User talk:Serendipodous

Great, just what we need around this place... more misspellings of serendipitous. :) Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ack; it didn't occur to me that people would think I didn't know how to spell "serendipitous". My original name was Serendipitous. I lost my password and suddenly couldn't log in, and hadn't bothered to enter an email address, so I had to come up with a name that was similar to my last name but different. So I came up with that. OK? Serendipodous 19:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no. My humblest apologies. I was trying to be sarcastic, but it's quite hard to do in writing. I hadn't read your user page when I originally welcomed you, but now I understand. I just hope people don't see your name, and think that's the way it's spelled. It was a great name by the way. See ya around. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

I wouldn't get too hung up on whether a page meets a certain bar for peer review. The article is fine and a lot of work has gone into it. Sure, throw it on peer review and see if you get any comments (the Peer review page is wonderful in principle but unfortunately doesn't get much traffic). My thoughts are that it probably needs a pic or two more and I'm wondering about the sectioning (ie., Pluto dominating Orbital criterion). Otherwise, it's improved and still improving, so good work. If it went to an FA nom I could see people wondering about a "Definition of..." article being suitable.

Also, I reverted the redirect to Solar System from Terrestrial planet. I think the latter certainly needs an article of its own. Marskell 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right about that. Since there was a great deal of repetition between the two articles, I thought it might be tidier to merge them, but it does work better as its own article.

Sorry about deleting the peer review question; I was going to post it on your talk page, rather than on your page's discussion board, because I thought it was too personal for that forum. The one thing I have not been able to figure out how to do on Wikipedia is import images; I didn't post those pictures. There are plenty of freely available images within Wikipedia, but they are commonly spread throughout the "planetary" pages. I'd prefer to post something more original.

Perhaps I can combine the "Pluto" and "asteroid" sections, since they both draw the same conclusion? Serendipodous 20:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check: Wikipedia:Uploading_images. Marskell 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Wow, you have been quite prolific lately! Keep up the good work. Just please start using edit summaries. --P3d0 03:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, something else you might not have considered: it's sometimes easier on other editors if you can collect a number of minor changes into a single edit. For instance, it's hard for me to review your edits to "Definition of Planet" because they are implemented in dozens of small edits with no summaries. However, it's also sometimes good to do individual things in separate edits, so I defer to your best judgement. --P3d0 18:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy. FYI I answered your question here: User_talk:P3d0#regarding_edit_summaries. --P3d0 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the Solar System article, but it gets difficult to follow changes with so many edits. Perhaps more frequent use of the Preview button? thanks.

Hello again

I shipped Planetary habitability off to FAC yesterday if you'd like to take a look. Went round in circles regarding numbering for ref's but this finally seems taken care of. We shall see; there's a couple "support if..." at the moment.

Also, I'd been meaning to suggest something to you: why not approach a bureaucrat about your name? They can, I believe, delete the old user and move this one there. It's very obvious you're the same person. Thus, you'll have the right spelling back. Cheers, Marskell 16:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"A breather" is a good idea--actually, given various constraints and plans, I was planning on not editing Wiki in December. At the end of the day, this is unpaid work--there is no obligation to edit. But "never edit again because of arguments" is a bad idea, I'd say. I noticed your back-and-forth with E. P. Anthony on the Definition of a Planet page (I do watch it): while you may have become angry I thought he was the one who got overly pedantic ("use my full alias, etc."). It just seemed unfortunate (bc I've worked with you both), not a reason to give up. So, you know, don't give up... I really expect Serendip (sorry, not a full alias ;) to be showing up on my watchlist in future. Marskell 22:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy again

First, glad to see you're still here. Second, thought of you when I saw this interesting article at AstroBio mag: [1]. Marskell 22:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

Thanks Serendip! And congrats to you too given how much you've added to the article.

I noticed the last post in talk. As you know the geo-chem stuff is where I'm a dummy so I wanted to be clear about "the energy contained in the powerful covalent bond between carbon and hydrogen, released from the breakdown of carbohydrates, is the fuel of all complex lifeforms" This is accurate, particularly "all complex lifeforms?" Would this apply say to fatty acid metabolism? I didn't know fatty acid metabolism existed until this evening so I don't have a clue ;).

