If you just joined, welcome to Wikipedia!
I’ve noticed that you’re changing diameters in many TNO articles. If you’re updating the data, please consider the following:
Otherwise, a well-meant update actually ruins the work of many editors and will ultimately be reverted as unreferenced. Eurocommuter 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ceres is not considered as an asteroid and is considered as a Small Solar System Body. -- Deenoe 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There has been NO OFFICIAL STATEMENT from the IAU committee removing (1) Ceres as an asteroid. A poorly worded Q&A article that says Ceres both 'IS and WAS' is NOT a good official statement.
Using the IAU 2006 definitions an object is either a Planet, 'Dwarf Planet' (compound noun), or a Small Solar System Body (SSSB). This does not affect the definition of the older terms asteroids and comets.
Pluto is a Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) even though it is also a 'dwarf planet'. I believe that 1 Ceres will still considered an Asteroid since it orbits in the asteroid belt and has the same origin as the other asteroids. In the closing sentence, MPEC 2006-R19 states, "does not preclude their having dual designations"
Has Pallas become the 1st asteroid discovered? Has Vesta become the largest asteroid (at least until the IAU decides that since Vesta is a damaged, differentiated protoplanet that it was probably a healthy dwarf planet in the past)? *IF* Ceres is truly no longer an asteroid, because it is spherical, then those two very basic questions have new answers.
2 Pallas is similar to 4 Vesta in volume, but significantly less massive. If the IAU ever reclassifies Vesta as a dwarf planet AND officially declares that dwarf planets are not asteroids, then Pallas may someday be considered the largest asteroid. -- Kheider 23:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit other comments, unless merely formatting a conversation to become more readable (e.g. by inserting proper indentations). Otherwise, such edits are unnecessary and could be considered to corrupting the original context. Thank you. -- Iamunknown 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Under "Spheroid or not?", I added a link to Neptune's moon Proteus. Proteus is one of the largest non-spheroids in the solar system. Your re-edit (rv) moved the link from the moon to Greek mythology ;-) Kheider 19:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Since I have only been using Wiki for 1 month, I did not known how to get Wiki to link to the wiki copy of the "(moon) Proteus". The original link to Greek mythology would not help anyone trying to study spheroids. Thank you for making Proteus point to something relevant to the discussion. Kheider 18:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --
Iamunknown 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)An occulation chord is the width of an asteroid along a particular line, as inferred from stellar occulation. This is not the same as a solar eclipse: no asteroid can be observed to transit the Sun (particularly since most are further from the Sun than the Earth). The process works like this: we can predict roughly where an asteroid will pass in front a star, as seen from some part of the surface of the Earth. We then place a large number of telescopes across this region, with known positions, and measure the brightness of the star + the asteroid as a function of time. We see a drop when the asteroid passes in front of the star, and a jump when the star becomes visible again. The time of these events tells us the extent of the asteroid along a line defined by its projected velocity, a single chord. Taking many telescopes, we can construct an occulation silhouette. This process is very laborous and prone to difficulty, but was the only way to get asteroid dimensions with any accuracy until the advent of radar astronomy, adaptive optics, and spacecraft observations.
There is no penumbra in an asteroid occulation, because the asteroid's angular size is far larger than the angular size of the star (an asteroid may subtend an angle of a tenth of an arcsecond, while stars have angular sizes in the milliarcsecond range). The penumbra in a solar or lunar eclipse is caused by diffraction (which is neglible for an object with no atmosphere) and by partial shadowing, which doesn't apply here. An occulation chord passing through the equator is not the same as the diameter, because the diameter of an irregular asteroid is ill-defined. The occulation chords given the plane-of-sky silhouette, and nothing else. Michaelbusch 22:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
When linking an image, template, or category without adding it to the article, use a leading : For example: [[:Category:Binary_asteroids|Category:Binary_asteroids]] Rmhermen 16:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
'Red' in this context means that the object is relatively more reflective in the red and near-infrared than in the blue (the reflectance spectrum slopes upward toward red). Such spectra on outer solar system objects are often caused by organic compounds, such as tholins. However, to the unaided eye these objects would be brownish or black, because of their low albedos. Michaelbusch 01:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Redder objects have higher V-R and B-V. On this plot, (0,0) is equal magnitude in all three bands. This is not quite the same as a perfectly white, because the bands are broad, but a white object would be at (0,0). A blue object would plot at negative B-V and negative V-R. Michaelbusch 23:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. 1994 ES2 has higher V-R, but much lower B-V. This means that ES2 has relatively more blue in its spectrum as compared to KP77. So if we looked only between V & R, ES2 would be more red, but if we looked only between B & V, KP77 would be redder. This simply is a problem with the definition of redness. Michaelbusch 23:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kheider, I wonder if we could compare our methods of obtaining the range of magnitudes. While entering angular size values for the planets in their infoboxes, I noticed that the reference I was using ( e.g. this one for Saturn) also gave peak magnitudes. The values I obtain based on this (how , I will explain below) differ somewhat from the ranges you put in a few days ago. It'd be good to sort these numbers out.
