User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Please NOTE: The following cautioning welcome was written by a Wikipedia administrator (who happens to like astronomy!) because I had linked from Wikipedia to my website, which had links back to my main website that has advertising images.  As a result, I created a new website just like the old one, but without any links back to my main site.  I hope to one day place the facts on The Planet Moon website directly in Wikipedia.  First I need a consensus.  Maybe what I really need is a miracle?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`. 

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:

• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on spam
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• 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 Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Ckatz^chat_spy 23:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ckatz! I've removed the promotional links from the above and from the Solar System discussion page.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  14:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Galileo

Note my response to your recent edit to Talk:Galileo Galilei. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Shaheenjim! I did not go to the edit page, so I missed the comments. I'll check that it the future! --Paine Ellsworth (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Moon

There has been lots of "unofficial" talk about whether or not the Moon, supposedly Earth's "satellite", is actually a major planet in its own right. When you read the present definition of "planet", recently changed by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), you find that this new definition actually includes our Moon. The Moon orbits the Sun in the very same manner as a planet, always falling toward the Sun. The Moon is massive enough to be nearly round in shape. The Moon has completely cleared its orbit around the Sun and is gravitationally dominant in that orbit.

So I would like to propose a discussion on this topic. Isaac Asimov, before he died, wrote science books on the Moon, and he came up with several reasons why the Moon ought to be thought of as more than just a satellite of Earth. Asimov proved with undeniable facts that the Moon is a full-fledged planet in its own right.

You can read more about this fairly controversial subject at the "official" website of... The Planet Moon. This website is dedicated to Isaac Asimov.

Whether or not you read the above website, your opinion about this topic would be very interesting to hear. So let's us talk about whether or not the "Solar System" still has NINE planets, or just eight. --Paine Ellsworth (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Facts

On a separate topic (separate from the section above), I read your website about how the moon should actually be considered a planet. I thought it was pretty interesting. It has a lot of stuff I didn't know before. But I still dispute the conclusion. I have some notes, if you're interested. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not alone, Shaheenjim, there are many who still dispute the conclusion. And yes--I *am* interested in your opinions! --Paine Ellsworth (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it might be nice if, at the bottom of each section, you added a link to the next section. That way people wouldn't have to keep going back to the table of contents. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Good tip! It is done. example --Paine Ellsworth (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In both of the sections INTRO and SELENE, you said that the ancients thought of the moon as a planet, and that's one reason we should too. But keep in mind that they thought all the planets orbited the Earth. Now we know that they don't, so the ancients don't have any credibility when they say the moon is a planet. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The point I make is that the Moon was known as a planet for far, far longer than it has been known as a satellite of Earth. The ancients were wrong about the Sun, also, for it is not a planet, but a star. I guess my main point is that I think the ancients were correct about planet Selene, the Moon. --Paine Ellsworth (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In the section FALLING FOR YOU you said:

Satellites, all the moons in our Solar System, including Pluto's Charon, as they go around their planets, actually spend some of their time moving toward the Sun and the rest of their time moving away from the Sun. The Moon, however, *always* falls toward the Sun. There is always an "acceleration" of the Moon toward the Sun.

The Moon never actually goes all the way completely "around" the Earth.

That first paragraph above is true. But the second one isn't. I think your second paragraph misinterprets the first paragraph. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a very difficult perceptual challenge. I have given it much thought, and I have concluded that it is correct. There would have to be at least a little bit of loop in the Moon's SOLAR orbit. Since there is no loop at all, then the Moon never really goes fully around the Earth. The orbital paths of the Earth and Moon cross each other as the two planets go around the Sun, and it is certainly a lot simpler to study the motions in terms of the Moon going around the Earth, but it doesn't happen. The Moon never goes fully around the Earth. --Paine Ellsworth (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think the moon does go all the way around the Earth. The first link you provided about that had a pretty good explanation. I'll elaborate on it. Consider an analogy where the Earth and the Moon are racecars going clockwise around a three lane circular racetrack. I'll describe their movements in four steps. All four steps occur on the left side of the racetrack (the 9 o'clock position, if it were a clock). The Earth stays in the center lane at all times, and drives at 50 miles per hour at all times. At the beginning of the four movements, the Moon is in the inner lane, behind the Earth.

The first movement is that the Moon moves to the outer lane, still behind the Earth. In that movement, the Moon moves across the southern side of the Earth.

The second movement is that the Moon drives at 60 miles per hour, and passes the Earth, still in the outer lane. In that movement, the Moon moves across the western side of the Earth.

The third movement is that the moon moves back to the inner lane, still in front of the Earth. In that movement, the Moon moves across the northern side of the Earth.

And the fourth movement is that the Moon slows down to 40 miles per hour, and allows the Earth to pass it, while the Moon is still in the inner lane, and the Earth is always in the center lane. In that movement, the Moon moves across the eastern side of the Earth, and returns to its original position, having made a complete circle around all four sides of the Earth.

All four movements occur while the cars are going forward around the track. That's what distinguishes Earth's moon from the moons of other planets (which go backwards during the fourth movement, and go away from the center of the racetrack during the first movement, although that's harder to describe). - Shaheenjim (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's truly not an easy visualization, Shaheenjim, and the dynamic race-track image helps, but isn't conclusive (if it were truly conclusive, then you'd be able to "see" it <g>). The part to consider more deeply is the part where the Sun pulls twice as hard on the Moon as the Earth pulls. This has the effect of slowing the Moon significantly while it is between the Sun and Earth. Because of this, Selene (the Moon) never actually goes retro, and therefore never actually goes fully and completely around the Earth. --Paine (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the thing. The moon doesn't have to go retro in order to go fully and completely around the Earth. It just has to slow down enough for the Earth to pass it. In the second and third movements I described above, the Earth and the Moon are both falling towards the Sun, but the Moon is falling faster. In the first and fourth movements I described above, they're both falling towards the Sun, but the Earth is falling faster. I guess it might be better to consider them when they're in the 8 o'clock position on the race track, rather than the 9 o'clock position. In any case, the first and fourth movements are the key. The first movement is harder to describe, so let's concentrate on the fourth movement. That's where Mars's moon would've gone retro to move across the eastern side of Mars. Our moon doesn't go retro, but it still passes along the eastern side of the Earth. And when you take all four movements together, it still goes fully and completely around the Earth. If you want I can try to draw some pictures to help you see it, but I was hoping I wouldn't have to do that, because it'll be a pain. - Shaheenjim (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not surprising that you still don't see it, Shaheenjim. I'm not sure how you're using "retro" here, but when I use it in this context, I'm talking about the motion of the Moon with respect to the Sun, not the Earth. It is the motion you would see if you were standing on the surface of the Sun. The Moon never goes retro in this respect. And it would have to go retro and form at least the slightest loop in its Solar orbit in order to go fully and completely around the Earth. So please just give it some more thought. --Paine (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm using "retro" meaning the moon moving away from the sun. It never does that, but it still circles the Earth. I drew a picture, which you can see here. It was based on the picture of the moon's orbit at this website that you linked to on your website. The moon's orbit is in black. The earth's orbit is in red. Obviously the sun is in the center of the circles. Both the earth and the moon are proceeding around their orbits in the clockwise direction. I've shown their positions at five different points in time. The black dot in each picture is the moon, and the red dot is the earth.