Finally, this FA stuff is fun, aside from whether you start the article yourself. I may pick a page or two and try and raise them and would need some help. Now, given that I'm a nutcase about habitability I was thinking of starting with Europa (moon). Cheers, Marskell 18:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

buzz buzz

There's an article in last month's (January) Scientific American on Brown dwarf formation I'm sure you'd like to take a look at... Marskell 08:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

You should start with Wikipedia:Footnotes or Wikipedia:Harvard referencing and decide what you like. I prefer the former. There are at least three Wiki-means of doing footnotes (two are in use on Planet Hab) and there's also a lot of instruction creep on the Wiki pages to figure them out. The best advice I think is to simply open a page that has a referencing system you like and copy the syntax exactly. If you have more specific stuff you want me to look at, let me know. I'll give the page a read over when I get a chance. Marskell 09:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:J._K._Rowling#Further_comment

Please see my comment to you on Talk:J._K._Rowling#Further_comment. Thanks and best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Discworld calendar was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. // Tawkerbot2 07:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

My once in a while check in with Serendip! :)

I just thought you might want to look at the editing I did on the red dwarf section of Planetary habitability. I decided to go to the primary sources in Croswell and cite them directly. I think it more specified now and the addition is interesting. Also I want to basically source every statement of fact (or at least every statement with a number) in the article. I'll make a post on the talk page to that affect soon and maybe you can provide cites for info you've added.

But I'm never happy. I looked at it all again tonight and thought "is this radically earth-centric? If life were found on Europa tomorrow, how much would have to gutted/altered here?" Who knows.

Regarding citations, I hope I wasn't unhelpful in responding to your desire to make a proper ref system on Definition of planet. Everyone now seems to be using the ref system where you embed the link info into the actual text. It is the easiest even if it makes the article clunky. If you want to do this on the "Def of..." article I'll split the time with you :). More than anything, it's a matter of "do I want to sit here for three hours and make all these links proper references..." Marskell 22:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at JK Rowling. What a laugh! The stupid part is that really the page only relies on about eight sources, cited a half-dozen times each. Work for work's sake. Note on Planet hab there's 35 cites from 33 sources, which I'm pleased with. I don't want to become anal myself, but as I say every statement with a number is a fair demand.

I understand that linking directly from the text is in many ways the most preferable, but remember that if a link dies people don't know what's what. By spelling out the source in a ref section you allow people to track things down if they go missing. This is especially true with primary sources; I certainly don't want to link to a .edu/PDF from the article body. Plus ref sections are rather satisfying to look at IMO.

And your right, finally, that if I tried to broaden things to account for every possibility on Planet Hab I'd totally lose focus. Earth-centric because it must be Earth-centric then. Marskell 09:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't worry, the Def of... page will still be relevant after September. Perhaps more so because it will provide a history of how scientists arrived where they arrived... Marskell 09:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. K. Rowling

Hi! Let me know what you think about this edit. Hopefully it will solve our problems. :o) E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack

I'll try! Busy days ahead... Marskell 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. I'll try and give it a fuller read-over before actually voting. Marskell 18:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the FA by the way! I just added the little star as Raul forgot.

I've taken Fermi paradox back to WP:FAC, if you're interested in alien speculation. Marskell 17:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not responsible for the raw material on Fermi, more just slicing, specifying and sourcing. It has been a lot of work as it was incredibly bloated two months ago. Unfortunately no one commented over the first day :(.

Regarding new topics, one simple thing to do is adopt an astronomical body and take it up to FA. I think I mentioned Europa before. I just decided today to have a go at Neptune. There's also the theoretical stuff like terraforming. If there's any other you want help with, let me know. Marskell 10:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers Internet Leaks

Hey, I saw you were the first to report images, so I was wondering if you knew where I could find them. Thanks, Infinare 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had no plans to post them, I just wanted to view it... Infinare 23:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice addition to "planet"

but do you think you could provide a source for it? Just wondering what you used. Thanks. Serendipodous

Do you mean other than the three in-line citations I already included with the revisions? Perhaps you could be more specific? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't mean to sound too brusque; it's just that the middle paragraph of "Planetary formation" isn't cited, and I wasn't sure where the information came from.

No offense taken, thanks—I was just mildly confused. I just started a quick project to try and add citations to the article and to fill in some details. :-) — RJH (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Formation of the solar system

I have no objection to your working on Formation of the solar system, and transfering material from the Solar system to it. I had been thinking of doing so myself, although I wanted to flesh the "Formation ..." article out some more before doing so. So your request is very much in line with my own view of the role of the "Formation ..." article. As I see it as a way of saying more on its topic while also shortening the "Solar systm" article. --EMS | Talk 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planet X

OK, but zetatalk stuff (if you were ever on Usenet, you saw enough to last a lifetime) expands to fill the bafflement available. Isn't most of that more apropos to the zetatalk article? I don't object to a mention, but the whole thing is so esoteric. It's not a big cult, it's a small and loud one. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with "Definition of Planet"

Hi Serendipodous -- I added a comment to this section regarding the proposed merger. Could you take a look? I hope you don't take offense to my objections. Thank you! :-) — RJH (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Acheron-1.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Acheron-1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chaos syndrome 20:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]