Welcome to Wikipedia.
Here are some useful links if you need any help:
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Create an account
You can sign posts on talk pages by entering four tildes (~~~~)
If you have any questions:
jengod 18:29, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I made some changes to Football_World_Cup, I hope you agree with them. :)
Tried to compromise a bit...
Using s's for a possessive IS permissable under current US and UK English usage. Furthermore, if you're going to change ONE instance in that article, you should change ALL of them. There must be about fifty or so, but it would still be wrong. See:
There are examples that cite leaving the last 's' off, but the cited references are from older style guides. Current usage says "s's".
One more citation: The Little, Brown Handbook, ninth edition, copyright 2004, also gives "s's" as correct usage. --JohnDBuell 06:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to the New Horizons article.
However, please try to double-check your sources before contributing information. Your statements are factually incorrect, the New Horizons probe will not achieve a greater hyperbolic excess velocity than Voyager 1. If you have any official sources that say otherwise, please provide the actual sources.
Also, please make sure that you correctly understand the meaning of orbital energy and hyperbolic excess velocity. Be especially sure that you do not interchange those with momentary velocities. Please note that the momentary heliocentric velocity decreases as the body's distance from the Sun increases, but the orbital energy (and thus hyperbolic excess velocity) remains the same at all points of the trajectory.
As of January 13, 2006, Voyager 1 was travelling at 17.158 km/s (relative to the Sun) at a heliocentric distance of 97.94 AU. This corresponds to the orbital energy of 138.14 MJ/kg, which corresponds to hyperbolic excess velocity of 16.62 km/s (this is the velocity that the probe would have at "infinity"; Voyager's actual heliocentric velocity will asymptotically decrease to that as it recedes from the Sun).
New Horizons, after the flyby of Jupiter, will have the same velocity relative to the Sun (17.158 km/s) at a heliocentric distance of about 14.6 AU (roughly "half-way" between the orbits of Saturn and Uranus). This corresponds to the orbital energy of 86.44 MJ/kg, which corresponds to hyperbolic excess velocity of 13.15 km/s. This is clearly lower than the orbital energy (thus hyperbolic excess velocity) of Voyager 1.
New Horizons's momentary velocity will drop below Voyager 1's long before it even reaches the orbit of Uranus. When New Horizons will be as far as Voyager 1 was on January 13, 2006, its velocity will be only 13.82 km/s. 184.108.40.206 11:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. I will not revert in future. Regarding the difference between orbital energy and HEV: my concern is only with velocity relative the sun. As far as I can tell, however, the present sources listed do not give the details that have been claimed regarding New Horizons vs. Voyager 1 velocities relative to the sun, only the statement that New Horizons is "faster," egro, I disputed the claim. But your detailed comments on the exact velocities at different mission stages indicate to me you have some relible source to back you up, and I believe you. It would be helpful, however, to provide sources for said heliocentric velocities and hyperbolic excess velocities. --Supersexyspacemonkey 14:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I understand, and it's all right. After all, it's obvious from your edits that you're a space fan, and of course I assumed good faith on your part. :)
- And yes, you're right, it would be better to have sources that directly give the information. The trouble is, the sources usually do not present the information in a directly usable form. A relatively easy case is Voyager 1, for which one can find the authoritative data on velocity and distance in the Voyager Status Report (orbital energy etc. can be computed straightforward from that). For New Horizons, the HORIZONS system gives predicted trajectory data, but the level of complexity involved makes it virtually inaccessible to a normal reader.
Thanks very much for your contributions to the Neoconservatism article. However, I have reverted your changes for two reasons. First, the paragraphs you added describe a disagreement between neocons and paleocons about Reagan without (a) citing to neocons' and paleocons' appropriations of Reagan, (b) giving evidence that there is indeed a disagreement about who may legitimately "claim" Reagan, and (c) citing evidence that the "technical" (i.e., true and only?) definition of a neocon is a former liberal who has become conservative. Second, the paragraphs you added, even if they had been sourced, would be appropriate only in a section of the article, not in the introduction, which summarizes the high points of the sections that follow. Because there is no section currently devoted to the Reagan debate, your paragraphs belong in the body of the article, not in its introduction. If you disagree, I am more than willing to discuss this issue on the Neoconservatism talk page. Again, sincere thanks for your contribution. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 06:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Timeline of space exploration
I have reverted your change again as circumlunar means around the moon, not free return trajectory. See for instance this NASA page which calls Apollo 8 the "first manned circumlunar mission". Rmhermen 17:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me blindly of "Liberal POV censorship". That header, for awhile, was just jammed with information that really didn't fit into a summary, and just described contemporary events. I didn't remove that for a partisan reference, just in the way that it was phrased didn't fit in with the "big picture" of the summary. Besides, the vote of no confidence is described in great detail below. Habsfan|t 17:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you keep writing "Dwarf Planet" into articles. Since dwarf planet isn't a proper noun, but rather, a category of objects, it shouldn't be capitalized, just like "planet" or "star" isn't capitalized. Please simply write "dwarf planet" rather than "Dwarf Planet". Thank you. --Cyde Weys 14:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my apologies! :) --Supersexyspacemonkey 15:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
My concern about your username (Supersexyspacemonkey)
I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?