In picture A the Moon is in the inner lane of the racetrack, behind the Earth.

Between picture A and picture B, the Moon moves to the outer lane, still behind Earth. By doing that, the Moon moves across the southern side of the Earth.

Between picture B and picture C, the Moon moves faster than the Earth, and passes the Earth, still in the outer lane. By doing that, the Moon moves across the western side of the Earth.

Between picture C and picture D, the Moon moves back to the inner lane, still in front of the Earth. By doing that, the Moon moves across the northern side of the Earth.

Between picture D and picture E, the Moon slows down, which allows the Earth to pass it, while the moon is still in the inner lane, and the Earth is always in the center lane. By doing that, the Moon moves across the eastern side of the Earth (or technically, the eastern side of the Earth moves across the Moon), which means that the moon made a complete circle around all four sides of the Earth.

In picture E the moon is in the same position relative to the Earth as it was in picture A. Then they repeat that, over and over again, for billions of years. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You put a pretty good deal of time into this, Shaheenjim, and I appreciate this very much! Your images are precise with only one small exception...

In picture A, you have the Moon at its closest point to the Sun. So the Earth should be at its farthest point from the Sun. That just means that the red dot would be on a straight line that goes through "A" and the Moon. This is the part of the orbit where it's possible to see a Solar eclipse.

One other thing to remember is that the image upon which you based your pictures is not "to scale". The distance between the Sun and the Earth/Selene orbit averages about 93 million miles, and the changes in Selene's distance from the Sun varies by only about 480,000 miles (only 1/2 of a percent). So as the two bodies, Earth and Selene, soar in their orbits around the Sun, the Moon never quite fully goes around the Earth, but only appears to do so from our perspective. --Paine (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the pictures aren't to scale, but I think they're still good enough for their purpose, which is to describe the relative positions.

And I still maintain that the Moon goes all the way around the Earth. And I maintain that my picture A is right. In picture A the Moon is sort of between the Earth and the Sun. In picture B the Earth is between the Moon and the Sun. Therefore the Earth would actually be farther away from the Sun in picture B than it would be in picture A. Because in picture B, the Moon is pulling the Earth away from the Sun, and in picture A, the Moon is pulling the Earth towards the Sun.

I thought of another way to describe the Moon's circling of the Earth. It's sort of like the Moon and the Earth are playing leap frog with each other as they both orbit the sun. And in leap frog, each person makes a full circle around the other. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

More Facts

This is a continuation of the section above.

In the section TUG OF WAR you said:

Asimov talks about two types of satellites... "true" satellites and "captured" satellites. The true ones are believed to have formed along with their primary planets way back when the Solar System was very young. And the captured ones were, well, captured. At some point in the history of our Solar System, they were passing near a planet and were caught in the huge gravitational field. And they became part of the planet's satellite system...

It's too far out to be a true satellite of the Earth, if we go by my beautiful chain of reasoning--which is too beautiful for me to abandon. It's too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up a nearly circular orbit about the Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.

First of all, I don't like that terminology. I don't like using the term "true" satellites for the first type. "Captured" satellites are true too. I prefer the terms "original" satellites and "captured" satellites. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It was Asimov's distinction, and I think the only reason was to show the difference between the two types of satellites. I don't think he was modeling a future definition. So as long as the Gentle Reader is able to easily make the distinction, then Asimov probably felt that he was getting the job done. --Paine Ellsworth (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, it may be true that the Moon is too far out to be an "original" satellite of the Earth, and too big to be have been captured while it was passing by. But there's a third option, and I think that's the one I've heard scientists say applies to the moon. I've never heard them mention it in this context, but I think it applies. My understanding is that billions of years ago the moon and the Earth were on separate paths, then they collided. That collision caused the moon to slow down, and that's what allowed the Earth to capture it as a satellite. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The most accepted version today is that a Mars-sized object collided with the Earth, probably at some point in time before Earth was a fully-formed planet. The collision resulted in a merging of proto-Earth with most of the Mars-sized object, and some of the debris managed to escape into orbit and become the Moon.

There are a few small problems with this model, but it is plausible. At any rate there are still good reasons to think that the Moon formed at least in about the same solar orbit as Earth at the same time Earth formed. Then it could have been "captured" as it passed the Earth (or as Earth passed it, depending upon which orb, the Earth or the Moon, was orbiting a little closer to the Sun back then). --Paine Ellsworth (talk) 15:55ish, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But the part of your website that I found most interesting of all was the section BARRY'S CENTER. I was going to raise an objection to one of the moon things in it, and I was going to make a comment about Jupiter. But you already brought up both of those topics later in that section. So I'll address those later comments. You said:

You could argue that, in a double-planet system, the barycenter of the two planets ought to be *outside* the surfaces of both planets. And once again, you might be right. However, if you really think that's important, you might also consider that Jupiter could easily be thought of as a small star simply because the barycenter of the Sun/Jupiter system lies outside the surface of the Sun! But there are other tests that Jupiter would have to pass to be thought of as a star. So the location of the barycenter probably isn't all-important, is it?

I do argue that the barycenter of two planets must be outside one of them in order for it to be considered a double-planet system. So that would mean the moon is a satellite of the Earth, rather than a planet of its own. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the common argument. It is in fact the most quoted reason for thinking that the Moon is only a satellite of Earth. I consider it to be just one of several issues to be considered, and a minor issue at best. --Paine Ellsworth (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And in fact, now that you bring it up, I suppose the solar system could be considered a twin Sun/Jupiter system.

But that doesn't mean that Jupiter is a star. I'd say the solar system is a twin system, where a star (the Sun) is a twin of a planet (Jupiter). I guess you could say that makes them fraternal twins, rather than identical twins. You seem to imply that Jupiter would have to be considered a star in order to be part of a twin system. But I think they're separate issues. So Jupiter can be part of a twin system even if it's not a star. I think a star is defined as something with so much mass that it triggers nuclear fusion. Jupiter doesn't do that, so it can't be considered a star. But it can still be considered part of a twin system. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you go outside the FoR of the Solar System, if you imagine that you're an ET soaring around the Orion Bridge, you might come to a different conclusion. Let's say you come across the Sirius system. You would definitely think of the Sirius stellar system as a twin system (the still controversial "Sirius C" notwithstanding). There is the magnificent Sirius A, and then there is the little white dwarf star, Sirius B. Both are "stars". No problemo.

