Sir Proxima Centauri

Welcome!

Hi Sir Proxima Centauri! I noticed your contributions to L 98-59 and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Viriditas (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

"SI units should be given priority over units like miles"

(from your edit at Makemake)

In principle I agree. But when the mission publishes findings in SI, and then NASA quotes them in imperial, and we re-convert to SI, we run the risk of introducing conversion errors. Rather than converting, we should find the original data. In this case, the crude estimate of 50 mi might've been made in imperial. If they'd been using SI, they might've said 100 km. So we made the estimate look more precise than it is. Or perhaps the estimate was 100 km, and the person converting to imperial thought 60 was too precise and rounded to 50 -- now we're introducing an error. This unfortunately is a common problem when citing US govt sources. — kwami (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I already checked the article about S/2015 (136472) 1 when editing the satellite part, and I didn't want to make any larger edits about the information itself than Haumea's orbit, so I thought giving priority to SI units is the best and least I should do. Additionally, I thought it was too US-centric to first state non-SI figures when talking about scientific discoveries at the moment and just didn't want to change the figures themselves. But yes, choosing the more accurate numbers of more recent papers is the best solution anyway Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Astronomical Unit abbreviation

Referring to your edit, please read the "astronomical unit" section of MOS:UNITNAMES (you'll have to page down a couple of screens to find the "Specific units" table). The quote of relevance: The preferred option is au. Articles that already use AU may switch to au or continue with AU; seek consensus on the talk page.. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 03:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:TRAPPIST-1 § Travel time to TRAPPIST-1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Not the same thing as above, but I wanted to tell you that I plan to send TRAPPIST-1 to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates at some point in the future. Since you are a major contributor to that article, you may want to give an opinion on whether it is ready under the criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

So, I would say from my quick look that many criteria for the Featured articles seem to mostly be satisfied in the article of Trappist-1 :

1. The article is very well-referenced with using publicly accessible scientific sources 2. Context is usually given, so the readers can actually deal with the information and numbers (e.g. Solar wind would harm the chances of life in the system) 3. The article is stable enough to have its most significant recent changes as added references and slightly rewritten sentences 4. The lead summarizes Trappist-1 being a small, cool star 40 light years away with many planets and even chances for habitability 5. Pictures of comparisons between the star and the sun, and the planetary system with ours give some life to the page 6. We stay neutral by simply showing all the astronomical research that has been done (e.g. We don't censor habitability studies that would lower our hope for alien life (I catch myself always hoping that life forms are gotta be the best explanation for unclear findings on Mars for example) or whatever else counts as biased) 7. Everything is thoroughly explained, and we don't remove details from studies as they are important for the conclusion & context or even scientific accuracy (e.g. Orbital periods and radii with uncertainties)

So, in conclusion, I would say that the article of Trappist-1 damn well deserves a candidate status for a Featured article , and especially do so when considering its popularity and significance. So yes, I support the candidate status of Trappist-1. :) Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)