User talk:Planetscared

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Planetscared! I am Intelati and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Talktome^(Intelati) 03:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard F. Post[edit]

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Richard F. Post requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. LittleOldMe (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism[edit]

The edit exchange need not have happen at all if you had responded to any of my posts on talk. Pending change messed up too, which made it appear to be 2rr, though technically I guess it was not, and that pending change glitch was frustrating me more than anything. The topic is atheism and the policy is clear that the placement of any content, especially competing views, does matter with regard to weight and the weight given each should reflect the weight given them by the sources. Its very late here and I will respond much more fully, with citations from sources and the specifics on policy sometime tomorrow night if possible on the talkpage. --Modocc (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the scope of the article is not simply 'atheism' because that's got a large number of different, overlapping and non overlapping definitions.Planetscared (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effective exhaust velocity[edit]

Effective exhaust velocity is exactly equal to Isp when given per mass, as the statement you removed says. [1]. If Isp is given per unit mass, it does not matter what units it is presented as, those units are still dimensially a velocity (N*sec/kg = m/sec). So the statement is correct. S B H arris 17:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source I checked didn't do it that way, and in fact explicitly deprecated it, but indicated that this is sometimes done. And I think that stating that the two are precisely the same is a pretty bad idea from a pedagogic point of view, although it can perhaps be considered dimensionally 'correct'; that's not usually sufficient.Planetscared (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources deprecate it, others do not. I object to saying that two things are "proportional," and hiding the fact that in one common use of a term they are exactly equal, as the mathematics below points out. If it's there in the math, why not say it in English? S B H arris 18:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the moment having it like that in the lead doesn't reflect the source I recently added; but there are other sources. Two things can be equivalent without being identical. 1+1 is equivalent to, or equal to 2, but it's not identical. But I'm not at all opposed to having it better explained in the body.Planetscared (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aero/airplane[edit]

Hello - I was wondering if I could try addressing some of your concerns about the issues at Fixed-wing aircraft. I agree with you that there should be an article that covers planes, gliders, and kites - and that that article should be Fixed-wing aircraft. My concern is that we should also have an article that's just about planes. Right now, a pared-down structure of our aircraft articles looks like this:

Aircraft
- Rotary-wing aircraft
- Fixed-wing aircraft
  - "Aero/airplane"
  - Glider
  - Kite

In other words, we're missing an article about planes. The fixed-wing aircraft article has tried to be that article, but as you know, "fixed-wing aircraft" includes more than just planes. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias work best when you merge things as much as possible, so no, not unless you can think of something you can't cover in fixed-wing that you feel you need to cover. Specifically what can't you cover?Planetscared (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand you. What level would you want to merge to? Would you want to eliminate the separate Glider and Kite articles, because they're also covered in the Fixed-wing aircraft article? Dohn joe (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially. And my answer is still no, I see no need for a specific article on planes right now.Planetscared (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - it's good to get a sense of where you're coming from. How far does it go, though - would you want to eliminate Helicopter as well, and merge everything into one Aircraft article? What's your criteria for a topic being article-worthy? Dohn joe (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're better off not splitting unless you have to. Right now we don't have to. And I'm not going to discuss it here any further.Planetscared (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rinascimentale[edit]

Hi, Regarding your edit at Encyclopedia, I agree that this word, rinascimentale does not make sense and removed the cns tag. --Odysses (₪) 15:47, 26 February 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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]