Then you soar a little more and come across the Centauri stellar system. (I only use "Solar system" when referring to our own system of Sol and its planets.) There's Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B, both similar to our Sun. If you discount Proxima Centauri (astronomers are not yet certain if PC is actually part of the Centauri stellar system), then once again you have a "twin system" of stars.

Then you get to Sol and find its Solar system. Would calling the largest gas giant the "twin" of Sol even cross your mind? I don't think so. You would see a single star with 5 rock planets near it, four gas giants farther from it, and a host of smaller objects throughout the system and surrounding it belt-like. If you were objectively analyzing our Solar system from outside of it, I really don't understand why you would even consider just one of the planets a twin to the star just because it's the biggest and its barycenter lies outside the star. --Paine Ellsworth (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If I were looking at the star and Jupiter as an alien, then my first instinct might be to think it was not a twin system. But my first instinct would be wrong, and once I calculated Jupiter's barycenter, I'd recognize it as a twin system. Even if Jupiter wasn't the biggest planet. It really is just because its barycenter lies outside the star. That's the definition of a twin. - Shaheenjim (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does the barycenter issue carry so much weight? IMO, there are other issues with a lot more weight that are in favor of planet Selene being a full-fledged planet in its own right. It's not just you, Shaheenjim, because as I said, this is the most-quoted reason for denying the Moon its true classification. And it certainly does not alter the FACT that the presently accepted Definition of planet does not exclude the Moon! --Paine (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The barycenter issue carries so much weight because that's the definition of a satellite. And it's more important than your other reasons. The moon's size, the fact that its barycenter is far away from the Earth's center, and the fact that the moon's orbit is off the ecliptic, those three reasons aren't enough to make it a planet. If there were enough other reasons, then those three might provide backup for the other reasons. But there aren't enough other reasons.

Nope, sorry, that dog won't hunt. There is no formal definition of "satellite", so to say that's why the barycenter issue is strong just weakens the issue. You can do better than that. The Moon's size is adequate for a planet. It's just a bit smaller than Mercury. The Earth/Moon barycenter is fully 3,000 miles out from Earth's center, and all the satellites in the Solar system have barycenters that are at or very near their primarys' centers. The inclination of the Moon's orbit is only 5 degrees. That's 2 degrees LESS than Mercury's inclination off the ecliptic. All the satellites instead orbit almost precisely on their primarys' equatorial planes. When astronomers list the inclinations of all the satellites they are listed in "degrees off the equatorial plane" of their primary. No matter where you look, even Wiki, the Moon's inclination will always be listed in "degrees off the ecliptic", just like any other planet. --Paine

The fact that the ancients thought it was a planet doesn't help, since as I said above, the ancients thought all the planets revolved around the Earth. And the fact that it can't be an original satellite or a captured satellite doesn't help, since as I said, there's a third alternative, and if fits that. You've claimed that the moon doesn't go all the way around the Earth, and if that were true, then I'd agree that the moon should be considered a planet. But that's not true, as I've said above.

We agree that just because the ancient Greeks called Selene a "wanderer" (planet), that's not a good reason to change the Moon's classification. The only point here would be HOW LONG the Moon held this classification of "planet", as opposed to how long it has been classed as a "satellite". Galileo didn't spot the Jovian satellites until the early 17th century. Up until then, everything was thought to go around the Earth. "Geocentrism" reigned supreme. So "satellite" as a word to describe bodies that go around planets wasn't even invented or coined until after that time. For many hundreds of years, perhaps several thousands of years, the Moon was classed as a "planet". It's only been a "satellite" for less than 400 years. --Paine

Just because a position was held for a long time doesn't mean it's right. They thought the universe was geocentric for an equally long time, but that doesn't mean it is. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, we agree on this. My point is merely to show the fact that the Moon was known as a "planet" far longer than it was known as a "satellite". That's all. --Paine (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You tried to discredit the barycenter issue by saying that it doesn't apply to Jupiter, therefore it shouldn't apply to the moon either. But I think it actually does apply to Jupiter, so it's ok to apply it to the moon.

Sorry again, but Jupiter's not a star, not even close. It wouldn't matter if the Sun/Jupiter barycenter were out as far as the orbit of Mercury, Jupiter would still be a planet, not a star and therefore the barycenter argument is a minuscule, minor issue. --Paine

I didn't say Jupiter was a star. In fact, I specifically said it wasn't. Whether it's a star and whether it's part of a twin system are two totally separate issues. You're confusing them again. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there is a huge, big difference between a star and a planet. --Paine (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there are some differences between stars and planets. Lots of differences. Big differences. But there are some similarities too. And one of them is that Jupiter and the Sun are twins. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You are the very first person I've ever encountered who would call Jupiter a twin of the Sun. --Paine (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I may be the first person you've ever encountered who would call Jupiter a twin of the Sun, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. You're the first person I've ever encountered who said the Earth loses to the Sun in a tug of war over the Moon. Most people aren't aware of these facts. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Planets have been shown by astronomers to actually be spawned by their stars. Planets come from stars. Not for anything, but a twin is never spawned from a twin. So I'm afraid your twin argument seems a bit illogical to me. --Paine (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, when you say that twins aren't spawned from their twin, you're taking the analogy too literally.

Second, an identical twin actually is spawned from the original twin.

And third, I don't think planets are spawned from the star they orbit. I think they're spawned from other stars that went supernova. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The only really good argument you have is the tug of war argument. And that is a good argument. But I don't think it's enough to overcome the fact that the moon's barycenter is inside the Earth. But maybe there could be a definition that included both of those things. Instead of two categories (planets that are satellites of the sun, and moons that are satellites of planets) we could have three categories. The first category would be planets, and they would be defined as having a barycenter inside the sun. The third category would be moons, and they would be defined as having a barycenter inside a planet, and having a tug of war value greater than 1 with that planet. And the middle category would be somewhere inbetween. It would be defined as objects having a barycenter inside a planet, but having a tug of war value of less than 1 with that planet. Selene could fall into that middle category. Not quite a planet, but not quite a moon either.

