solar System FT for over a year, and never can get it good enough. I tried going for GA once, and was shot down. So now I'd like an opinion before trying again. Serendi^podous 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In my glance through it, it looks like it probably is, but I haven't read it carefully. I'll try to read it this afternoon/evening (North American time) and give a more thorough opinion. ASHill (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Formation and evolution of the Solar System for my comments. ASHill (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: galactic evolution. The two sources at the end source the entire paragraph. I know this because I wrote the paragraph and I used those two sources to write it. If you feel the sources would be better duplicated sentence by sentence, fair enough, but I thought you should know that. 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sure enough. My problem is that there are several additional citations in the middle of the paragraph that provide ancillary information about the term but don't state the fact, so the citation is unclear.

I think having the two good sources you used (Cain 2007 and Cox and Loeb 2007) at the end of the paragraph is the best way to go. Do you think the other three citations in the paragraph should be deleted, changed in someway to clarify the source, kept as they are, or another option? ASHill (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and chose option (a); feel free to change if you feel prefer. ASHill (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I should bookmark your talk page. Anyway, yes, I agree. Serendi^podous 07:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation

I've been noticing that all of a sudden the level of citation demanded for FA and GA class articles has smashed through the ceiling. I never had to worry about such deep levels of citation before, and I have over 11 FAs to my name. What happened? Did Wikipedia suddenly become a respected academic resource when I wasn't looking? Serendi^podous 08:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; I haven't brought anything to FA except for minor contributions. Solar System formation is close (maybe already there) to GA, although I think the "Issues with the nebular hypothesis" section is weaker than the rest of the article. The article is certainly much improved over where it was for the last review. You want to go for it? Hell, how far do you think it is from FA?

I am an academic, so I may be emblematic of the trend, if there is one. ;) It's entirely possible that I'm more finnicky about refs than is required to pass GA, but that doesn't mean it's bad to do anyway. I've spent a lot of time finding dead links that were posted as citations with no further identifying information, which is more of a pain in the butt than giving a full citation the first time around. ASHill (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I say thank you for sticking with FAETSS? I don't usually get help of this quality on this article, which has been a pain in my side for years. I'm not a scientist, so it is comforting to know someone with a solid background is around to keep things straight. Serendi^podous 17:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you still feel the Moons section needs to be expanded? Serendi^podous 07:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I expanded it by a sentence or two, but I think it's OK on rereading it. ASHill (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And there I was, thinking I was being so clever, going over to Microsoft Word and hitting "replace all". Oh well. We live and learn. Thanks for spotting that. Serendi^podous 14:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. I did a search and replace in TextWrangler, checking each of its suggestions. (You also changed Colorado to Colourado, which I found particularly amusing.) ;) ASHill (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll pretend I didn't read that :-) Anyway, I've gone over the article a few times and while it will need some work before it gets to FA, I think it is ready for a GA. What do you think? Serendi^podous 21:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy your holiday; don't stress unduly on my account. Have fun. I'll take it from here. :-) Serendi^podous 15:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Logan Airport

Gah! You beat me to it (the former airlines list cite request). I was searching for the appropriate template and when I found it I went to the page and you had already done it. I agree btw. Thanks! Neo16287 (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Took me a while to find the right template too. I'll give it a few days for someone to find a source before deleting the material (even though I'm pretty sure it's at least mostly right). It would probably be more appropriate in the prose in the history section anyway. ASHill (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. My airline's bag office is in the old part of Terminal E, and we have an old sign hanging there from when it was the main part of the terminal, The names are covered in duct tape, but you can see the outlines of a few airlines (including TAP, Canadian and Olympic). Nostalgic, but yeah, could use a cite! Neo16287 (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that too.

I also think that I may include a history of solar system end hypotheses, if I can find any. Serendi^podous 15:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What the article needs now, which isn't really addressed in the Woolfson article, is an explanation of how Prentice's reformulation of the Laplacian model became the standard theory for Solar System formation. Since Woolfson appears to espouse another view, he doesn't really go into that. Serendi^podous 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I must admit to only having skimmed Woolfson so far. However, the 1978 date currently in the article for the revival of the nebular hypothesis seems much too recent to me (although I may be wrong). A quick look finds that Boss (1989) cites work dating back to 1943 on angular momentum transport in the Solar nebula. However, this isn't a synthesis with a historical perspective. ASHill (talk)