I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.
You have several options freely available to you:
- If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
- If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
- You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.
Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you! U.S.A. cubed 03:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC) --U.S.A. cubed 03:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this to my attention. First, if you would be so kind to inform me, I would like to know whether you are a moderator or a regular user. Now, about my username, I personally find it to be nothing more than a whimsical moniker, which reflects upon my often whimsical nature ;). I'm glad you agree that it is not "grossly" inappropriate. It is a username I have used since 1995, when I opened my first hotmail account, and I have used it in every venue imaginable, from CNN.com, to Amazon.com, to Myspace.com, to Starwars.com, Instant Messenger, University discussion groups, etc., because that is my standard and universal internet handle.
- I am an established wikipedia editor, and despite the relative absurdity of my name, I do not engage in vandalism or belligerent behavoir. A google search of "supersexyspacemonkey" will reveal things such as Amazon book reviews and Star Wars fansite discussion postings, that expose the fact I'm am a tranquil and concientious internet user and not a trouble-maker. Over the years, I have never heard any objection to my screenname until now. In fact, the universal reaction has always been friendly and has always consisted of mere amusement, which it my original intention. I like my name very much, and would greatly appreciate the opportunity to continue using it.
- I can, somewhat, understand your concern, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that my name, given its irreverent nature, might possibly reflect upon me as an irresponsible user; however, if I do not exhibit overtly negative, reckless, obscene, or otherwise objectionable patterns, and my name is not inherrently inflammatory, but merely, unconventional, then I think it is not unreasonable to ask that we consider the matter clarified. :)
- Thank you. :) --Supersexyspacemonkey 03:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not a modeter, but I don't think Wikipedia has what you would call "modeters", but they have administrators, which I am not either. I am just a regular user, but any user can be concerned with the username of other people on Wikipedia. I understand your explanation, and I agree that it's acceptable.--U.S.A. cubed 03:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, your frank discussion and courtesy is much appreciated. :)--Supersexyspacemonkey 04:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you also agree that, because of same reasons, North Kosovo has the right to secede from the remainder and remain in Serbia? Also, no matter because in some historical sentences unilateral secession might seem justified and legal, it is a precedent according to Precedent Law.
- Hello, about the Kosovo's declaration of independance. What are you thinking of this legal text ?
The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples
By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.
Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:
(a) To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and
(b) To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned;
and bearing in mind that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.
Every State has the duty to promote through joint and separate action universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.
The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self determination by that people.
Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.
The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles.
Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed, or colour.=> Wasn't these aspects present in the Serbia proposals during the negociation ? Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any other State or country.
Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)
This is just a G.A. Resolution but it explained how the "jus cogens" principe of self-determination of peoples must be interpreted according to good faith, systematic and teleological ways of interpretation. Have you got any idea about that ? Mrpouetpouet (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also there is the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples from 13 September 2007 which explicitly mentions autonomy and the 1999 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 which commits all Member States to Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as calls for autonomy. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm seeking an opinion from the powers that be on the reliable sources definition page on the email question. I see no reason why an email from an official source couldn't be used. When I got an answer from Liechtenstein I posted the text and offered to forward it to whomever wanted to view it. I thought that was good enough. Canadian Bobby (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
just a note
When you respond to another's comments, please don't insert your comments into theirs. Leave their comments as a coherent whole and respond after that. You can quote them if you like. But if a comment is broken up with your responses within it, the flow of the conversation -- and which comments belong to which editors -- gets lost.
Thanks - Revolving Bugbear 21:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The Kosovar Issue
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)