So, for example, for Saturn, that nasa fact sheet gives:
Apparent diameter from Earth Maximum (seconds of arc) 20.1 Minimum (seconds of arc) 14.5 Maximum apparent visual magnitude 0.43
Obviously the maximum magnitude I use is right there. To get the minimum, I assume that the brightness maximum must occur at the same time as the given maximum apparent diameter, and that the minimum brightness must occur simultaneously with the minimum apparent diameter. (This is inapplicable to Venus and Mercury, since they are not in full phase at their closest approach to Earth). This consideration gives a minimum intensity that is (14.5/20.1)^2=0.520 times the maximum, assuming a circular orbit for Saturn, therefore a magnitude change of 0.709, hence a minimum magnitude of 0.43+0.71=1.14. I notice that you obtained a significantly darker minimum magnitude of 1.4, and am wondering at how that comes about. Deuar 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Deuar. I used "A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets" (Pasachoff, 1983) for some of the values, and I used JPL Horizons to confirm the values.
You are right there is deviation based on the source and probably the methods used. I do agree that maximum apparent diameter is important, but keep in mind that the "Sun-Target-Observer angle" (target's apparent PHASE ANGLE as seen at observer's location) might affect magnitude. Some of NASA's own sources conflict one another. :-)
NASA Reference Publication 1349 lists Mercury as high as -2.3 (full phase) on May 19 2006. I went with -1.9
Different sources list values of -4.7 and -4.6 for Venus.
I have confirmed Mars (using
Horizons) at -2.88 on 2003-Aug-29: You will need to set the "Target Body" as MB:Mars, the date range to cover 2003, and include the QUANTITIES: 9 (vmag) and 20 (range AU).
I can not get Jupiter's brightest magnitude greater than Mars's maximum in our lifetime.
I have heard (can not remember the source it was years ago), that when tilted at their maximum of 27 degrees, such as in 1988, that the rings increase Saturn's brightness by 0.2 to .7(?) magnitude. The book "A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets", does list Saturn at +0.2 opposition magnitude for 1985 through 1989. In 1984 with the rings only tilted 20 degrees Saturn is listed at +0.3.
NASA Reference Publication 1349 lists Saturn at -0.2 (yes, that is a minus) on Jan 2 2004! The +1.47 (Horizons) value for Saturn on 2017-Oct-23 probably does not account for the rings either.
Numbers I used (vs generated with Horizons)
Mercury -1.9 2051-Jun-04 -2.20 (brightest when full)
Venus -4.6 1989-Dec-18 -4.57 (brightest when cresent)
Mars -2.9 2003-Aug-29 -2.88; 2021-Jul-11 1.84
Jupiter -2.8 2010-Sep-20 -2.79
Saturn -0.24 1973-Dec-23 0.42; 2017-Oct-23 1.47 (error since rings tilted a lot!?) (
File:Saturnoppositions.jpg)
Uranus 5.5 2048-Feb-25 5.31; 2008-Feb-26 5.95
Neptune 7.7 2032-Oct-07 7.80; 1973-Dec-04 8.02
Kheider 19:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Go to Horizons. Make sure it is set to Ephemeris: OBSERVER. Go to "Table Settings" (2nd from the bottom) and click on the blue "change". Make sure that "9. Vis mag. & Surf Brt" has a check mark next to it. :-) Kheider 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It does not appear as if Horizons or the NASA Fact Sheet consider Saturn's ring system. I have updated Saturn to magnitude
-0.24 for the 2000-12-08 opposition at ring tilt 24° / solar phase angle 0.038. I wonder how bright Saturn was at opposition in 2002-12-17 when it was at ring tilt 26.5° / solar phase angle 0.027? This
abstract does not seem to publicly show it.
