User talk:Ruslik0/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

Welcome!

Hello, Ruslik0, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Curtis Clark 13:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moon dimensions

What's this I see! References for those Saturnian moon articles?!? After all these years? Unbelieveable. I just thought you might want to know they're much appreciated! Deuar 15:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

90482 Orcus

If you look at the information it roughly indicates jan-feb. 2007 as the time frame of the information release. 1st quarter is Jan-Mar. An therefore it would be first quarter. I will not RR until we have solved this issue. Abyssoft 12:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Hmm ok, how about incorporating the two facts. I've dug a little deeper into the article.[reply]

In the first quarter of 2007 a paper was published, showing the Spitzer space telescope had detected Orcus in the far infrared, during its first three years in operation, constraining the size to 946.3^+74.1_-72.3 km.
The three years comment is take from the article itself. Abyssoft 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So is that a yes make the change or no don't make the change? Abyssoft 07:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rings of Jupiter

Hey Ruslik0! Kudos for the great edits and expansions to Rings of Jupiter so far! However, I did want to quickly mention that boldface fonts are usually only used for words that directly link to the same page. For example: If the text "Rings of Jupiter" appears in the Rings of Jupiter article, it should be bold. However, the article currently has each mention of any ring bolded (e.g., Main ring, gossamer ring, etc.) which makes those sections very hard to read. If you need any more suggestions you can check out Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Good luck, happy editing!--Will.i.am 22:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I was about to do it. What a coincidence!c'mon, we've fished a good one.Kfc 1864 Cuba Libre! 09:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on getting this article featured! It looks awesome!--Will.i.am 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oort cloud

Do you think you could fix it up? It shouldn't take long, but I have neither the knowledge nor the expertise to sort it out. Serendipodous 12:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do have one remaining question though; do you think you could include some information on why we assume the Oort cloud to be structured the way it is, such as the isotropic orbits of outer cloud comets and the near-ecliptic orbits of inner Oort cloud comets? Serendipodous 08:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IK Pegasi review

Tnak you for your review of the IK Pegasi article, and for the corrections. — RJH (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter rings

I decided to move the discusion here. First: great job on the article. I am fine-combing it, as I am translating it for the Polish wiki. I still do not understand how the two gossamer rings can overlap. Is it that the Thebean ring "envelops" the other ring? On the image of the gosamer rings made by Galileo spacecraft, is the Thebe ring the brighter, thinner line in the middle while the Amalthea gossamer ring is the wider, fainter ring? Thanks for your patience. Qblik 16:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think of those 2 rings more as intertwined like a helix, or like taking two wires and twisting them over each other but leaving a small space so they never really touch. Abyssoft 23:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea Gossamer Ring is nested into Thebe Gossamer Ring, and you are right that Thebe Ring Envelops the other (Amalthea Ring). Thebe ring is the thickest, widest and faintest part of the ring system. Amalthea ring is brighter, but has smaller radius and thickness. You can see this also in the scheme on the left side just under the table. So in the Galileo image the Amalthea ring is a relatively narrow bright central stripe to the left of the main ring; Thebe ring is a faint envelop that surrounds it. Ruslik 08:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your detailed explanations, but I have another simple Jupiter rings question: You wrote that the halo ring has a torus shape. Formally a torus is a two-dimensional surface in a three dimensional space. However, it is my understanding that the halo ring is not hollow inside, so it would be more like a torus with its inside filled. Is that correct? Or is it indeed hollow? BTW, I am wrapping up my translation of the article to Polish, and hope to achive a FA status of the translation there as well in a couple of months. I appreciate all your help. Could you, please, answer on my discussion page (I am not checking yours regularly), thanks! Qblik talk 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Hi again. I am almost done with the translation. The last question remaining is if the "flux" (and "integrated flux") that is mentioned in section about the halo ring reffers to the "flux of matter" (i.e. flux, movement of the particles of the ring), or "flux of light" (i.e. light or radiation reflected of the particles to determine their spectral/optical properties). I have read the decription a number of times and I still cannot be sure which is the case. Thanks again! Qblik talk 22:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Yet another question: While integrating my Polish translation of the article with the existing Polish version I noticed the following (unsourced) fact in the Polish text: "Gossamer ring rotates around Jupiter in the opposite direction (than other rings)". Do you know if it is possibly true? Are you aware of any sources that would confirm it? If so, I think it is interesting enough to be included in the English version of the article (I didn't find the mention of that fact). Regards. Qblik talk 01:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: translation of your Rings of Jupiter article has reached a featured article status on pl Wikipedia. Thanks again for all your help! Qblik talk 23:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich event GA

Hi,

I've addressed your concerns re. this article and now feel it meets the GA criteria. Would you mind taking another look and checking that you agree? If not, please let me know what other points need addressing.