I should clarify here that that the Prentice's theory—Modern Laplacian Model has nothing to do with the modern widely accepted theory of planet and star formation, which is called in the same article Solar Nebular Disk Model (SNDM). The latter is only a distance heir of the original Laplacian Model. Prentice actually thinks that planets formed from rings (or toruses) of material that separated from the contracting Sun. They should have carried out the accessive momentun. However his model is not especially popular now. Prentice's theory says nothing about accretion disks and provides wrong explanation for the classical T Tauri star's activity, which, as now known, is connected to accretion and not to any intrisinc activity. In addition, the rings, even if formed, would probably disperse without collapsing into planets (see p.12). So the Nebular Hypothesis article is about SNDM, not about Pretince's theory. The name Modern Laplacian Model is actually misleading. Ruslik (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I don't normally give these out for GAs, and, strictly speaking, this isn't a GA yet; more of a promissory GA in anticipation of future completion, but, as I am immensely grateful for your help in getting through the nightmare that has been Formation and evolution of the Solar System, I think you deserve one. Serendipodous 13:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say...

That I meant to put a smiley face after my last edit summary. It reads a lot more nastily than it was intended. Sorry. :) Serendi^podous 14:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem (no offense taken), but thanks for the note. I was about to start a discussion of whether I should undo the switch to scientific notation; is that unnecessary? :) ASHill (talk | contribs) 14:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It might just be a personal issue for me. I'm a bit dyslexic (I think), so, as you may have noticed, I find scientific notation perennially confusing. Personally, I can see the value of scientific notation for numbers higher than say, 100 trillion, but for numbers that people are familiar with, I think spelling them out is simpler for non-scientists to grasp. Ruslik, being a scientist, tends to put everything (even "1000") into scientific notation, and I tend to pull him back on that. Of course, scientific notation is easier to multiply and divide, so it makes perfect scientific sense to express all numbers in it, but when you're just trying to state a number, I don't think it necessary. But that's just me. Serendi^podous 15:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Being an astronomer, I have to resist the tendency to skip past scientific notation altogether and just use logarithms, so I may not be the best person to ask. Hell, I'll put 1 in scientific notation in some contexts. :) In teaching astronomy, I question how much people really are familiar with (i. e. actually understand) numbers as small as 1000, but it's certainly true that people are far more familiar with the term million than $10^{6}$. There are certainly arguments for both, and I don't feel strongly about it. ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hell, I'll put 1 in scientific notation in some contexts. :)

See, that's what I don't get; isn't that just writing two extra zeroes? :) Serendi^podous 15:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In some contexts, like comparing $10^{0}$ to $10^{-12}$; easy to see that the difference is 12 orders of magnitude. There may have been some self-satire in that comment, though. ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Mis-identified vandalism

Sorry. I apologized to the editor. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Regards.Oda Mari (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So, do you want to go to FAC now?

I think Formation and evolution of the Solar System is ready for an FAC. Serendi^podous 06:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ashill, please note how I had to alter your sig to remove the "|" in order to cap my comments at FAC: [1] Those bars in sig files interfere with the caps, and cause all subsequent commentary to be dropped; it would be a good idea to remove the bar from your sig file, as this will be a recurring problem at FAC. Thanks for getting on those changes so quickly; I have become frustrated about having to highlight the same issues over and over and over and over again on astronomy FACs ... it's so time consuming. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my signature in the FAC discussion; it should be fixed for the future now. (I added the contribs to my signature recently.) ASHill (talk | contribs) 01:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the first volley, Ash. I really wish I'd been more insistent about the citation issue; SandyGeorgia, as you noticed, is not happy with the current state of astronomy articles. Serendi^podous 08:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. We did not do a good enough job on the ref formatting (some author lists separated by semicolons, some by commas; some with 'and' before the last author, some without). SandyGeorgia was right to be annoyed about that. However, I do think that the template change for the further reading section made the article slightly (very slightly, enough that it's not worth putting further energy into fighting it) worse off for the reasons I outlined in the discussion. I'm a grammar/style stickler in many ways, but this seems like form over function.

In the future, using "Smith, J.; Doe, J." for references in future articles (as is done by both cite xxx and citation templates when the last= and first= parameters are specified) could help to alleviate these concerns at FAC. That format also has the advantage that you can copy and paste the BibTeX entry for an ADS entry into the article and modify it only slightly to get the right formatting for the templates. It could also allow User:DOI bot to do the journal citations for us if we just provide a doi, if the bugs in the bot get ironed out. ASHill (talk | contribs) 13:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

		A Tall Cool Glass Of OJ
		After the slog that was Formation and evolution of the Solar System, I think we could all use a nice, tall, cool glass of OJ. Thanks for all your great work! I couldn't have got this far without your help. Serendipodous 06:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Red dwarf stars

Can you check my edits about red dwarf stars? Proxima Centauri 2 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Stellar evolution and Sun