Remember, these are Asimov's original arguments. I noted that one of the references you gave on the Moon page was to one of Asimov's works about the Moon. I hope you've had a chance to read that. He goes into more depth on all these issues, and he explains things much better than I ever could. I see no reason to make things more complicated than they already are. The Moon is a planet, "Planet Selene". That's all that's necessary. --Paine

Actually, I think your explanations were sufficient. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I certainly hope others agree with you. If Asimov just isn't someone you'd like to read, that's cool, that's okay with me. He's written on so many subjects like physics, the Bible, Shakespeare; he's actually written a lot more nonfiction than scifi. But I realize that just because he's one of my favorite authors doesn't mean that everybody would agree with me about him. --Paine (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My objection isn't to Asimov in particular. I don't like reading books in general. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

On a somewhat separate topic, you've said that the moon fits the presently accepted definition of planet. I don't think that's quite true. The presently accepted definition of planet says that a planet must have cleared the neighbourhood of its own orbital zone of all other bodies of comparable size other than its own satellites or those otherwise under its gravitational influence. The moon doesn't meet that criterium. - Shaheenjim (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: ". . . other than its own satellites OR those otherwise under its gravitational influence." Planet Selene, the Moon, has cleared the neighborhood of its own orbital zone of all other bodies of comparable size other than Earth, which is most definitely and assuredly under the Moon's gravitational influence. End of story. --Paine (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they'd consider the Earth to be under the gravitational influence of the Moon. Certainly the Moon has some influence on the Earth, but the amount of influence that the Moon has on the Earth is less than the amount of influence that the Earth has on the Moon. Therefore the Moon isn't dominant in its orbit, and that's what is required. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they would consider the Earth to be under the gravitational influence of the Moon, because this happens to be an indisputable FACT, Shaheenjim. As for less or more influence, (1) It would not matter what the binary system is like, unless both objects were precisely equal in mass, one would always have more influence over the other, and one would have less. Therefore (2) The "dominance" in the explanation of the definition of "planet" does not refer to the dominance of one partner over the other (it absolutely couldn't, because "binaries" are not specifically mentioned), the "dominance" refers to an object being large enough to be the dominant mass in its own orbit around the Sun. And the fact is, the Moon meets this qualification. --Paine (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I'm not sure how the "dominant in its orbit" requirement applies to binary planets. You might say that neither one of them dominates the other. But that doesn't apply here, since the Earth does dominate the Moon. And the Moon certainly doesn't dominate its own orbit, because it doesn't dominate the Earth, even if it does have some influence on the Earth. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "planet"

The newest (2006) official IAU definition of the term "planet" Reference:

A planet is a celestial body that...

(a) is in orbit around the Sun,

(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and

(c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit

(i) meaning it has become gravitationally dominant, and there are no other bodies of comparable size other than its own satellites or those otherwise under its gravitational influence. Reference

And since "planet" is a term that can also apply to other types of celestial bodies by the use of an identifier, such as "dwarf planet", I like to clarify by using an identifier for the above defined body, as in "major planet". However, it can be noted that the term "planet", when referring to bodies defined above, does not require an identifier.

There is also another inconsistency that I don't like. It's the usage of the word "celestial", which is defined as "of or relating to the sky, the heavens, space". One could make an argument that this technically excludes Earth as a planet. A better term might be "astronomical body", which would include the Earth.

Lastly, under this definition the Solar System still has nine planets. Earth's "Moon" can be considered to be quite dominant gravitationally, as it has shielded the Earth from many a blow from objects large and larger, as evidenced by photos of the far side. For that matter, even the craters on the near side show that the Moon is a gravitationally dominant "rock magnet". Also, there are no other bodies in its neighborhood of comparable size other than Earth, which is definitely under the Moon's gravitational influence.

What does all this mean? It means that technically, according to the IAU, there are still nine planets in our Solar System (color me flighty, but i doubt that the IAU meant to exclude the Earth). And they include the Moon as a full-fledged major planet in its own right. There are many more reasons to think of the Moon as a planet instead of just a satellite of Earth. You'll find them listed and explained at the "official" Moon-as-planet website: The Planet Moon

(Disclaimer: There are no promotional materials, links, etc. on The Planet Moon website. The Planet Moon was created solely as a tribute to Isaac Asimov for his great nonfiction science works, including his views about why the Moon deserves reclassification as a full-fledged planet in its own right. The creator of the website is not responsible for how smart you become when you read nonfiction works by Asimov.)

Indelibly yours,
Paine (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Paine, the IAU definition clearly states that satellites do not fall under the planet/dwarf planet/SSSB categories. Given that the IAU officially classifies the Moon as a satellite of Earth, it cannot be considered as a planet under the IAU definition. Further to this, the footnotes to the IAU definition clearly state that there are eight planets in the Solar System. Please do not use Wikipedia to push your own opinions and theories regarding this matter; you already have your web site for that purpose. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a reference, Ckatz? And even if you can earnestly search for and find one that indicates that the IAU "officially" states that the Moon is a satellite of Earth, there's still a rub... the IAU has not yet established an official definition for the term "satellite". As for the footnotes, there is good argument for footnote mention being insufficient. Suppose I gave you a definition for "fruit". Then in the footnotes I give you "apple, orange, banana and potato". Clearly, three of these actually are fruit. And clearly one, the potato, is not. So merely mentioning Earth in the footnotes does not alleviate the apparently unintentional error that "A planet is a celestial body . . .", now does it? According to this Wiki talk page Earth is an astronomical body, but not a celestial body.

I hope it will soon become clear to you that there are puzzles and anomalies here. All I am "pushing" here is simply for resolution to some long-standing challenges. Thanks to your enlightening "Welcome" message on this my Talk page, I removed all links from The Planet Moon that go against Wiki policy. Those "opinions", those "theories" are actually HARD FACTS determined long ago by Isaac Asimov. I sincerely hope that you will come to see this as clearly as possible, so as to allow Asimov to enlighten you as well! --Paine (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Paine, we're talking about the "Moon as planet" theory your site endorses, not about Asimov's musings regarding gravitational influences. (I hope you weren't serious, by the way, about suggesting that the IAU does not consider the Moon to be a satellite of Earth. See [the USGS site the IAU links to], for one, if you really need proof.) As for the validity of the footnotes, if you are really going to claim that an official IAU document stating Earth is a planet is possibly an "error", I'm not sure if we can ever resolve this. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, thus far you have sounded like a person whom, when confronted with facts, will give those facts serious consideration. My website is not a "theory" or a set of opinions. It is a list of facts about the Moon, facts that lead to obvious anomalies in the official classification of the Moon. The IAU merely "consider"ing the Moon to be a satellite of Earth does not constitute an official stand. There is need for more accuracy and precision in Solar System terminology. If you read just about anything about the IAU, you will find that the IAU astronomers agree with this. It's not easy for a large and prestigious body such as the IAU to come to a consensus. So just as in the makeup of any good encyclopedia, terminology, definition and word usage are important and crucial to understanding and consensus.

As for your last sentence about the footnotes, this is a case-in-point...

• FACT: The term "celestial body" refers to all simple bodies, such as planets, stars and satellites, in the sky. According to Wikipedia this term, "celestial body", excludes the Earth.
• FACT: The official IAU definition of "planet" begins with the phrasing, "A planet is a celestial body . . .", therefore officially a "planet" is first and foremost a "celestial body".
• FACT: Footnotes are properly used to comment or to cite references. They are never used to oppose that which is being footnoted. The placement of "Earth" in the footnotes of a definition in which the terminology clearly excludes the Earth is oppositional and improper usage of the footnote.

