This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Greetings! You issued a warning to Seangonzales about adding spam to Wikipedia. In good faith, I'm attempting to help this editor understand what spamming really means and instead to encourage them to improve their writing and be careful of self-promotion and not having a neutral point of view. This user was quite alarmed by your message, and I have received a similar one sometime in my deep past of editing and understand the distress that it can cause. I know you're doing a good job, and I wanted to tell you that I'm doing my best as a teahouse to help this new editor.
Good call on the 'lychee' sentence. It added nothing substantive to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.57.208.126 ( talk) 12:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing WHRex's edits to New Forest Coven. This looks very much like an editor with a major agenda, but I don't have the time or energy to try to run around trying to fix her/his edits alone. I also don't want to seem like a wikistalker, so I was glad to see your edit.
I'm inclined to AGF, but WHRex's Talk page and some of his/her edit summaries give a very strong impression of someone with an axe to grind. I'm not sure how best to proceed, or even if I should do anything at all. Given the tone of the Talk page and edit summaries, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to have a productive conversation. You've always struck me as a level-headed and competent editor, so if you have advice about this, I'd appreciate it.
Best regards,
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 23:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey Hunster. I just wanted to discuss some things about LBV G0.120-0.048. In the reference, on page 10, there is a table displaying LBV G0.120-0.048, the Pistol star, and qF362. The table displays the 2MASS Designations, the R.A. and Decl, the J, H, and Ks magnitudes, and some other information. At the bottom of the table it says; "— Positions and JHKs photometry were taken from the 2MASS catalog (Cutri et al. 2003). The date of JHKs measurements was JD2451825.4954. The narrowband F187N and F190N measurements are from H. Dong et al. (2010, in preparation)-". The reference also stated on page 7; "Figer et al. (1998) suggested that the Pistol Star has an initial mass in the range of 150–250 M⊙. Owing to their similarities in intrinsic brightness and spectral properties, it would be reasonable to assume that LBV G0.120−0.048 and the Pistol Star have comparable masses". But, as other studies have shown, the Pistol star's mass is 86-92 M☉. So the 86-92 M☉ mass could be put in on the page.
As for the ejection, the reference comments; "LBV G0.120−0.048 lies ≈2.′8 from the Quintuplet cluster, which also contains qF362and the Pistol Star. Assuming a distance of 8 kpc to the Galactic center (Reid 1993), this angular separation implies a projected physical separation of ≈7 pc from the Quintuplet. The presence of three LBVs within such a small projected volume makes this region the largest known concentration of LBVs. Such a concentration is remarkable, given the very short period of time massive stars spend in the LBV phase (∼ 105 yr, Langer et al. 1994). Therefore, we suggest that LBV G0.120−0.048 is coeval with the Quintuplet cluster, and either formed outside the main cluster, but during the same burst of star formation, or formed within the cluster and was subsequently ejected from it somehow. Figer et al. (1998) suggested that the Pistol Star has an initial mass in the range of 150–250 M⊙. Owing to their similarities in intrinsic brightness and spectral properties, it would be reasonable to assume that LBV G0.120−0.048 and the Pistol Star have comparable masses. If LBV G0.120−0.048 did originate within the Quintuplet, it is hard to explain how such a massive star could be so far removed from the cluster, rather than residing near its center as a consequence of dynamical mass segregation. However, it has been suggested that LBVs might result from the merger of a close binary (Pasquali et al. 2000). Close binaries are expected to form in the dense environs of starburst clusters, while the same multi-body interactions that harden close binaries and induce mergers, also impart a systemic velocity to the hardened binary or merger byproduct that is on the order of 10 km s−1 (Gaburov et al. 2010). Since the internal velocity dispersion of the Quintuplet is also ∼10 km s−1 (Figer et al. 1999a), an additional velocity of 10 km s−1 imparted to a star or binary could allow it to escape the cluster. The stellar merger origin has been proposed for the Pistol Star (Figer & Kim 2002; Gaburov et al. 2008), while the dynamical ejection of hardened binaries produced within the Quintuplet was proposed to explain several colliding-wind binaries found near the Quintuplet (Mauerhan et al. 2007; Mauerhan et al. 2010). Although the merger-byproduct hypothesis is currently a very speculative suggestion, it could be given credence if one or all of the Quintuplet LBVs were shown to be moving away from the cluster. Alternatively, LBV G0.120−0.048 may have formed during the same burst of star formation that created the Quintuplet, originating from the same molecular cloud, but never becoming a bound member of the cluster. A proper motion measurement, enabled by adaptive optics, could provide evidence for or against a Quintuplet cluster origin within a few years".