Per stellar evolution, Sun will become red giant after 5 billion years. However luminosity of the Sun will increase by 10 percent over the next 1.1 billion years. Will land animals become extinct only after Sun becomes red giant, or within 1.1 billion years due to Sun's increasing luminosity? What will be the effect on land animals if luminosity of Sun increases by 10%? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

Hi. Just don't want you to think I'm stalking you or anything, changing your changes. I want to change the one change you made to the article, but it's better if you do it, I think. The Sun's light may be dim out there, but it isn't dilute. Also, it's heat that is keeping ice from forming, so to say "light" leaves us to suppose you mean infrared, which is a bit mystifying. The old way, with weak rays, said it better, I think. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No stalking concerns; I'm spending a lot of time undoing others' changes on that article today. :)

The Sun's light is dilute out there: individual rays are spread out as 1/r² and thus the same amount of energy (in the form of electromagnetic radiation) covers a larger surface area. The intensity of the Sun's light (at all wavelengths) is what determines the temperature. However, the term could be confused. I agree that just talking about temperature is an improvement, so I made a change. ASHill (talk | contribs) 16:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Good-o. I just mainly didn't like "dilute". Maybe "diffuse" is what you meant? --Milkbreath (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Dilute" is often used to describe a radiation field; I think of diffuse as referring more to a low density gas, but maybe that's just me. Just as well to avoid both now, as it's obviously not clear. ASHill (talk | contribs) 16:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. This is why I came to your talk page in the first place. I was unaware of the special use of "dilute", but I had a feeling you knew what you were doing. Still, now you know that the general intelligent readership won't know that, either. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for pointing it out. (The dangers of working on pages kinda sorta in my field—I try hard to avoid jargon, but it's sometimes hard to know what's unclear.) ASHill (talk | contribs) 17:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for the clean up and editing of super galaxy. Very nice job.FX (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I need help

I'm on the verge of starting an edit war, and having just got blocked for edit warring I really don't want to start over again. I could use a third person arbitration before things get hairy. The issue is quite simple, but rather fraught. There's an article called "Hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets" that was created as a merge article for the articles on the ninth planet and the tenth planet. I've never been a fan of this article; it's meandering, vague, gossipy, unsourced and lacking in anything approaching historical and scientific rigour. Since much of what it said was already in the Planet X article, which is far better sourced and organised, and since no one had made any substantial edits to the other article in months, I decided to merge the other article with Planet X, assuming no one would even notice, let alone care. However, a few days later, to my absolute shock, someone showed up who apparently cared. User:The Tom not only reinstated the other article, but began removing similar material from "Planet X", much to my chagrin, as the material in Planet X was cited and the equivalent material in the other article was not. Eventually we came to a kind of compromise (although not one I liked very much) that "Planet X" would be strictly about Lowell's idea, with all other hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets kept in the other article. Specifically, the other article was to hold material on the recent announcement by Patryk Lykawka of Kobe University that gravitational effects suggest the presence of a large planet in the outer Solar System. Since this is essentially the same rationale for Lowell's Planet X, Lykawka's planet is called "Planet X" in the media. There are also other "Planet X"s out there, proposed by other astronomers.

Nonetheless, I held for a few days, because I didn't particularly care. However, today, a slew of information has been added to the Planet X article about Lykawka's planet, and I realised that if I was to hold to Tom's separation policy I would be spending the rest of my Wiki career removing this information, which I didn't particularly want to do, especially since I felt it should be there anyway, and that the other article wasn't worth saving. So I reverted the merge and reinstated all the old material. But I figured Tom would burst his gasket when he found out, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Let me know what you think. Serendi^podous 14:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Kind words, laced with wisdom

This is a response to your message you left on my talk page. Yes, it makes hash of a conversation, but such is the failings of the discussion process here. I imagine somebody with a far keener mind than my own, has attempted to solve this, and no doubt was soundly talked out of it. {grin}

As time goes by, I find it hard to remember why any of it was important. I blame the serious amount of pain killers I was on at the time, recovering from surgery, with little to do, a foray into the Wikiworld seemed like a good idea at the time. Fortune favors the brave, at least in the real world. But I have found the wikiworld a mirror image of reality, in that sense that those with the most time to spend, are the reverse of the real world, where those with the most to offer, have the least time for such pleasures.

