User talk:Urwumpe

Vandals

Hi. There has been quite a lot of vandalism. I have reverted as much as I can. I have set up a category - Category:pages requiring admin attention, in which I have listed all the culprits I could find. Please can you ban them. --GW_Simulations 00:09, 1 April 2006 (MSD)

Sorry that it took so long, can't those vandals just wait until i have enjoyed my social life for today. :( They are now banned and i hope the night will be calm... --Urwumpe 03:04, 1 April 2006 (MSD)

Administrators

Hi. I was wondering what the Orbiterwiki policy on applying for adminship was? Can you help? Thanks: --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 00:38, 17 May 2006 (MSD)

Spam Blacklist

I can't quite work out how this works. Please can you add "http://dvd.1golod.org/" to it. --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 16:02, 16 July 2006 (MSD)

You can assume that all hosts domains looking like 1(...).org are only registered for the purpose of spamming, so you can simply block the whole domain on the spam blacklist by adding a line:

<URL>1golod\.org

thats all. Urwumpe 16:47, 16 July 2006 (MSD)

Solar System Template Edit Comments

The comment I believe you were looking for was:

Moving in other dwarf planets.

Not...

If you edit the template to fit to this bad example of a definition, please do it correctly.

which seems to suggest no-one should do anything if it's not total. Which is a bit daft for a wiki.

HTH, HAND. etc. --BadWolf 05:33, 25 August 2006 (MSD)

Well, if i really followed the definition, we have no planets left - even jupiter has not "cleaned its orbital neighbourhood." I changed the template to fit to the official interpretation of the rules accepted by the remaining 450 scientists in prague, but i think if this definition survives 2006, something is very wrong.

And my tone was just a reply on the "Hurray, pluto is no longer a planet" - tone. If its not neutral enough for your taste, please keep on complaining about my character... --Urwumpe 18:47, 25 August 2006 (MSD)

Jupiter has cleaned its neighbourhood very well. It even cleans ours. As for your comments, admonishing an editor for incompleteness is different to celebrating a triumph of common sense. If, however, you want sole editing rights, just say so, and stop complaining about us mere mortals in edit summaries... --BadWolf 20:50, 25 August 2006 (MSD)

Can you have an example where jupiter influenced the spatial density of objects around its orbit in a way, which you can't find on a smaller scale on pluto? If thats the definition of cleaning its neighbourhood.

And you can have as many editing rights as you want to have. And no, i don't agree to "triumph of common sense" and i hope you don't plan to use this term in an article. Common sense was the old August 16 definition. It was clear, did not rely on either subjective or redundant qualities (cleaning its orbit or impact on spatial density of objects, which would be proportional to its mass, which is already used as limit for the sphere shape). Thats not common sense, and if you would create such a definition as student on university, your professor would usually academically kill you for that. --Urwumpe 21:19, 25 August 2006 (MSD)

Oh, you want to argue about the definition? I thought you were simply slagging off users. My mistake.

Jupiter is the single greatest contributor to the planetery system. Without it all Solar models would be broken. To suggest it doesn't dominate the region it occupies is madness verging on blindness. US politicians and self-taught experts might not understand what's been agreed, but the logic is perfect: Pluto clearly isn't a planet, how do we define planet so as to make it not so? We don't want hundreds of planets. When I say 'exta-solar planetary systems' I don't mean the equivalent of Pluto, Sedna, Ceres and the like. Half the accretion disc would qualify otherwise.

My editing rights are a matter for policy. It's not your position to lecture me as to what they are when they fall within that, thank you.--BadWolf 03:37, 27 August 2006 (MSD)

But thats not the definition. Where in the new definition stands "dominates space by its gravity"? Also, that is again a subjective attribute as long as you don't define a hard value, like eg, "has more mass than 1% of the solar system." Also, where is the domination of space of mercury or mars? There are only very few asteroid belt objects, which are affected by mars gravity, while most have their orbits dominated by resonances with jupiter. And its very hard to ignore something like Jupiter even at the end of the kuiper belt - but because of the pretty small solar gravity potential in that region, even neptune is a major disturbance factor for KBO objects.

And please: Don't try to get as aggressive on other users here. I don't mind if you try to draw discussions with me to the personal level(slagging off, "immortals"), but don't even think about trying the same with others. This is not the Orbiter IRC.--Urwumpe 14:59, 27 August 2006 (MSD)