--
Kheider 23:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can reasonably prove that the data sources are reliable and accurate, you should just go ahead and make the changes. — Viriditas | Talk 04:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Maxim (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this edit - the reference is broken. -- mikeu ( talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads-up. I moved the "Horizons1223" citation details to top ref to prevent the ref error that did not exist on 21:35, 3 January 2008. Perhaps citation details should not be placed in external link sections. -- Kheider ( talk) 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It might or might not be unlikely, who knows if the astronomical community wants to enlist another planet? I know I'm for it. Besides, Mercury's probably tired of being the littlest! Secondly, size isn't -currently- use to decide which objects get to be "Planets". Thirdly, Eris doesn't cross Sedna's orbit, check the latest version of Celestia if you don't believe me.
They don't. I admitted it, but neither is your insistence that Sedna can't be a planet. And as I'd type before, there's only three standards by which a 'planet' is a 'planet,' and "orbital dominance" (except in the case of planets with moons) is not one of them, especially if we're talking about unknown Solar System bodies. You can type until you have carpal-tunnel, but the rules won't be changing until next year. -- IdLoveOne ( talk) 02:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Chariklo will probably look a lot like Phoebe or Hyperion. There are many known Centaurs and their orbit are unstable over a million years as they are perturbed by the dominant gas giants. Some of these centaurs will become future comets. -- Kheider ( talk) 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
For helping get Neptune to FA, and for coining the phrase "a lot of inbred rocks", to which I chortled heartily, I award you the science barnstar. :-) Serendi pod ous 12:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
Hey mate, about your change to go to the abstract. I understand citing the abstract as it is na HTML and not PDF, but can I still cite the pages where that info appears, even if citing the abstract? Samuel Sol ( talk) 15:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And sorry to hear about your loss. :-( I know how difficult these times can be, and wish you all the best. Serendi pod ous 07:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You wrote that 1995 GJ is cubewano. But on Minor Planet Ephemeris Service you can find that the object was observed only on two days 1995 Apr. 3-4, and eccentricity is assumed. So, it may be SDO as well as cubewano. Excuse my English. Regards, Chesnok ( talk) 08:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI. Thanks again for all of your help on this project. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm on the verge of starting an edit war, and having just got blocked for edit warring I really don't want to start over again. I could use a third person arbitration before things get hairy. The issue is quite simple, but rather fraught. There's an article called " Hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets" that was created as a merge article for the articles on the ninth planet and the tenth planet. I've never been a fan of this article; it's meandering, vague, gossipy, unsourced and lacking in anything approaching historical and scientific rigour. Since much of what it said was already in the Planet X article, which is far better sourced and organised, and since no one had made any substantial edits to the other article in months, I decided to merge the other article with Planet X, assuming no one would even notice, let alone care. However, a few days later, to my absolute shock, someone showed up who apparently cared. User:The Tom not only reinstated the other article, but began removing similar material from "Planet X", much to my chagrin, as the material in Planet X was cited and the equivalent material in the other article was not. Eventually we came to a kind of compromise (although not one I liked very much) that "Planet X" would be strictly about Lowell's idea, with all other hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets kept in the other article. Specifically, the other article was to hold material on the recent announcement by Patryk Lykawka of Kobe University that gravitational effects suggest the presence of a large planet in the outer Solar System. Since this is essentially the same rationale for Lowell's Planet X, Lykawka's planet is called "Planet X" in the media. There are also other "Planet X"s out there, proposed by other astronomers.