Sadly, my lot in life has turned back to the real world, and with such a horrendous event, the surreal world of wikicraft has become a ghost image, a dream I once had. or something like that. But I wanted to respond at least, before the winds of fate take us on our seperate ways. I wish you well.FX (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Venus' fate

I thought Venus also have chance to escape over sun's engulfment. If lucky Venus and Earth wouldve been in orbit of 1.3 and 1.7 AUs. This all depends on sun's expansion. Anyplace between 1 and 1.5 AU. --Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ashill about sources

The Source is unreliable because the figure 10^37 is not listed anywhere in the source and there is no definite proof that the half life of a proton in 10^37 years. It doesn't even say that. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maldek 3RR violation

Actually, Maldek did violate 3RR:

• 1st revert: 04:14, 12 July 2008
• 2nd revert: 19:35, 12 July 2008
• 3rd revert: 22:13, 12 July 2008
• 4th revert: 03:49, 13 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning: 01:06, 13 July 2008

Spacepotato (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure enough; I edited the 3RR violation report with those diffs. ASHill (talk | contribs) 04:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Maldek's Comments for Ashills Edits

I am sorry I erased some important edits on the date of these theories but in order to undue many of the edits you made I had to undo all of them because if you have too many intermediate edits it won’t let you undo any of the earlier edits. The first thing I would like to bring up is that Spacepotatoe and I both agree on the Black Hole Chart. Actually it was Spacepotatoe’s idea in the first place to organize my data with into a chart. Spacepotatoe himself has found reliable research that is even more accurate than my data so he personally deserves credit for the exact dates of black hole disintegration. We all know all of Spacepotatoe’s sources are 100 percent scientifically accurate and reliable, so there is no arguing there. Spacepotatoe also deserves credit for adding the Coalescing of the Local Group which you erased. After Spacepotatoe added this new section on the Merging of the Local Group, I complemented the section with a new section that explained the process. This section was the Merging of the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy, a sort of precursor to the Colascing of the Local Group. Then Spacepotatoe got 100 percent reliable sources and fixed my new section so that is 100 percent scientifically correct and appropriate for Wikipedia. So all 3 of the things you erased were approved by Spacepotatoe who used 100 percent scientifically accurate and reliable sources. Another thing is if you do not want the black hole chart, I can go back to the way I used the information before the Chart, which was creating a new section for each black hole mass. I could do that if you like, but I think you would like the chart displaying the black hole lifetimes more than my previous method, and I know for certain Spacepotatoe likes the Chart better since he created and pioneered it. Another thing is that Spacepotatoe has establisthed the correct lifetime for 20 trillion solar mass black holes at 1.7x 10^106 years. He has supplied 100 percent scientifically accurate and reliable sources for this figure. I know because originally I wrote 10^106 years for the lifetime of 20 trillion solar mass black holes and he told me about his perfect source that states 1.7x 10^106 years. So I would appreaciate it if you stopped changing the number to 10^100 years since it is not consistent with the article. Another thing is that you are erasing information about the Black Hole Era which both me and SpacePotatoe agree upon and, Spacepotatoe has once again supplied 100 percent scientifically accurate and reliable sources for it. So I would appreciate it if you stop erasing material from the article that has already been agreed upon by Spacepotaoe; Information which I support in firm belief of its 100 percent scientific accuracy and reliability. That is why I reverted the article back to the last edit by Spacepotatoe. Once again I am sorry I erased some important corrections that you made, but as I explained before in order to undo some of your earlier edits I had to undo your more recent edits because you cannot undo earlier edits if there are too many intermediate edits. Thank You for your cooperation. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation help

Thanks for your help on the Harvnb citation mixup on History of Northwestern University! Madcoverboy (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Continual reverts

The other article has gone through numbers of reverts. It is only because of tidal interaction between Earth makes Venus' chance even less likely to survive. The use 71.2xx got it wrong. Just forget about the tidal interaction then Venus' orbit will have swell to 1.3 AU, when sun is liek 1.11 AU or so. I thoguht Venus is not a guarentee to be swallow up, there is still certain chances Venus will actually survive.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 04:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's why I undid the edit at formation and evolution of the Solar System. I wouldn't say much of anything about the fate of the planets with great certainty, and anything must be sourced. However, the inclusion of words like "most likely" is ultimately a matter of editorial judgement that will always be debatable, on some level. -Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 05:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1E19 article

Super! Your use of math mode worked for me. I wasn't sure if my changes affected others so your edit makes much more sense.Mytg8 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lunar parallax diagram in 'Parallax' article

Ashill thanks for redesigning my insertion of the lunar parallax diagram. But you put in far more empty space than I dared, and also it seems to me the smaller diagram of lunar occultation has got far too displaced. I was painstakingly trying to achieve their being located next to their relevant text. But wotever ! But what do you think about possibly also adding some of the text about daily parallax of moon, sun and planets I originally provided with the diagram in Talk, given these discoveries of parallax were of such central importance in the astronomical revolution ? --Logicus (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Solar System

I noticed your edit, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System#New_List. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

May contain nuts

You said; "Please do not create pages to make a point; this is disruptive behavior."

I did not create this category to make a point.

It is true that it was inspired by a lack of reasoning ability in other editors (in my opinion). I said myself it was inspired by an "Edit War". Note inspired, I use that word very deliberately.