As an encyclopedia and Wikipedia buff, I can only hope that you appreciate these facts. --Paine (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The resolutions I seek are threefold...

• 1) More precision in the IAU defintion of "planet",
• 2) Getting Wikipedia to resolve to help in this effort, and
• 3) Getting both Wikipedia and the IAU to acknowledge that "Selene" (the Moon) is a full-fledged planet in its own right -- NOT just by presently accepted IAU definition, but also by the fact that Selene demonstrates itself to be a planet in every possible way.

There are tactful ways of letting the IAU know what changes are necessary to bring terminology into precision. Wikipedia is a most dynamic encyclopedia. It keeps up with changes faster than any other reference source. So when Wikipedia notes the needs of the IAU definition of "planet", shouldn't it state so on each and every Earth and Moon page?

When the FACTS are fully considered, should I hope and expect that Wikipedia will embrace them and include them? --Paine (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, see, there's the thing: Wikipedia is not the place to pursue your personal objectives. You may well feel that the information you've presented supports your assertions, but it clearly falls under what is defined as original research. As far as the resolutions go, for #1 you'll have to speak to the IAU. For #2, Wikipedia cannot "help in this effort" as that is clearly outside the defined role of this project, per the founder. Finally, as for #3, you'll need to get wide-spread acceptance in the scientific community first. Until that happens, the Moon remains defined as a satellite of Earth, not a planet, the Earth remains defined as a planet, and articles must reflect those facts. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Ckatz, this is not only my personal objective. It was also the objective of Isaac Asimov. Why do you think he went to so much trouble to list and explain so many facts supporting the Moon's reclassification to a planet, if not to pursue that reclassification? I'm just carrying on his work. I think I understand the Wiki concept of Original Research. And I shall work on bettering the presentation. Would you be so kind as to specifically define, or point me to a definition of "the role of this project, as per the founder"?

• Never mind, I think I've found it. According to Larry Sanger, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales originally came up with the following role for Wikipedia... it is an "open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people". Now I realize that there have been a lot of logs burned since 2001. By that I mean that many things have been tried, and many of the present guidelines reflect the good and bad attempts. However, I really don't see anything in this "role" of Wikipedia that would alleviate the responsibility of Wikipedia to list the facts, to do everything in its power to keep from hiding any facts, or to be as bold as its founders when the bringing to light of certain facts might "step on somebody's toes". As I said before, there are tactful ways to present facts, tactful ways to "step on somebody's shoes without ruining their shine". If you dispute the facts, that's one thing. To be afraid to present the facts is entirely something else. I shall work to prove to you that The Planet Moon is anything but original research. I will show you with citations that The Planet Moon is a listing of FACTS related to how the need to reclassify the Moon to the status of planet is just as important to astronomy as it was to reclassify the Andromeda "nebula" to the status of "galaxy". --Paine (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, I would ask that you keep in mind that there is still no specific IAU definition of the term "satellite", and that the presently accepted 2006 definition of the term "planet" actually does include the Moon. The Moon orbits the Sun like a planet, the Moon is massive enough to be a round body, and the Moon has cleared its orbit. The Moon is a full-fledged planet in its own right. --Paine (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, you can argue your case as much as you like on your own web site, you can say you are carrying on Asimov's work, you can launch a campaign to try to reclassify the Moon, whatever. Thing is, you absolutely cannot use Wikipedia to promote either the site or the cause. That is not my opinion, that is site policy based on the consensus of thousands of editors and years of consideration. I strongly encourage you to thoroughly read and re-read the core policies. Pay specific attention to "What Wikipedia is not", especially the subsections "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Read the reliable sources, no original research and verifiability guidelines and policies. It is one thing to have discussions about what is suitable for inclusion; it is quite another to proceed to change articles without following these principles. Personally, I'm more than willing to consider new ideas, to change my viewpoint, and so on; that is part of the essence of science, to be open to the very real possibility that what we think is right is in fact wrong. However, we have to draw an unwavering line between what we are willing to explore as individuals, and what is considered acceptable for an encyclopedia. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"It is one thing to have discussions about what is suitable for inclusion; it is quite another to proceed to change articles without following these principles." Are you confusing me with somebody else, Ckatz? The only places I have written anything about this are talk pages, discussion pages. I have never changed any Wikipedia article, other than to remove vandalism and spelling/grammar errors. I could be wrong, but it sounds an awful lot like you're accusing me of changing articles without following guidelines. You and I have merely been discussing these things in a civil manner on this, my talk page. So why do you take the "Look, you . . ." tone with me and apparently accuse me of altering pages without consensus? If that's not what you've done, if I've misconstrued your meaning, then perhaps there actually is some room here for a change of viewpoint? Are there others with your Wikisway who might be interested in this subject? Others who might help you gang up on me, or help me gang up on you? (Just kidding.) At any rate, you cannot ignore the facts as I've presented them. To do so would be an encyclopedic travesty. Facts are facts, and encyclopedias are where facts belong, don't you agree? --Paine (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I really wish you wouldn't suggest the idea of "ganging up" and the like; I'm made no such suggestions, nor would I. I am sorry if you misinterpreted my statements, as I was only trying to get across that it would not be appropriate to rewrite articles based on your stated beliefs. I felt this was fair comment as you were quite emphatic about your resolutions above, and you have elsewhere stated a desire to start editing articles. I certainly don't want to discourage you from contributing, but your stated desire to promote your views through Wikipedia is a cause for concern. I may be the one espousing these concerns right now, through our discussion, but it is not a solitary concern. I would much rather communicate that to you here, where we can discuss it in a civil manner, than to see you encounter avoidable opposition while editing. If you like, I would be happy to show you how to seek other input into this, if it helps you realize that this is not just my perspective.

On a related note, you may wish to reconsider the decision to change the display font for this page. It makes the page very difficult to read on smaller monitors, especially when there is so much text, and may inadvertently dissuade others from reading your messages. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that I was wrong about your intent. Yes, I am emphatic, sometimes to a fault, when I know I'm right about something. I can be far too outspoken sometimes. So I am happy that there are people in the world like yourself who have the courage of their own convictions. You will never see me alter an article without first being certain that there is a consensus. If I ever do edit an article, and I find that I was wrong about there being a consensus for the edit, then I will gladly accept the outcome. Thank you for offering to show me how to seek input from others. Please realize that I am not questioning your expertise, nor am I in any way endeavoring to make this "personal". I have a set of facts, and I believe an encyclopedia is a place for facts. So I would be very interested in what others have to say about these facts and whether or not they think Wikipedia is the proper place for them. --Paine (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. Thank you, Ckatz, for the tip about the display font. I had no idea about smaller monitors. I can always increase the reading size for-myself-only using my browser's VIEW menu, thus leaving the page font intact.