LBV G0.120-0.048's 1994-1997 outburst was mentioned in the ref. It says;"LBV G0.120−0.048 is a variable star, identified as such by Glass et al. (2001, 2002), who monitored the central 24′ × 24′ of the Galaxy in a K-band photometric campaign between 1994 and 1997, with about four individual observations per year. LBV G0.120−0.048, the Pistol Star, and qF362 were all detected as large-amplitude variables in this survey, cataloged with the respective designations 10-1, 13-4, and 13-6. The light curves of these three stars are presented in Figure 3; the data for the Pistol Star and qF362 were first presented in Glass et al. (1999). LBV G0.120−0.048 appears to have undergone an overall decrease in brightness by ≈1 mag between 1994 and 1997, but also showed signs of significant intra-month variability (≈0.35 mag) during 1994. During the same 4 year time span, the Pistol Star’s variations were also significant (±0.5 mag or so) but less extreme than LBV G0.120−0.048, while the magnitude of qF362’s variations are similar to those of LBV G0.120−0.048. The time-averaged brightness and the variability amplitude of LBV G0.120−0.048 exceed that of the Pistol Star and qF362, which have K-band magnitudes and standard deviations of 6.86 (0.41), 7.38 (0.15), and 7.43 (0.26) mag, respectively. The fact that LBV G0.120−0.048 has a larger average brightness than the Pistol Star, while suffering more extinction (see Section 3.2), implies that it was more intrinsically more luminous in the infrared than the Pistol star throughout the duration of the Glass et al. (2001, 2002) survey. However, during the later 2MASS observation, which occurred on JD2451825.4954 (2000 October 17), the infrared luminosity of LBV G0.120−0.048 and the Pistol Star were more-or-less equivalent, while that of LBV qF362 exceeded both of them, as indicated by the analysis in Section 3.2. Without color or spectroscopic information to accompany the flux changes in Figure 3 it is not possible to determine whether the variations reflect a change in the total bolometric luminosity of these stars, as appears to be the case for the LBV AG Car, or changes in spectral morphology at constant bolometric luminosity (e.g., see Groh et al. 2009 and references therein). Alternatively, infrared photometric variability may occur as a result of the variable free-free component induced by a changing mass-loss rate. Again, we are in need of simultaneous photometric and spectroscopic monitoring to discriminate between potential causes for the brightness variations observed from these stars."
I already wrote a section describing the outburst on microsoft word and I could put it on the LBV G0.120-0.048 page. If you want me to send the draft to you I can send it to you on your talk page or through wiki email and you can make any necessary changes. I also did expand "Observations" and I can send the draft to you too. The reference also said that LBVs turn into Wolf-Rayet stars and Lithopsian provided a ref on some page which stated that massive Wolf-Rayet stars in LBV G0.120-0.048's mass range explode as type Ic supernovae. So "future" could be put back as it was. -- hi ( talk) 16:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)i am.furhan.
I have been working on the Jonesborough Historic District page, and have a question regarding brochures. There is not, at least as far as I can tell, a "walking tour" guide on the web. However, there is an "official walking tour" brochure, as can be found in Visitor's Centers. I'd like to cite this as one of my references, but I'm not sure how to do that nor do I know if such brochures are considered appropriate for Wikipedia. Please advise! ThanksSteven C. Price 22:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven C. Price ( talk • contribs)
Here you go fellow tennesseean!!!!! Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
Hi Hunster, I appreciate your effort to clarify the proper name of "File:Meteor track through aerogel from EURECA mission.jpg." Shouldn't the file have been renamed, "File:Meteoroid track through aerogel from EURECA mission.jpg, since the captured object hadn't passed through the atmosphere—thus emitting the light characteristic of a meteor?" In my mind, meteors are tracks; they are not the objects making the tracks, which objects metamorphose from meteoroids to meteorites during atmospheric transit and subsequent impact. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this person's edit legit? even for a show that has historical significance because of its connection with Samantha Smith and even though it didn't even last a season, are we really allowed to link to full episodes on YouTube? Paul Austin ( talk) 14:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that revert; I pushed the wrong button on my watchlist. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Always good to see you buddy. Hey, I'm working on a "personal info" file - an update to information I sent you long ago. You have any objections to me sending it to you? — Ched : ? 21:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Hunster; I am having a problem with my sandbox. When I edit the page, all the content goes into the starbox and the references are also mucked up! I don't know what happened and I don't know how to fix it so can you tell me what to do?-- I am. furhan. ( talk) 19:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.