It is a legitimate category. The definition of the category makes complete sense. Can you provide logical reasoning to deny this? Pointing out what you think my motives were for it's creation does not count towards this.

Some wikipedia articles will fit here due to their poor presentation.

This is an inventive and memorable name for an otherwise difficult to name category.

---

You said of me, "you don't do yourself any favors by pulling stunts ... it's very hard to take your contributions seriously with this stuff"

My Dad is fond of saying "Many a serious thing is said in jest".

The comedian Marcus Brigstocke is fond of saying; President George W. Gump.

You might describe an inclusion of an article in this category as satire, but you cannot use this to say the category shouldn't exist.

I have now talked myself into saying that my inclusion of the Solar System article could be described as satirical, but as my dad says; many a serious thing is said in jest.

I was hoping to force the inflexible of mind to exercise some grey matter by my ascribing the Solar System to this category. You have disappointed me, I expected you to be more nimble minded.

I will re-create the category. -HarryAlffa (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can't see that this category is totally inappropriate, I don't know what to say. Yes, I know it was created in jest; that doesn't make it OK for Wikipedia. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has categories for articles that require cleanup or other improvements. See templates like {{cleanup}} in Category:Cleanup templates. (All of the cleanup templates place articles in cleanup categories.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Stockhausen and Sirius

Hi, thanks for formatting those refs for me -- normally, I would have done so, but I've gotten so used to editing articles that are in disastrous shape (unlike the Sirius article, which is excellent) that I've gotten too careless about that sort of thing. My error. Stockhausen is so closely identified with the star -- numerous reports on his death made comments to the effect that "now he's going back to Sirius" -- that I think it meets the threshold of relevance, and certainly merits inclusion as much as, say, Harry Potter's Sirius Black. It's difficult to say where supplemental information ends and trivia begins, but I'd (unsurprisingly) vote for inclusion on this one. Goldenband (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Re formatting: not a problem—thanks for providing a ref at all! (That much is often pulling teeth).

Yeah, trivia is always a tough call. Having multiple citations that mention it extensively (as Stockhausen does) certainly makes the case for inclusion stronger.... —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

HarryAlffa and Talking Sh*t

HarryAlffa is talking sh!t about you and accusing you of being the same person as Serendipodous and Ckatz. Check this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Ashill —Preceding unsigned comment added by EXPOSING LIES (talk • contribs) 15:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I'm not sure the checkuser request and sockpuppet accusation are worth dignifying with a reply; no one seems to believe them. See also WP:Wikiquette alerts#User:HarryAlffa. If someone does, I'll bother to compile the ample evidence that they're bullsh*t. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As I can judge, User:EXPOSING LIES is a sockpuppet of User:HarryAlffa. Ruslik (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that I have no sockpuppets, from my style of interaction, do I sound like the kind of guy who would need to hide behind anything? No I am not :)

I assumed he was a sockpuppet of one of those people who he awarded the Star thing about the way I've been "handled", or to the other users pages he contributed to. My suspicion & accusation (which I accept was incorrect) of sockpuppetry I thought perhaps had inspired someone to make a sockpuppet with which to beat me, or support those who I was in conflict with. His contributions are obviously suspiciously recent and focused.

[Contrib]

1. 20:37, 19 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ckatz ‎
2. 20:28, 19 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Serendipodous ‎
3. 20:11, 17 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ruslik0 ‎
4. 15:26, 17 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ashill]

Would someone else like to report him as sockpuppet of one of these people or myself? -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who User:EXPOSING LIES is, and I don't really care, as long as (s)he continues to only make bizarre comments in user talk space. His/her writing style is different than any of the editors involved in this dispute, as far as I can tell. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry to disappoint you all, friends, but I am afraid that I am no one's sock puppet. I suppose you can say I am a specialist of sorts. EXPOSING LIES (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

99.86 percent of mass -- how do you know?

Hi. I thought you might like to take a look at this. --Doradus (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Comments

From User_talk:HarryAlffa

Harry, knock off the personal comments. You've been warned repeatedly, and yet you persist. I quote: "Ckatz leave the editing to those editors active in the talk pages. You have contributed nothing there." That is totally inappropriate. Ckatz is correctly reading the consensus (at least, I agree with his reading of the consensus). Moreover, Ckatz has a long history of contributing to the Solar System article and, I believe, wrote much of it. However, that doesn't matter: anyone is free to edit, including you (who came to the page quite recently, btw), within consensus. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ckatz has contributed one thing to the talk pages since 31 July
• Ckatz has contributed bugger all to the talk about "Rock, ice and gas"
• Such arogant actions from a knowledgeable user deserves critical comment in the edit summary
• This was not a personal comment. "My friend has a big pluke on the end of his nose, sometimes it comes and sometimes it shows, where he is in the dark 'cause it glows" That is a personal comment
• Mines was a personal message.
• Ckatz having contributed bugger all to the talk page cannot be counted in the consensus
• You wanted rid of the ice paragraph I wrote.
• Ckatz simply deleted it as a "consensus monkey"
• Myself and Sorendipodus are the only editors actually significantly expanding this.
• There is therefore no consensus in the talk page.
• My last edit on this was a merging of my own ice paragraph and Sorendipodus's rock and gas contributions.