Nonetheless, I held for a few days, because I didn't particularly care. However, today, a slew of information has been added to the Planet X article about Lykawka's planet, and I realised that if I was to hold to Tom's separation policy I would be spending the rest of my Wiki career removing this information, which I didn't particularly want to do, especially since I felt it should be there anyway, and that the other article wasn't worth saving. So I reverted the merge and reinstated all the old material. But I figured Tom would burst his gasket when he found out, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Let me know what you think. Serendi pod ous 14:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What you mean as summary by mars and gas giant may be rip by white dwarf star? I thoguht Venus and Earth may or may not survive over sun's giant star stage. I thought Venus has slightly less than to survive than Earth. mars is likely to survive, but not positively.-- Freewayguy Msg USC 03:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you please answer this question?-- Freewayguy Msg USC 04:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you think you could give this a once-over to tidy up the prose? I would, but I find it very difficult to edit my own work. Serendi pod ous 06:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kheider!
Yeah, Serendipodous and I have been discussing the whole 1999 TD10 issue and trying to figure out where to come down. I have quite literally found contradicting sources: some say centaur, some say SDO... so perhaps the best thing would be to remove it for now, but actively pursue this question on the talk page. I'll remove it... Ling. Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Kheider, is there any actual proof that all of the centaurs will be removed from their orbit? Because, especially in the case of Chariklo which doesn't cross any "planet's" orbit, I don't think the article should say that -- especially without citations. As I said in my edit summary, it seems too intangible and unlikely that they all will or that it could be proven that they all will.
In fact, I think I read somewhere that the centaurs between Saturn and Uranus (Chariklo) could survive there for the "lifespan of the Solar System" or words to that effect. -- IdLoveOne ( talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That page confuses me. How could both Makemake and Eris be in the same resonance? Eris is three times farther from the Sun! Serendi pod ous 14:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The Gravity Simulator web pages is using old data for both Makemake and Eris. What appeared to be mean-motion resonances with the data released shortly after discovery, turned out to be simply near-resonances. I'm the author of that web page. I'll update it soon to reflect the current data. I found this discussion from my web logs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.186.100 ( talk) 05:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You changed the diameter estimate in the article from "1300-1800" (my edit) to "1200-1600". It seems the source we both used (Brown 2007) is self-contradicting: in the section on Sedna it gives the lower estimate, in Table 1 at the end it gives the higher one. Maybe we should find a better reference. -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 16:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you go to the wikipedia article, it mentions that the mean radius is 256 km. Do you think this is true? Either way I would be wrong, but 130 km is definitely nowhere near 256 km. Please answer - Interchange88 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC).
If you check the edit history of the article, you wil see that the mean radius has been changed/revised a few times. I will upload a more up-to-date comparison soon. Thanks for pointing that out - -- Interchange88 ( talk) 17:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
K, I'm not so sure that ref you provided would stand up to GA scrutiny. It's certainly not a published source, and borders on original research. Serendi pod ous 18:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW: Great edit on the classification section. :=) Serendi pod ous 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 3 Juno, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 4 Vesta, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Once List of planetary bodies or whatever we finally decide to call it is fully referenced (a long, slow and suicidally boring task) I intend to bring it up for featured list review. The Solar System FT reviewers have demanded that more lists be included, so I've begun a serious drive to get more lists up to FL status. One tack I'm considering following is to merge list of Solar System objects by mass, list of solar system objects by radius and list of solar system objects by surface gravity into a single, sortable list. Do you think there are enough good sources to track down the mass and radius of all the objects? Serendi pod ous 13:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to give this some thought. There appears to be difficulty in figuring out the diameter (within a factor of about 2) for typical objects beyond Saturn. For example 2060 Chiron was estimated as 208km in diameter by Campins in 1994, 142km in diameter by spectroscopic observations in 2003, and 230km in diameter by Spitzer in 2007. Since it is not a binary object, we have no idea what it's mass/density is. So for non-binary TNOs I have some confidence in the diameters, but no real confidence in the "unreferenced wiki-assumed" masses/densities.