Wikipedia articles

I added one of the arguments from your webpage to Wikipedia here. You'd listed them as two separate arguments on your webpage, but I think that actually one of them causes the other one. I linked to your website for a reference. I hope, and thoroughly expect, that you don't mind. - Shaheenjim (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I not only don't mind, I feel honored by your action, Shaheenjim! You are too kind! I would ask that you slightly alter the links (I can't do this yet) to reflect a new set of pages that do not connect to any advertisements. All that needs to be done is to add to both links a "WIKI" subdirectory thusly... "http://paine_ellsworth.home.att.net/WIKI/bb_Selene_toc.html". This subdirectory conforms to WIKI policy on external links. --Paine Ellsworth (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed you'd changed some of your links, and I was going to ask about that. I can change the links I added, that's no problem. Why can't you do it yet, though? Is it just because it's a semi protected article, and you're a new user? - Shaheenjim (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. For quite a while I've done some Wikiediting without being registered. Just small stuff I'd run across every once in awhile. Then I thought, 'Why not register?' So I did. I guess there's a probationary period to make sure I'm not too much of a kook <g> before letting me loose on certain pages. --Paine (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody reverted my edit that linked to your page. I'm not surprised. There are a lot of people on here with no common sense, including a lot of admins. I restored the edit, but with a different link. - Shaheenjim (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No biggee. And I do appreciate your efforts! --Paine (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I also took the topic about Jupiter from the section above, and brought it up here. - Shaheenjim (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long, but I've been meaning to thank you for the streamlining, Shaheenjim! Thank you very much!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

SIG

This is just to document (pronounce that "brag" or "boast") that I created a new sig. -->  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`. 

And let me tell *you*! That "raw signature" block is pretty dern picky about that HTML code. If you don't get it *just right*, it comes back in bright red letters: "INVALID RAW SIGNATURE -- CHECK HTML CODE!!!". So I played with it a little (a lot) and finally got it right. Bedtime. G'night ya'll.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your 3RR edit suggestion -- REPLY

You left the following message at my talk page:

"Just a note that I edited this page and section. I'm a little new here and therefore curious as to why you didn't just make the change yourself?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  04:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)"

I have no idea of what you're talking about or referring to, since that I have not had a discussion with anyone or edit articles in several days (have other important things to attend to besides Wikipedia these days). Could you enlighten me here as to what your message is about or whether you have even contacted the right person? →Lwalt ^♦ talk 04:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course; I'd be glad to. And I can see why this isn't fresh in your memory. You made a suggestion to clarify the "Three-revert rule" on the "Help:Reverting" page back in August, 2007. Your suggestion is on this talk page. You felt that just the word "day" was insufficient, and that "a 24-hour period" ought to be specified. I agreed with you and made the clarification as you suggested and was a little curious as to why you didn't just edit it yourself.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Note my latest comments above from a few days ago. You still haven't responded to them. - Shaheenjim (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I read your comments and noted you didn't ask questions but just continued to make assertions, so I thought I'd give you the "last word". I've been discussing and debating this issue for a long time in a UseNet newsgroup, alt.astronomy, so I've been over and over these issues many, many times.

It's just one of those things you feel in your heart, I guess. Isaac Asimov felt it in his heart, and I feel it in mine. In reading through other articles and talk pages, I see that there are others reading Wiki who feel the same about the Moon, that it's a planet and not just a satellite. And when I see pictures like this, I can understand why. Some people look at that and see only the differences between the Earth and Selene. But I see Selene as a "sister planet"; I see a binary planet system.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  14:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation Needed "Is Understanding Definable?"

This link that was cited on this page is broken. I looked all over that website and could not find where Edison said or wrote about "under" and "stand" coming together in the word "understand". I also checked other "quotation" sites and found nothing about him separating the "under" and the "stand". So if Edison did say this, then it's probably in one of his biographies. Can the article's author or someone else cite a reference?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the following statement from the above cited section (in the Understanding article) because the reference link is still broken, I've not been able to find a citation anywhere, and no one else has added a proper citation...

"Thomas Edison believed that the concept of understanding comes from the two simple words under and stand. When one acknowledges that she/he stands below someone or something else, she/he makes him/herself receptive to obtain and retain information from it, thereby allowing for understanding to occur." "(comment following) -- [http://www.thomasedison.com/biog.htm]. This link is broken. I looked all over this website and could not find where Edison said this. I also checked other "quotation" sites and found nothing about him separating the "under" and the "stand". So if Edison did say this, then it's probably in one of his biographies. - Paine Ellsworth (comment end)"

Please do not undo this until and unless a proper citation is found.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Social Contract Theory - thanks!

I'm just writing to thank you for your recent fixes for some of the citations on the Social Contract page. I've tried to fix it a bit over the last little bit, but don't really understand some of the technical details of wikipedia yet, and so had left those weird glitches in. My thanks for rectifying them! 173.32.35.78 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to let me know! I've been editing Wikipedia for years, but only recently "joined the club", so there's still quite a bit for me to learn, too. Once you get started, tho', it can be mesmerizing! If there's anything I can help you with, just let me know.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  13:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My Biggest Mistake

I've been making very small edits to Wikipedia for a long time, now. And I always saw those accursèd "redlinks" as looking extremely unprofessional! So when I recently opened my own Wiki account and read all that stuff about editing policies and procedures, I guess I somehow blocked out the part about the importance of redlinks. Yes, I said the IMPORTANCE of redlinks. To those who don't know, redlinks are links to pages that don't exist. I still think that it was the "mouseover" message, "PAGE DOES NOT EXIST", that turned me off all those years. Maybe if someone added, "WHY NOT CREATE AN ARTICLE?", maybe then it would have a more professional appearance.

• Because that, after all, is the importance of redlinks. A study has shown that new articles often tend to be written by people who came across a redlink, knew about the subject, and went ahead and wrote the new article. I didn't realize this until just the other day, when I came across a Wiktionary article that explained it. And I thought, 'Oh GEEZ! Here I've been spending weeks removing a whole buncha redlinks!' So I spent the last few days going back over my "contributions" and reinstating all those redlinks. And so it's done, and I've corrected my error. I shall "endeavor to persevere" to be much more careful from now on.