What about other edit summary comments before the one I made to offend you?

• 19:21, 24 August 2008 Ckatz (Talk | contribs) m (96,394 bytes) (Reverted to revision 233951406 by HarryAlffa; rv. to better version; S. has worked to accomodate you, please do the same.)
• 16:04, 22 August 2008 Serendipodous (Talk | contribs) (96,324 bytes) (OK. I'm having a go at accommodating your concerns. I would appreciate it if you didn't authomatically delete this. I would also appreciate it if you saw fit for once not to insult me)
• 15:44, 22 August 2008 Serendipodous (Talk | contribs) (96,027 bytes) (→Terminology: if ice is to be discussed, then gas and rock should also be discussed. Please discuss this on the talk page before reverting it. It's not a deletion, it's a compromise.)

Did you tell Ckatz & Serendipodous that such "comments" were inappropriate? -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have no reply? -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all relative

Jupiter's methane abundance is ~0.3 percent, Uranus's is 2.3 percent. That's not a big difference in absolute terms but it's still almost eight times higher. Serendi^podous 19:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Right; my point is that the methane abundance is much higher (factor of 8, by those numbers), but the hydrogen abundance is not much lower (only a few percent). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Jupiter and Saturn's sky

on planet's sky it said their sky may be blue by how blue? is the sky indigo or purple or something like those? Because Saturn's disc is actually blue from outer space, posibly the scattering making Saturn look yellowish from wave scattering. For Uranus and Neptune thier sky mut be something like green or blue I'm not sure how deep or shallow. Even Uranus and Neptune, htere is no such thing as solid surface at all. We don't exactly have a source of exactly what's the fix color of gas giant's sky because they don't have a solid surface, so their sky is more than just one color. Uranus and Neptune ranges color between both green and blue except Uranus is baby color while neptune has a rich color.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 22:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That article looks to be sorely lacking in references. I'm afraid I really have no idea, so I can't help. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't have idea of if Jupiter's sky is light blue or dark blue? The problem is those gas giants lack solid surface, not only Jupiter lacks solid surface bt Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune as well. Their surface is actually clouds I believe, plus they have no place for spacecraft to touchdown.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't know and I don't have any sources to point you towards. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mid solar system

for the record, was a term I invented, though I didn't want to. Initially, I simply had the article divided into "inner planets," "outer planets", "kuiper belt" etc, but the article's FAC demanded that it's TOC be given a hierarchical structure, with subheadings. Since it seemed to me that the term "outer Solar System" was (and is) in flux, with some using it to refer to the trans-Neptunian region and others using it to refer to the outer planets, I felt it would be better not to broach the topic directly and simply create a term. I told this to the FA reviewers and they didn't seem to care. Serendi^podous 09:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a totally fair decision at the time, if FA reviewers harped on it. This is not exactly a big deal issue, but I think "outer" and "inner" are more like adjectives than actual accepted terms. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 13:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Solar masses

You're welcome. JIMp _talk·cont 23:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Fusion

Thanks for your comment, I see my post is misplaced, but I still think its important to remind the folks in the lab what a common man thinks of the science. I really want it to work!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mturner15 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Solar System composition

I'm thinking of creating a "composition" section for Solar System that would go below "Structure", include both the isotope chart and the "gas-ice-rock" paragraph, and also go refute one of the stupider creationist arguments: If the Solar System formed from the Sun, why are all the planets different? Answer: the Solar System is still overwhelmingly composed of Solar material. Solid stuff (including us) is just leftover debris. BTW; I think I may have made a mistake above vis a vis ice giants. The composition figures I mentioned might just have been the atmosphere. I would like to determine if Uranus and Neptune really are mostly composed of ices. Serendi^podous 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a composition section would be great. Yes, indeed, the textbooks generally say that Uranus and Neptune certainly contain elevated amounts of methane and ammonia, which are in icy form in the outer atmosphere of both planets. I'm not clear if the elemental abundances are very different than Solar. I'm not sure if I'm having trouble finding the information, or if no one really knows; I suspect it's some of each. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Jupiter

