User talk:Planetary

Planetary, Welcome!

Hello, Planetary, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Riffsyphon1024 06:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! I've finally gained the courage to make an account, though not without a little bug. (See below)--Planetary 07:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old anonymous edit issue.[edit]

Nevermind.

2006 Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah conflict[edit]

Please add a citation for the source of the casualties numbers you listed --darkskyz 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the casualties section of the same page. There was only a question mark in the chart, so I assumed that it would be ok to put the figures in. It's cited now.--Planetary 23:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

titan image[edit]

Thanks for the comments on the titan image. If you think its a good idea, I'll move it to the Titan in Science Fiction article. Sounds more appropriate there. The Huygens image doesn't seem particularly dark to me, so if that is a noon image, and mine is a 5pm image, then its lighting doesn't seem too far fetched. The other aspects are rather fixable, so if you felt the lighting was tolerable I could easily get a saturn view that was more in the ringplane, and reduce the steepness of the mountains, though I have the impression that it is hard to know precise topography from the radar images. Also, we know that the atmosphere of titan is effectively opaque to visible light that has to pass through it twice (i.e. from casini to the surface and back or from the sun to the surface to cassini), but a view from the surface needs the light only to pass through the atmosphere once (from saturn to the surface - so maybe saturn would be reasonably visible. Just thoughts. Debivort 17:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it might be a more appropriate image in the sci-fi article. The only topography information release is right here[1], and if you look at the scale at the bottom and left, it's not as jagged a terrain as it looks. There are variation of a few tens of meters over hundred of kilometers, so make of that what you will. "Rolling hills" would be a bit more of an accurate description based on whats been seen so far. Visibility of Saturn is based on what which wavelength you look at it through. For human eyes, Titan is a featureless orange ball, except perhaps in the high outer layers [2]. If you say that your image is infrared, then yes, Saturn could be visible from the surface, and everything is fine. The inclusion of haze was also good, Titan seems to have a lot.[3] That's all, I think. Just remember that everyday on Titan is smoggy, and you'll be close enough. :) --Planetary 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the topography plot really addresses our question. Since its resolution appears to only go down to the kilometer or so we don't know what variation occurs within a kilometer. For example if height as a function of single meter measurements was {40, 12, 4, 56, 12, 80} but we could only measure the average of every 2 meters we'd see a profile of {26, 30, 46} which hides the underlying variation. I understand what you're saying about wavelength, but that doesn't answer the question about the number of atmospheres worth of light that is passed through. Imagine looking up out of the deep end of a pool. You'd see more of what's going on in the air (refraction aside) than a person above the water would see of what's going on in the deepend because one light path goes through 6 feet of water and the other goes through 12. But all this really amounts to is blah blah blah since I'll probably take a crack at an image you would like more anyways. Debivort 21:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I understand what you mean. I'm really just suggesting guidlines, so the image isn't that unreal. I of course don't have the technical expertise to make wonderful images, so this is the next best thing.--Planetary 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Wow! My first Barnstar! Thank you! :) --Planetary 06:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You deserve it, as citation not only verifies information but also opens the gateway to more information. It's a big help. --Ionius Mundus 06:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True: I really thought it would take longer for me to get an award, judging from the other stars.--Planetary 07:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your work in adding citation where needed. It's a big help. Thanks. --Ionius Mundus 06:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NiCE...[edit]

...while supposedly "rants" aren't liked on talkpages, but I liked the one on that movie screenshot about the dual rings. 68.39.174.238 00:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was more of a misconception/debunking/rant type paragraph I wrote. Kinda like if there was an image proclaiming to be a photograph of the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Clause, or something.--Planetary 03:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I found it a nice read, especially compared to the VAST majority of image talk pages, which are usually terrible. I'm going to give you a science barnstar for that (I would do the "specific image user award", but that's a fairuse image D:...: 68.39.174.238 05:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Another barnstar! Thanks man! Or woman. Or whatever. :)--Planetary 05:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parachute[edit]

Hi Planetary. Thanks for the parachute. I'll never forget it! In a few minutes I'll replace the bad image.--TxAlien 05:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it was in your user page. I'm sorry for this mess --TxAlien 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. Don't mention it. :)--Planetary 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Nasa05.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nasa05.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Strategic Command[edit]

Fair enough. I'm open to debate if you can prove notability - in fact, I'd be happy to remove the tag personally if you can prove notability - but as it is, I don't know that it's notable. It's not meant as an insult. Wikipedia articles have to conform to policy, and one of those policies is notability. Unfortunately, I'm one of those people that tries to enforce that policy, and sometimes things get deleted in the process. ♠P M C♠ 20:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, the project seems somewhat active, with some new releases, an active forum , and a site counter says that there are 123,397 visits since the last reset, whenever that was. It seems to me that it fails WP:WEB ; it is mentioned on the Battle Isle article however, at the end. I added a link to it there, which could stay even if the main article is deleted. On the other hand, I don't really feel that there's a good reason for it to stay. Notability is notability, and the only reason I created the article in the 1st place was that it wasn't on Wikipedia when I did a search; the whole "Be Bold" thing got to me when I made it. Looking back, I can see now that it was a blooper on my part. That's just my opinion though, as the creator of the article. Therefore, it's my duty as a good Wikipedian to say:

Delete Non-notable game.--Planetary 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citadel roles and Raising the Bar[edit]

It seems that you readded the paragraph regarding the specialized roles of the multiple Citadels to the Combine article. I was not the one who originally removed this part, but since you put it back, could you name the page in Raising the Bar where this concept art appears? Or were you just clarifying that it should have come from the book? I searched for this concept art myself in Raising the Bar a good while ago, but I never found it then. I never bothered to remove the paragraph from the article, but now that the issue has been brought up again, it should probably have some verification now. MarphyBlack 09:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was clarifying that this is from the book, but since I myself don't actually have it, it might be best to delete it after all. It's probably not even canon, as most of the things described in there never made it into the final product. My mistake. I'll remove it now.--Planetary 10:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking vandals[edit]

One thing that really makes it easier to block vandals for us is if they have been warned appropriately. I will post a template that I give to some who might not yet know about this below: Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [4]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, next time they do it, I'll put up the warning. I personally think the edits should just be reverted, and give the vandals as little attention as possible (since this is why they do it in the 1st place), but we'll see how it goes.--Planetary 22:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is just that we have rules regarding blocking. They keep posting, in my opinion, because we revert them. The warnings let them know that it is not OK and allow future behavior to be blocked, once through the cycle of test1, test2, etc. once. In this case of this vandal, I will block him/her the next time I see vandalism from this IP address. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. Hopefully they'll realize that they should use their free time more productively.--Planetary 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hal-9000.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hal-9000.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]