Oh! and by the way, if you happen to come across a redlink that you know something about, consider writing an article about the subject. You will be helping Wikipedia grow into an even better encyclopedia than it already is! And you will be playing an important part in supporting the best encyclopedia that's ever been written --> Wikipedia

• And don't take my word for it, just do a search on "Britannica beta" or "Britannica Wikipedia". You'll find that even the great encyclopedia Britannica is attempting to emulate Wikipedia. This might have something to do with the fact that Wikipedia gets about 4 times as many daily hits as Britannica. So no matter how derisive the Britannica administrators might sound when they talk about Wikipedia, the truth is in their actions. Even they, at least covertly, think that Wikipedia is really great and something worth being more like!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Jodie Foster

I hope my response to your post didn't sound too much like blowing off the point. I've tried to deal with User:XxTaylor15 for a while now and at times, her/his (?) POV editing that seems to convolute the text and references just exhausts me. The article sounded fairly good until that editor began dabbling with it and about the time you posted your question, I'd had it up to my eyebrows with trying to sort it out. I guess I knew it was for Taxi Driver but I was just too weary to check it. I've had problems with harassment from a sock puppet this weekend and at the moment, I just couldn't deal with another "What now?!?" Thanks for looking into it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely understand. Well, no not really. I'm pretty busy myself with other things, and I can't imagine what long-time editors have been through over the years. In a case like this, you're always dealing with "fans", and some of those can be a bit "Hinklish" to one degree or another. Too often they personify the megatalented entertainer with one or more roles played, rather than to recognize that they have no connection to the performer's personal life. Like the picture thing. Some fans are more superficial than others. I'm older than Jodie, and grew up with her, yet I can still separate her public personna from her personal one. You hang in there, though, because Wiki's worth it!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  14:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't thought of all of it in terms of it being Hinklish before, but yes. It's a bit like the article I nominated for deletion for the new fictional language called "Nellish", based on her speech in Nell. I do love editing here and try to keep it in perspective. Works most of the time, bubbles over into extreme annoyance at others. Cheers! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Poe-related clean-up

Hello! You've done some excellent clean-up work on Poe-related articles! I wanted to mention, however, that the proper possessive tense of Dr. Joseph Evans Snodgrass (mentioned in Death of Edgar Allan Poe) is definitely "Snodgrass's", with the apostrophe s. See Wikipedia:MOS#Possessives for examples. By the way, if you have time, would you consider going through the entirety of The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket? I'm thinking of nominating it for GA soon and could use the clean-up help. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Midnightdreary! It's been a long time since school, and all I remembered was "ends in 's', just use the apostrophe". I see it's grown into not such a big deal, so I will look only for "consistency within the article" in the future. One thing about Wikipedia that makes it stand out among encyclopedias is the ability to quickly link to sources, references and other useful info. But I've found when editing that this can become an interesting challenge. I begin on one page and an hour later, due to taking trips on embedded links, I'm deeply embroiled in seven, eight, even nine pages. So I've been restricting myself to "no more than three" pages here lately, which is why I didn't spend a lot of time on the novel's page. I'll be happy to return and give it a deeper and better look.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. Looks like I've done about as much "damage" as I can do to Poe's novel article. Hope you like the edits!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  22:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for promptly taking a look! I know what you mean about following links. Sometimes I think people will check out my contribution history and think "How the heck did he get there??" It's like a game, really! Thanks again for the help! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Midnightdreary!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Big Numbers and No-Break (&nbsp;) Spaces

I occasionally come across numbers over 999 that use a no-break space rather than a comma to separate the thousands, as in 1&nbsp;000 (actually appears as 1 000 in an article) rather than 1,000. In some articles, where mostly commas are used to separate the thousands, I'm tempted to replace the no-break spaces with commas in each case for the sake of consistency. It occurred to me, though, that the no-break space might keep the number from breaking in two if it falls at the end of a line. My assumption was that the Wiki software does not have the ability to sense the difference between a comma followed by a number and a comma followed by a (normal) space. So I tested this, and the software does have this ability. Whenever a comma is followed by a number, it behaves in the same manner as a no-break space. Therefore I will remove the no-break spaces and replace them with commas when consistency-within-an-article demands.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Gordon Pym

Thanks so much for helping bring The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket up to Good Article status. I'd like to see it Featured some day, but I'm going to step away from it for now to work on other things. I may call on you when it's FAC time! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

S. I. Hayakawa

As I was doing some minor edits on the S. I. Hayakawa article, I found that a reference link was broken. It was this link. I'll check it time to time over the next few days and if it comes back to life I'll reinstate it.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  07:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Today I marked this link with a {{brokenlink}} ^{( )} template.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And on this day I added the <delete> tag to the link.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling and disambigution

In a couple articles you've changed the spelling of some words such as labelling to labeling noting that if the stress is on the first syllable the letter is not doubled. This is not the case for all local variations of English. For example in Canada (and other countries that use general British spelling), major newspapers and government agencies do use labelling [1][2] and worshipping [3]. The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that while the different spellings are acceptable in Wikipedia, that "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style".

On another note, the Manual of style of disambiguation pages states there should be no extraneous internal links. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff3000! I'm aware of most of the spelling-rule differences from one English to another, but that was one that I hadn't encountered. I shall be more careful in the future. As for extraneous links, I agree that they should be avoided. I created several internal links on various pages last night, so it would help if you could be more specific as to which internal link you feel is extraneous?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  14:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For example with this edit, you added a link to Shoghi Effendi in a disambiguation page, but the Manual of style of disambiguation pages states that generally only the navigable entry should be linked to ("The link should be the first word or phrase in each entry") and "[t]o avoid confusing the reader, each bulleted entry should have only one navigable (blue) link." Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I broke the rule there for what I consider a good reason. The specific bullet is:

• Bahá'í divisions, smaller groups that reject the leadership of the previous group, particularly with regards to the succession of Shoghi Effendi.

And I felt that anyone in search of Bahá'í subjects might appreciate a quick internal link to someone who is prominently expressed as a particular reason for the subject's existence. I still feel this way and would like to reinstate the link to help those that land on that page. However, I'm willing to hear more about why you think I shouldn't reinstate the link if you have strong objection to it (other than that it's breaking the rules, since the manual you referenced specifically tells us to break the rules if we deem it more helpful to readers).  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I feel that the link should not be reinstanted, and others feel the same as you've seen that you've reverted by multiple editors. If someone is looking for other meanings of the word "bahai" they are not looking for "Shoghi Effendi". That link is confusing the situation for those who are looking for items like "bahai, chad" or "Shaykh Bahai". For those who are interested, they can first go to "bahai divisions" and read any details there. The rules for the styling of disambiguation pages are not just there to create rules, but there are good reasons for them, and I believe they are definitely correctly applied here. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope you'll believe me when I tell you that the only reason I re-added the link after Cunado19 undid it the first time was because I thought I had not saved the page. I spent much time editing other pages before coming back to the Bahá'í pages and thought I had forgotten to save the page. At any rate, since more than one editor feels that the link is unnecessary and confusing, and since I don't consider my position that it would be helpful to readers to be as strong as I'd originally thought, I shall leave it alone. Thank you for your counsel!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  02:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Solar System discussion page text move

Talk:Solar System - Kheider reverted lead comments

• The following was an editing lesson by administrator Ckatz regarding talk-page protocol to keep the discussion flowing coherently:

Please explain how your reordering has helped the "flow of the conversation"? Now it looks like I'm replying to you instead of to the commenter! The conversation you reordered is between myself and Kheider. There was no call for a third party (yourself) to alter the flow of our two-party discussion. Please revert it back as it was.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Paine, the problem was that your original order of posting - with the replies directly after each of Kheider's points - disrupted the flow of his comment. While it is OK to reply to a complete comment (since the poster's signature clearly delineates who is saying what), we are not supposed to mix our replies in the middle of a complete comment as it becomes confusing as to who is saying what. I've added a note to indicate where one of your points was originally posted, and altered the indent to make it clearer that you were plying to Kheider; hopefully that helps. (I'll leave the one Serendipodous moved for you to reposition if you desire.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! Upon reflection I also see that it was I who was the third party. So I welcome your counseling. I shall come back to hopefully straighten things out when I complete another project later today. Thank you again!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  13:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Help Desk question re: Shirley Temple vs. Categories

I left the following question at the Wikipedia:Help desk#Shirley Temple vs. Categories:

Resolved

My question has to do with editing of category lists. I've been improving the "Shirley Temple" article, and I noticed that all the many categories that list her do so by her childhood name rather than by her present legal name. I suppose this is due to the fact that her main article is titled by her childhood name. The page "Shirley Temple Black" just redirects to "Shirley Temple". It is my contention that categories like "California Republicans" and "American Diplomats" and several others should list her by her present legal name, alphabetized to the "B's" for Black, rather than to the "T's" for Temple. I have searched pages and faqs on categories and can find no way to correct this error. Please help.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Our categories don't sort people. They sort articles (on people). You shouldn't try to change the sorting but to change the name of the article. How that is done is explained here. I hope this was helpful. Goodraise 07:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Goodraise! The answer lies, rather than in changing the page name, in Arch dude's response below. However, I do thank you very much for your responsiveness!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now I see. I should have read your question more carefully. I missed that you wanted to sort her differently depending on which category. My apologies. Goodraise 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

But the OP wants to use one name in some categories, and a different name in other categories. To do this, first use a {{defaultsort}} template prior to all of the category statements at the bottom of the article to give the most common sort in the Shirley Temple article, the defaultsort is already set to {{defaultsort|Temple, Shirley}}. Then, for all catecories taht should use a different name, place thedesired name as a paramater within the category statemant, (e.g., [[Category:politicians|Black, Shirley Temple]]) to override the defaultsort for that particualr category. -Arch dude (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Arch dude! This appears to be the ticket!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note the much underused {{Lifetime}} template. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the final resolution: Since piping the full name, "Black, Shirley Temple", to specific categories only partially worked, I had to devise a different solution. When I piped in that name, and then checked the category, the alphabetization did change, and the name was placed in the "B's" in the proper position. However the name placed there was still only "Shirley Temple" (without her present surname, "Black"). I surmised that this was because the category was tied to the specific page on which it is placed. Sure enough! I placed the appropriate categories on the redirect page (titled "Shirley Temple Black"), and the full name was then placed in the category lists. Unlike the other names, it is in italics, and I assume that this is because the category links are on a redirect page. The links on the category pages look and act like this: Shirley Temple Black. This has resolved the situation to my satisfaction.

Administrators may want to seriously consider updating the entire article by swapping the "Shirley Temple" page with the "Shirley Temple Black" redirect page. I tried to do this, but it was beyond my present ken. Thank you all for your help, comments and counsel. You too, ukexpat!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Age of Reason

Hi. I see that you're interested in Tom Paine. You might wish to look at Talk:The Age of Reason and maybe get involved with that article. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, SamuelTheGhost! I shall be glad to take a look as soon as I can. Thank you for asking!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

When I made that invitation, of course I took a chance on what your viewpoint would be. I'm at ease with the fact that you have a different opinion from me on several points. I'm less happy with the fact that you have made repeated unprovoked personal attacks, on me and on Jayen. I'd prefer it if you would withdraw these attacks and apologise. Failing that, I must retract the invitation. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The attack is always against the argument, not the person who makes the argument. I am interested in what is right, not in who is right. I don't know you or Jayen from Adam, and there is no personal attack involved. I've been very careful to be specific about this fact in every case.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  14:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You amaze me. When you say "maybe, just maybe, thou 'doth protest too much'", how is that an attack on the argument? Don't you know what the word "thou" means? (Actually, you don't, since you don't seem to realise that it can only refer to one person). When you say "I question deeply Jayen's motives." what is that but an attack on his motives? I'm beginning to doubt your grip on reality. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, "thou" means "you", and this word, "you" does not have to apply to only one person. In the context I used it, it applied to all the editors on both sides of the argument (as I made very clear when I wrote the statement). Please feel secure in the {{{FACT}}} that I did not mean those words as an attack on you personally. Secondly, to prove what I said about the word "you", please read the first nine words under "Usage" in the "You" article.

As for the Jayen remark, perhaps it did seem personal when I questioned his motives, however the attack was still focused upon his extremely flawed argument. I never attacked you personally in any way. And if Jayen feels threatened, then Jayen probably should be here with you.

C'mon, Sam. This is an encyclopedia we're editing – in my opinion on its way to being the greatest reference and source of knowledge this planet has ever known. It gets three times as many hits as the Britannica these days. As an editor you have to accept the fact that not everybody will agree with your arguments – AND – the fact that not everybody attacks you "personally" when they attack your argument. How many times must it be said before you will accept it as a fact? My focus and attack were on the ARGUMENTS, not against, NEVER against anyone on a personal level. Have I said this enough times? I will be glad to say it as many times as necessary for you to believe and accept this.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  01:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit ...

You recently inserted the following edit as a comment in an article about the Moon; it read like this -- HELLO DAWGS!!!" - Bro0010, you're better than this, aren't you? Please become a serious editor and put a stop to this BS! ty-tyvm! - Paine. You were clearly being constructive in the intent that you had, to try to encourage Bro0010 to edit more seriously and constructively in the future. But you might want to bear in mind two things: Firstly that a more likely place to successfully bring such messages to Bro0010's or any other user's attention is their user talk page. Secondly, such dialogs really are extraneous to an encyclopedic article, and they not only clutter it up, but they also risk having their origin misunderstood, with the additional risk, that you might end up getting accused of vandalism yourself! Good luck with your constructive edits, and good wishes, Terry0051 (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course Terry0051, and thank you very much for your counsel! My own misgivings were that the comment might actually reinforce the negative behavior by showing recognition. I have only done that one other time, on the Blaise Pascal page. I have removed that comment as well. Just trying to find ways to lower the level of vandalism of Wikipedia. But you're correct in that leaving comments on the article pages is probably less effective than other means. Thank you for your understanding and tolerance!  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I can see that it's a hard job to be on the anti-vandalism team! Good luck! Terry0051 (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)