Serendipodous and I are working on this article, which is one of the most complex articles I ever wrote here! May I ask you to join us in this enterprise. The article requires careful reading and copyediting by someone not familiar with text and having a scitific background. Ruslik (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to, but I'm rather real-world busy now. I hope to give it a good read-through on Saturday. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Hubble Deep Field for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Ceran [ speak ] 14:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Midwest Airlines

Noticed you changed the article back to present tense. While I agree "Midwest" airplanes are still around, the airline itself is gone as the airplanes are operated by Frontier and Republic. Could we compromise and call it a "current operating brand" of Republic but keep the rest of the article in past tense? Republic is basically keeping the Midwest brand until they can get the planes repainted. Once that changes Midwest will cease to exist totally. Thoughts? N419BH 00:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Midwest Airlines. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Great to see you again Ash!

The Solar System crowd were getting lonely without you! :) Serendi^podous 23:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm around in fits and starts. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

age of the universe

i was simply concerned that an ignorant laymen might associate it with the theory of evolution by natural selection. in natural science articles we have to use the word "evolution" sparingly because it could easily be confused with the actual theory. Cadiomals (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That was my guess and it's fair. I think that's less of a concern in the physical sciences, and evolution (in the sense of "gradual change, esp. from a simple to more complex form") is, I think, a slightly better word than "development". Development, to me, sounds a little more guided or human than the change over time of the Universe is. I don't feel strongly at all, though -- if you want to revert my revert, I won't object. Both dictionary definitions of "evolution" that I've quickly looked up do include the word "development", for what it's worth. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 03:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW

Hey Alex! Just letting you know I undid you removal of the planet names from the infobox. While I totally agree with you that it looks less than ideal, what about those who read with images disabled? Granted, they're a minority... but they're still a minority. :) Theopolisme 22:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm replying at Talk:Solar System. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Logan Airport Update

Hi, Alex. This is Connor. Do I have consent to move the Top Destinations charts below the Airlines & Destinations table? I feel that they would better fit there, since the Traffic & Statistics section seems to be more for general airport statistics. Do you and others agree or disagree?

Also, how do I know that a picture is OK for use? I just don't want to violate copyright. Thanks. -Connor (User:ConnorLax101)

Re tables: I agree, moving them down would be good. The whole traffic & statistics section could maybe be moved down too, though that's less clear. The tables are quite ugly and poorly formatted as they are; I made a half-hearted attempt to clean them up a bit ago but couldn't get the syntax right.

Re images: see WP:IUP, particularly the "Copyright and Licensing" section. The vast majority of the images you find on the Internet are copyrighted and not legally suitable for Wikipedia; only images which explicitly state a license or use permission suitable for Wikipedia can be used, unless you have other reason to believe/know that the image is in the public domain or otherwise suitable for Wikipedia. (Images created by a US federal government employee in the course of his/her official duties and images old enough for the copyright to have expired are two common examples of the latter, but there probably won't be any of those suitable for Logan Airport.) It's quite restrictive, but Wikipedia (appropriately) takes copyright very seriously.

By the way, you don't need my or anyone else's consent in general to make a change that you haven't made before. It's only when you have reason to suspect that there isn't a clear consensus for your changes (such as when you're making an edit that has already been reverted) that it's important to go to the talk pages. I thank you for erring on the side of caution, though. :) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The new data is up. It's a lot betterlooking. The only thing in question is whether or not I should delete #'s 11-15 on the International list. This is because I do not know their 2010 statistics. Otherwise, it's set. Thank you.-Connor talk

Logan Airport Pictures

Hi ASHill, it's Connor. I figured out that one of the picture sharing sites Wikipedia likes is flickr.com, which is where I got two of the photos you deleted. Just to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorLax101 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Many images on flickr include a license (such as Creative Commons) that is suitable for use on Wikipedia, but many do not. You need to look at the license for the individual image. If no license is explicitly stated, the default (under US copyright law, the governing law for Wikipedia) is copyright, all rights reserved, which means not suitable for Wikipedia. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Connor. Sorry if I misled you, but at least one of the images you just added, File:British Airways 747 Ground Services at Terminal E Logan Airport.jpg, does not have a suitable license for Wikipedia. It has a creative commons no derivatives, not for commercial use license; that is not one of the creative commons licenses that can be used for Wikipedia. Wikipedia images must allow derivative and commercial use. See WP:TAG. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A further note: the image File:United and US Airways planes on the taxiway at Logan Airport.jpg has a creative commons attribution license without the no derivatives and no commercial use clauses. Thus, that image is suitable for Wikipedia. However, you incorrectly tagged it as being in the public domain. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What images can I add that have international carriers at Logan, but are useful? flickr.com seems to have a lot of 'All Rights Reserved' pictures. Thanks.-Connor (ConnorLax101 | talk)