For the main belt, since it is so much closer and been studied longer, the diameters are known fairly well. But even the mass of 2 Pallas has recently varied from 3.1×1020 (Hilton1999) to 2.3×1020 (Goffin2001) to 2.1×1020 (Baer/Chesley2008). The mass calculations of Pallas and Ceres are interconnected, as the mass of one goes up, the mass of the other will go down. Mass estimates of 4 Vesta have been consistent
52 Europa (300km) was considered the sixth most massive asteroid at 5.2×1020 kg (Michalak2001), but (Baer/Chesley2008) seem to believe it is highly porous at 1.9×1019 and may have suffered a severe collision. Even 9 Metis (a 190km asteroid that may be the core remnant of a disrupted large asteroid) may be more massive. A lot of asteroids are just starting to get their first mass estimates. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Kheider,
You recently updated the estimated mass of 28978 Ixion. Could you also update and ref the diameter?
Thanks, kwami ( talk) 09:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that this article is undergoing a GA reassessment as part of the GA sweeps. It has been on hold for over two weeks, but several concerns remain. If they are not addressed soon, I will have to delist the article. Because it is part of the Main asteroid belt Featured Topic, this would also mean that the Featured Topic would be delisted. There's not much left to do, so any help you can provide would be great. The reassessment page is here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It might be simpler just to make the list sortable, and then sort it. Also, I think radius and surface gravity can also be included. I'll help you with it if you want to do it. Serendi pod ous 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I used the work of Karkoschka of 2001 ( Karkoschka, Erich (2001). "Voyager's Eleventh Discovery of a Satellite of Uranus and Photometry and the First Size Measurements of Nine Satellites". Icarus. 151: 69–77. doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6597.). He reproceessed old Voayger 2 images and arrived at larger values for sizes. I think NASA/JPL still use older date from Thomas, 1988 (or Davies, 1992). I think Karkoschka's estimates are better. Ruslik ( talk) 06:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
If you want to read this paper I uploaded it to filefactory (see http://www.filefactory.com/file/4ba0e6/n/Icarus_Karkoschka_2001c_pdf ) Ruslik ( talk) 08:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You must find a better way to include that information. Right now it looks like vandalism. Serendi pod ous 00:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Sorry I got mad. Serendi pod ous 03:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Please be careful. If you change an object's radius, please remember to move it up the chart. Serendi pod ous 21:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if that post came across as a bit accusatory. It's not so much meant to reflect on you as on the strange situation Wikipedia's in right now. I wish there was a better alternative, but there isn't right now. All we can do is be sure to clearly state our sources. Serendi pod ous 10:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I nominated this list to WP:FLC. Ruslik ( talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering what source you used for the albedo range; I need to cite it for my FLC. Thanks. Serendi pod ous 20:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There are some discrepancies between the largest asteroids on this page and the asteroids on the size list. Since neither is cited, I don't know which is right. Serendi pod ous 13:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, those 3 were making me make weird faces back in November: :-)
-- Kheider ( talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Red links from List of plutoid candidates (Object, Absolute Magnitude (H), Burton km diameter (generic assumed albedo 0.09):
Sorry if this is a burden, but could you check these with Baer? Serendi pod ous 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for having to take out the dimensions you put; I couldn't find those exact set of numbers anywhere in the tables of Rabinowitz et al. or Stansberry et al.. Feel free to change it back, if you could let me know where they were, or if you prefer we can discuss it instead on the talk page at Haumea. Iridia ( talk) 10:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Was that vandalism or just crazy talk? I dunno. I think if we don't refute their arguments they'll just keep coming. Serendi pod ous 18:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Could you add something at orbital resonance about resonance orders and the strength of a resonance? I can't tell from your description at Haumea if the resonance gets weaker as the ratio approaches 1 or as it approaches 0; the wording ("the lower the difference") makes it sound like the former, but that would mean a 1:1 resonance is the weakest possible. kwami ( talk) 21:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Don't know why I saved that. Serendi pod ous 15:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice you do that when you're attempting to calculate the masses of small objects. Do you also assume that they are spherical? I need to know because I might have to do it. Serendi pod ous 16:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been using 2.0 density to complete the top list, and including Earth comparisons, which works somewhat against your point in the introduction, which I hadn't noticed before now. So I think we need to come together on what should be included. Serendi pod ous 19:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Using the singular does appear to be the standard, so I would. Serendi pod ous 10:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm probably going to include data about Venus-Earth approaches. But if I do, I'll post a spreadsheet or files on my Google account, so you can check for typos.