Many thanks, Verisimilus T 12:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I'm not sure there's any need to renominate it if you're happy it's met the criteria... but I have re-added it to the list of candidates. Thanks for your input into this article. Verisimilus T 08:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuiper belt

Could you check the FA page please? I left some messages for you. Thanks. Serendipodous 13:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina University GA review

Thank you for reviewing East Carolina University. I changed the subsections as you requested. I added to the Lead, but I am asking if you would review what I did before you officially make your recommendation (so I can change it if needed). Looking at the other GA of Universities, some Lead sections are heavily lacking. Thanks PG Pirate 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you look over my Lead once more. I need to add a few citations, but other than that does it look good? Thanks, PG Pirate 21:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading/passing the article. PG Pirate 20:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn FAC

Hi, The article Saturn, which you peer reviewed, is now up in FAC here. Hope you support it :) Thanks. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 10:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus

Hey Ruslik, you still planning to add peer-reviewed sources to Uranus? Serendipodous 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of things should be included in any expansion? Serendipodous 10:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. As I don't have your scientific knowledge, I think it best to defer to you on those issues, though I will do my best to make the article flow and be readable to a non-scientist. My main plan for this article, at least for now, is to locate historical sources for the vast amount of unsourced material that I just removed from "Discovery and Naming". Some of that information, like Uranus's astrological symbol, is too important to be left out. Serendipodous 12:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General points for future reference

"Uranian" is always capitalised
When adding units such as bars or km, it is Wiki practice to place a space signifier, represented by  , between the number and the final unit, so 50 km becomes 50 km in the edit window, though it appears as a space- -on the screen.
"Envelop" is a verb; "envelope" is the noun.
The plural of "radius" is "radii"; the plural of "aurora" is "aurorae".
One more thing I just found out. Try to avoid using dashes (-) when at all possible. There are about 5 different kinds and they all have very specific uses. Sometimes you have to use —, sometimes you have to use –, and sometimes you have to use -. Believe it or not, the FAC people are quite stringent about this. Rather than trying to work out when to use which, it's probably a better idea just to avoid the issue altogether. For instance, instead of saying 60-100 km, say "from 60 to 100 km".
Also, terms like "optics" and "dynamics" are singluar when speaking of the study of such phenomena, as in "Dynamics is a rapidly changing field," but plural when speaking of the phenomena themselves; "The dynamics of the atmosphere are changing."

Thanks. Serendi^podous 09:13, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the magnetic field image

Did you make it yourself? Serendi^podous 10:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik, you're going to have to rephrase this

In fact the Uranian dipole is shifted by one third of the planetary radius along the rotational axis in the direction of the south rotational pole.[73] This unusual geometry results in a highly asymmetric magnetosphere, where magnetic field at the north magnetic pole located in the southern hemisphere is 0.1 Gauss, where as magnetic field at the south magnetic pole located in the northern hemisphere is 1.1 Gauss.[73]

I don't know what you're trying to say here. The first sentence is a bit unclear; you'll need to unpick some of the technical wording. In the second sentence, it seems like you're trying to say two things at once; that the Uranian magnetic poles are located in opposite hemispheres, and that one pole is ten times stronger than the other one. If that is the case, they should be expressed in separate sentences. Serendi^podous 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's much better. :-) Well looks like all we have to do now is weather the FAC. It's been relatively pain-free so far, so I think we've got a good chance. To date, I haven't lost a planetary FAC review, but there's always a first time, so keep your fingers crossed. :-) Serendi^podous 19:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's no rush. If it fails it fails. I agree I probably jumpted the gun; I expected the situation to mirror my previous Solar System FACs. Still, FACs are always good for pointing out issues, even if they do fail. Don't worry about trying to push up the article before then. I think it's a good idea to give it a rest for a while.Serendi^podous 21:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus atmosphere

Hi Ruslik, just wondering where you got the information that the atmosphere composition given in [1] is for below the 1.3 bar level? Deuar 09:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. This sort of thing is clearly just as much an issue for the other giant planets which also have an unlocalized "composition" in the infobox, and will require some reading to sort out for them. Deuar 12:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dipole moment of Uranus is 50 times that of Earth

Hello,

I see you changed this from 20 to 50. I clicked the reference, but it requires some subscription I don't have. Please confirm that you retrieved the given document and it shows 50 and not 20.

Thanks.

WilliamKF 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One and the same cloud

Hi Ruslik. First, I've met some of your concerns on the Titan FAC. You mentioned that the clouds over the north pole may be one and the same. I had had the same thought. Perhaps not exactly the same, but I get the sense in reading that cloud cover is more or less continuous over the poles, and thus to speak of clouds as discreet bodies doesn't make sense. But I don't have a ref saying as much so I treated them separately. Do you have ref confirming they are the same? Marskell 09:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: lead section

OK, but it repeats a lot of stuff already in the article. You'd need to change a lot of stuff around.Serendi^podous 17:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, although really you didn't have to edit the article- if you want to, you can just put it on an experimental subpage. I'm not an authority on getting wiki articles featured, and I was just throwing ideas around. Deuar knows more about this than I do. But I think we're OK now anyway. Serendi^podous 17:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.