Thanks for helping. There were a few other errors with the refs but I only fixed some. There still is a error with the NHS93 22 ref. Check it out here. Can you find the error and fix it?-- I am. furhan. ( talk) 20:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)I am. furhan.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Greetings! You issued a warning to Seangonzales about adding spam to Wikipedia. In good faith, I'm attempting to help this editor understand what spamming really means and instead to encourage them to improve their writing and be careful of self-promotion and not having a neutral point of view. This user was quite alarmed by your message, and I have received a similar one sometime in my deep past of editing and understand the distress that it can cause. I know you're doing a good job, and I wanted to tell you that I'm doing my best as a teahouse to help this new editor.
Good call on the 'lychee' sentence. It added nothing substantive to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.57.208.126 ( talk) 12:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing WHRex's edits to New Forest Coven. This looks very much like an editor with a major agenda, but I don't have the time or energy to try to run around trying to fix her/his edits alone. I also don't want to seem like a wikistalker, so I was glad to see your edit.
I'm inclined to AGF, but WHRex's Talk page and some of his/her edit summaries give a very strong impression of someone with an axe to grind. I'm not sure how best to proceed, or even if I should do anything at all. Given the tone of the Talk page and edit summaries, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to have a productive conversation. You've always struck me as a level-headed and competent editor, so if you have advice about this, I'd appreciate it.
Best regards,
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 23:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey Hunster. I just wanted to discuss some things about LBV G0.120-0.048. In the reference, on page 10, there is a table displaying LBV G0.120-0.048, the Pistol star, and qF362. The table displays the 2MASS Designations, the R.A. and Decl, the J, H, and Ks magnitudes, and some other information. At the bottom of the table it says; "— Positions and JHKs photometry were taken from the 2MASS catalog (Cutri et al. 2003). The date of JHKs measurements was JD2451825.4954. The narrowband F187N and F190N measurements are from H. Dong et al. (2010, in preparation)-". The reference also stated on page 7; "Figer et al. (1998) suggested that the Pistol Star has an initial mass in the range of 150–250 M⊙. Owing to their similarities in intrinsic brightness and spectral properties, it would be reasonable to assume that LBV G0.120−0.048 and the Pistol Star have comparable masses". But, as other studies have shown, the Pistol star's mass is 86-92 M☉. So the 86-92 M☉ mass could be put in on the page.
As for the ejection, the reference comments; "LBV G0.120−0.048 lies ≈2.′8 from the Quintuplet cluster, which also contains qF362and the Pistol Star. Assuming a distance of 8 kpc to the Galactic center (Reid 1993), this angular separation implies a projected physical separation of ≈7 pc from the Quintuplet. The presence of three LBVs within such a small projected volume makes this region the largest known concentration of LBVs. Such a concentration is remarkable, given the very short period of time massive stars spend in the LBV phase (∼ 105 yr, Langer et al. 1994). Therefore, we suggest that LBV G0.120−0.048 is coeval with the Quintuplet cluster, and either formed outside the main cluster, but during the same burst of star formation, or formed within the cluster and was subsequently ejected from it somehow. Figer et al. (1998) suggested that the Pistol Star has an initial mass in the range of 150–250 M⊙. Owing to their similarities in intrinsic brightness and spectral properties, it would be reasonable to assume that LBV G0.120−0.048 and the Pistol Star have comparable masses. If LBV G0.120−0.048 did originate within the Quintuplet, it is hard to explain how such a massive star could be so far removed from the cluster, rather than residing near its center as a consequence of dynamical mass segregation. However, it has been suggested that LBVs might result from the merger of a close binary (Pasquali et al. 2000). Close binaries are expected to form in the dense environs of starburst clusters, while the same multi-body interactions that harden close binaries and induce mergers, also impart a systemic velocity to the hardened binary or merger byproduct that is on the order of 10 km s−1 (Gaburov et al. 2010). Since the internal velocity dispersion of the Quintuplet is also ∼10 km s−1 (Figer et al. 1999a), an additional velocity of 10 km s−1 imparted to a star or binary could allow it to escape the cluster. The stellar merger origin has been proposed for the Pistol Star (Figer & Kim 2002; Gaburov et al. 2008), while the dynamical ejection of hardened binaries produced within the Quintuplet was proposed to explain several colliding-wind binaries found near the Quintuplet (Mauerhan et al. 2007; Mauerhan et al. 2010). Although the merger-byproduct hypothesis is currently a very speculative suggestion, it could be given credence if one or all of the Quintuplet LBVs were shown to be moving away from the cluster. Alternatively, LBV G0.120−0.048 may have formed during the same burst of star formation that created the Quintuplet, originating from the same molecular cloud, but never becoming a bound member of the cluster. A proper motion measurement, enabled by adaptive optics, could provide evidence for or against a Quintuplet cluster origin within a few years".