I'm afraid I don't know of any. It's certainly hard to find freely licensed images, just like it's hard to find freely licensed text. Like with the text of Wikipedia, perhaps the best way is to produce the free content oneself (although it's certainly easier to take sources and write new text than to produce new images). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

China Eastern Boston Service

Hi. I noticed that online, it says that China Eastern was launching Boston-Beijing service last June 1, 2012. What happened? It doesn't show Boston as "terminated". Thanks.-Connor (ConnorLax101 | talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

China Airlines Cargo site not working

Hi, Alex. I would like to inform you that the China Airlines Cargo server is down. I am receiving this message. Thanks. (WorldTraveller101 | What is up? | How do I help?) 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This works for me. Maybe it's back up now? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI

A user has vandalized your user info page and I reverted it. I will warn him for he was clearly trying to vandalize it. Thanks. (WorldTraveller101 | What is up? | How do I help?) 02:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. No worries, though. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 04:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to briefly explain why I removed the list:

• 1. It has been so disputed, and according to your guidelines (which I think should be added to WP:Airport soon), it claims that lists or destination tables are must-haves. Perhaps, I can work to add pother, more useful information instead? Thanks. -Connor (WorldTraveller101 | What is up? | How do I help?) 13:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Have a kitten for always being on the ball with constructive edits and creating the Cargo policies at WP:Airport. Thanks. ^Oops?WorldTraveller101^{Follow my work?} 11:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Airport Cargo

For most U.S airports, such as San Francisco, Miami, JFK, etc, should I just make it a simple cargo airline list? I think it's time. World Traveller101 10:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. I've deliberately been quite slow about it to avoid making wholesale changes without clear consensus and because this particular issue isn't one I care enough to get into fights about. Just be aware that doing so would be changing a de facto consensus indicating by the full cargo destination lists on most airport articles, so be willing to talk about it to either build consensus or retreat. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 11:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm also kind of going slowly, mainly to see if there will be disagreement or no consensus. However, no one has reverted or objected to it so far, so I might as well keep doing it slowly. Thanks for the advise. World Traveller101 17:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edit at San Francisco International Airport is exactly why simple lists work better. These tables and destinations are utter fluff. Thanks for the revert at Logan International Airport. Was he warned? I agree. Level 1. Thanks, Alex. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 01:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course the IP wasn't warned; it was a good faith and entirely defensible edit. I just happen to disagree. A warning would be inappropriate. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Ashill. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Talk:Amsterdam Airport Schiphol You have made great contributions to airport articles, so why not help me out and make this article a B-class. It almost has it, but it needs a little bit more citations and references. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 13:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A thought for you!

Hi, Alex. I believe that you are an excellent contributor that has a good eye on accuracy. You are already a reviewer, but you also seem qualified to be a rollbacker. Would you want to apply for that? You don't have to, but just an idea. Happy editing. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 12:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm certain such a request would be approved, but I have no interest. From observing others, I find such tools lead often to sloppy editing and prefer to be more careful. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

editing "star"

Hi Alex: I am glad that your efforts as Cerberus for my editing on "Star" Granted the the use of centripetal and centrifugal were not happy. I used them in their etymological sense fully aware that any use of these words is controversial.

That said, I still do not see what else was wrong with the edit. As is the opening of "star" is a very weak introit, and I wanted to beef it up and help lead the reader on. Why dont you fix that opening paragraph, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zinganthropus (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant to encourage you to restore your edits, but this time without breaking all the references. It's very difficult to tell what you changed from the diff because there's so much erroneous formatting, so I can't easily restore any of the content bit; since you know what you did, it would presumably be easier for you. I was just warning you about a content error I noticed while at it.

I do think that the current into to star is pretty good, albeit maybe a bit long. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

initial formation environment

Don't understand that the solar system has a initial formation environment? --J. D. Redding 11:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My problem is that the sentence "The Solar System has evolved since its initial formation environment." makes no sense. Yes, there was an environment in which it formed (as discussed extensively in the article), but that doesn't go grammatically with the rest of the sentence. Did you mean "The environment of the Solar System has evolved since the Solar System formed?" If so, that's a completely different statement than the one being made (though also roughly true). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No. It's exactly what is meant by "The Solar System has evolved since its initial formation environment". Or "The Solar System has evolved since its initial environment of formation." This grammar critique is specious. --J. D. Redding 01:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a grammar critique per se; it's just that the statement makes no sense. "Formation" refers to a time; "formation environment" refers to a place. "since" refers to a time, not to a place. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Milky Way as GA

Thanks for your hard work on helping to make the Milky Way a good article. It has passed the GA criteria. :) Megahmad (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)