User talk:The shaggy one

Welcome!

Hello, The shaggy one, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Where to ask a question, 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!  —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 01:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me minute to finish my draft, then you're welcome to edit. Regards Eurocommuter 11:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies. When I didn't see an edit for 20 minutes, I assumed you were done editing the article. shaggy 11:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, by the way!

No problem, Sir (and thanks!). I am happy someone actually reads this obscure stuff! I have to stop for now, anyway. (real life calls) but should be back to complete this draft, and provide a short list of references. Regards Eurocommuter 12:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion on the WikiProject Astronomical objects page regarding a new look for box headers. I was hoping you could drop by and comment. Thank you. — RJH 14:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’ve noticed (a month later…) that you removed my comment of 2002 XU₉₃ being the record holder for the ‘Solar System’ in trans-Neptunian object. I’ve read this in some serious paper I’ve forgotten, and it’s of no importance, anyway. But by sheer curiosity, what object in the solar system is orbiting directly the Sun on an orbit more inclined than 78 deg? (No comets please...) Cheers. Eurocommuter 12:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of the Damocloid asteroids have more inclined orbits, but they have a dynamic relation to comets. I think I removed that particular line because it used absolute language that didn't make it clear some objects weren't being considered in calling it the "most inclined". shaggy 17:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine. Thanks Eurocommuter 18:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been meaning to say, I've resubmitted the definition of planet article for review since it's been completely overhauled, and there was some concern that the "Sphericity" section's mathematical discussions weren't wholly sourced. Since I know nothing about this issue, I was hoping perhaps you could locate a few sources for me. Thanks! Serendipodous 17:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shaggy, I don't understand your comment "(there should be no links here, per wp:style)" when you removed the link to the asteroid catalogue on the Eris page. My feeling about the catalogue number is that there is no sense in quoting it in the article if it is not explained. Could you please let me know why you feel this is wrong. Cheers Paul venter 18:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Looked at your context link

What generally should be linked In general, do create links to:

   * Major connections with the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.    * Technical terms, unless they are fully defined in the article and do not have their own separate article. Sometimes the most appropriate link is an interwiki link to Wiktionary. 

If the link to the list of asteroids is not in the lead sentence, then it certainly should be immediately after. Not explaining the catalogue number would be a careless omission. Have an excellent day! Paul venter 18:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaggy, on List of solar system objects by mass, you changed the shapes of Neptune's moons Tethys, Enceladus, Mimas, and Uranus's moon Miranda from oblate to prolate spheroids. Where did you find this information? --Iamunknown 01:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 23:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated the article Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000) for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000). Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000) during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Urhixidur 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you seem to like Backpacking and was wondering if you'd be interested in WikiProject Backpacking, a new project geared towards improving backpacking related articles on Wikipedia. If you'd like to join, show support by signing your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Backpacking and by helping to edit our beta project page at User:Leif902/WikiProject Backpacking. Thank you, and have a nice day! -Leif902 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have self-identified as a backpacker by using the ”This user enjoys backpacking” userbox. I invite you to join the backpacking project. It recently reactivated. There is plenty of good work to do improving the encyclopedia’s coverage of backpacking equipment, organizations, celebrities, books, skills, and trails. The project provides a system to rate articles and prioritize editing efforts. Visit the project’s page, take a look, and please consider joining me in improving the articles and coverage of an activity we both enjoy.

You're invited to be a part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. To accept this invitation, click here!

—¿philoserf? (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you had a picture of the centaur Chariklo, seeing as you made the article. I'm just curious what the planetoid that has everyone stumped about it's rotation looks like.

--IdLoveOne 17:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; already commented on the AK Boundary Dispute talkpage but might as well ask here too; the British claim as shown omits the mainland between the Portland Canal and Revillagigedo Island; shouldn't the British claim-line run right down the Portland Canal? The British claim was, after all, the mainland, with only the archipelago percieved to have been Russian (as was indeed what the Russians meant when accommodating British re Fts Taku/Durham and Stikine). Ultimately the article could use closeups of the Pearse Island and lower Portland Canal area boundary adjustments, also the area of Skagway-Bennett Lake and the location of the RNWMP post at the former etc......anyway just thinking that the map, to me, is wrogn; but I haven't read the British claim history in general; but given teh weight palced on the Portland Canal in negotiations it seems unlikely that a line west from Stewart/Hyder to the sea wasn't on their menu.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again....I found specfics of the southern end of the line; see the last section or two at Talk:Alaska boundary dispute for a link to a map in one of Begg's books/reports; the line should go up Clarence Strait and only hit the mainland at 56 N. The area between there and the Portland Canal was, to some, part of the British claim, but the negotiators softened that and wound up only arguing about Pearse Island/Behm Strait et al; a closeup of the area to show that would help; the "maximal British Claim" isn't necessarily anything pushed by official negotiators, I'd say; Begg's reports represent a hard-line position rooted in the Ukase of 1821 and the 1825 Russo-British Treaty that it caused; he doesn't go into the Yukon Ports/Bennett Lake issue....which leads me to wonder who does/did.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is the map; comments on the Alaska boundary dispute talkpage, last section.Skookum1 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I thought those links were page-specific but apparently not in all cases; the map will be on "Image 0009" in the drawbar at centre-upper-left, just above the doc display, or at the bottom of the page.Skookum1 (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see recent changes/additions on the Talk:Alaska boundary dispute page.Skookum1 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided 7 scholarly sources referring to the Kuiper belt as the outer Solar System, so I'd appreciate it if we could discuss the issue before making radical changes. Serendi^podous 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may no longer care about it, but your "NL Timeline" needs some tweaking. Aside from the fact its out of date (it presumably stops at 2008), the Houston Astros have since moved to the American League. And speaking of the Astos, you might note that in the beginning they were the Colt 45s, then the Colts, before becoming the Astros. Did the Milwaukee Brewers move to the NL the same year that Arizona joined? I don't think that's right, but I maybe wrong on that one. You did a good job on showing the former names of the Brooklyn Dodgers as well as the teams that were members before 1900. (I wish I knew how to tweak maps and charts as I could go ahead and do it and not bother the original creator.)__209.179.21.14 (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!