LBV G0.120-0.048's 1994-1997 outburst was mentioned in the ref. It says;"LBV G0.120−0.048 is a variable star, identified as such by Glass et al. (2001, 2002), who monitored the central 24′ × 24′ of the Galaxy in a K-band photometric campaign between 1994 and 1997, with about four individual observations per year. LBV G0.120−0.048, the Pistol Star, and qF362 were all detected as large-amplitude variables in this survey, cataloged with the respective designations 10-1, 13-4, and 13-6. The light curves of these three stars are presented in Figure 3; the data for the Pistol Star and qF362 were first presented in Glass et al. (1999). LBV G0.120−0.048 appears to have undergone an overall decrease in brightness by ≈1 mag between 1994 and 1997, but also showed signs of significant intra-month variability (≈0.35 mag) during 1994. During the same 4 year time span, the Pistol Star’s variations were also significant (±0.5 mag or so) but less extreme than LBV G0.120−0.048, while the magnitude of qF362’s variations are similar to those of LBV G0.120−0.048. The time-averaged brightness and the variability amplitude of LBV G0.120−0.048 exceed that of the Pistol Star and qF362, which have K-band magnitudes and standard deviations of 6.86 (0.41), 7.38 (0.15), and 7.43 (0.26) mag, respectively. The fact that LBV G0.120−0.048 has a larger average brightness than the Pistol Star, while suffering more extinction (see Section 3.2), implies that it was more intrinsically more luminous in the infrared than the Pistol star throughout the duration of the Glass et al. (2001, 2002) survey. However, during the later 2MASS observation, which occurred on JD2451825.4954 (2000 October 17), the infrared luminosity of LBV G0.120−0.048 and the Pistol Star were more-or-less equivalent, while that of LBV qF362 exceeded both of them, as indicated by the analysis in Section 3.2. Without color or spectroscopic information to accompany the flux changes in Figure 3 it is not possible to determine whether the variations reflect a change in the total bolometric luminosity of these stars, as appears to be the case for the LBV AG Car, or changes in spectral morphology at constant bolometric luminosity (e.g., see Groh et al. 2009 and references therein). Alternatively, infrared photometric variability may occur as a result of the variable free-free component induced by a changing mass-loss rate. Again, we are in need of simultaneous photometric and spectroscopic monitoring to discriminate between potential causes for the brightness variations observed from these stars."
I already wrote a section describing the outburst on microsoft word and I could put it on the LBV G0.120-0.048 page. If you want me to send the draft to you I can send it to you on your talk page or through wiki email and you can make any necessary changes. I also did expand "Observations" and I can send the draft to you too. The reference also said that LBVs turn into Wolf-Rayet stars and Lithopsian provided a ref on some page which stated that massive Wolf-Rayet stars in LBV G0.120-0.048's mass range explode as type Ic supernovae. So "future" could be put back as it was. -- hi ( talk) 16:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)i am.furhan.
I have been working on the Jonesborough Historic District page, and have a question regarding brochures. There is not, at least as far as I can tell, a "walking tour" guide on the web. However, there is an "official walking tour" brochure, as can be found in Visitor's Centers. I'd like to cite this as one of my references, but I'm not sure how to do that nor do I know if such brochures are considered appropriate for Wikipedia. Please advise! ThanksSteven C. Price 22:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven C. Price ( talk • contribs)
Here you go fellow tennesseean!!!!! Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 21:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
Hi Hunster, I appreciate your effort to clarify the proper name of "File:Meteor track through aerogel from EURECA mission.jpg." Shouldn't the file have been renamed, "File:Meteoroid track through aerogel from EURECA mission.jpg, since the captured object hadn't passed through the atmosphere—thus emitting the light characteristic of a meteor?" In my mind, meteors are tracks; they are not the objects making the tracks, which objects metamorphose from meteoroids to meteorites during atmospheric transit and subsequent impact. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this person's edit legit? even for a show that has historical significance because of its connection with Samantha Smith and even though it didn't even last a season, are we really allowed to link to full episodes on YouTube? Paul Austin ( talk) 14:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that revert; I pushed the wrong button on my watchlist. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Always good to see you buddy. Hey, I'm working on a "personal info" file - an update to information I sent you long ago. You have any objections to me sending it to you? — Ched : ? 21:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Hunster; I am having a problem with my sandbox. When I edit the page, all the content goes into the starbox and the references are also mucked up! I don't know what happened and I don't know how to fix it so can you tell me what to do?-- I am. furhan. ( talk) 19:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.
Thanks for helping. There were a few other errors with the refs but I only fixed some. There still is a error with the NHS93 22 ref. Check it out here. Can you find the error and fix it?-- I am. furhan. ( talk) 20:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)I am. furhan.