About the argument that the calculations were OR. Some OR edits do consist of editors making calculations that are not straightforward, and possibly going beyond their ability level. Those are suspect. But in my edits I just got the predictions from a source, which can and should be be judged on its merits, not whether I am using it in an OR manner. And in fact, Solex matches Vitagliano's other long term predictions that are included in Wikipedia. Solex can hardly predict the positions so well at 100k+ years, and not well enough to make these predictions much closer to the present. By the way, the main uncertainty is in the incomplete modeling of the asteroid belt, so like Vitagliano I ran the simulations with and without the big three asteroids, to check for differences the asteroid belt would make. I also tried different starting positions (DE421, DE200, etc), as a check for that uncertainty.
As for whether this all is OR, I argue that using some quality program is the equivalent of getting these numbers from a peer-reviewed article or a source like the Astronomical Almanac because it is also certified by experts to be reliable, and I am using it in its intended manner. OR is about going beyond the sources; this is just the routine uses of one Saros136 ( talk) 10:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kheider, I'm currently doing a lot of work on this article; I'm hoping to get it up to good article status. You've made more than a few edits there so I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping out.
Cheers, Reyk YO! 10:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey,
Before we start adding stuff to Nice model, let's see if Iridia wishes to do a page move to preserve the article's history. kwami ( talk) 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you're interested in astronomy, and have some expertise in the area of featured articles. Would you be interested in reviewing 243 Ida? Wronkiew ( talk) 06:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. As you've pretty much asserted yourself as somewhat of an expert on astronomy, I was wondering if you could find a better image of Pallas. I asked on the talk page and got nothing. The one we have is good, but do you know where we could get a less depressing to look at and more educational colored image? Or do you have some idea what it would look like in true color? I'm guessing probably like Ceres or Vesta. I contacted the media director of this article about releasing these images (the detail is much better I think) but didn't get a response, though I could just take 'em a credit the page and author and that they were taken with the HST as I did with the current one. -- IdLoveOne ( talk) 00:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind please updating the dimensions, orbit info and the like per the new Ragozzine and Brown ref I added a few days ago? I'm going to get back there and incorporate the new info from that ref into the article once I've done a bit more on Nice model, but it seems a pity to leave the technical details incorrect in the meantime, and you're good on these things :) Iridia ( talk) 07:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I kinda asked for it after finally blowing my top at Fotaun. I was hoping to woo him back into the fold but he seems to have permanently absconded. Not that I blame him. Anyway, now I have to sort through and source all of Fotaun's mass edits, as well as figure out how to fill the remaining gaps. I have the top list pretty well sorted; all that's required is filling in the blank fields. There are, however, a lot left to do. It's the lower lists I can't figure. What values should I use, do you think? Serendi pod ous 16:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
I noticed that your frequently revert vandalism. To my surprise, I discovered that you do not have rollback! Would not you mind if I assign rollback bit to your account? Ruslik ( talk) 19:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with your NPOV-conscious addition (after all, the Gladman’s scheme is not always followed in the same Arizona book). However, the place of your ref is a bit awkward, as the Chiang’s article you quote appeared in the previous collection (Protostars and Planets, 2007) from the same renowned series (University of Arizona Space Science Series). Suggest re-ordering. Eurocommuter ( talk) 13:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you be interested in finishing that off with me? I know the job is immensely tedious but I can't do it alone, and now that Fotaun is out of the picture, I have no one to get me started. The attributes of the remaining 200km+ objects, since they're all constant and based on the assumed radius, should be pretty simple (if not easy) to finish. As for the rest I have no idea. This list will have to be filled in, reffed and checked for comprehensiveness. The asterisks will have to be converted to Ref_label format. Before Fotaun went off in a huff (or before I scared him off, not sure which), he seemed to be intent on making the list comprehensive for objects above 50km in radius. I have no idea if he succeeded. Serendi pod ous 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I just finished the 200+ sortable table, so at least this page is, to a certain extent, useful. Do you have any ideas on where I could go to finish and cite this monster? Serendi pod ous 11:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Truly sorry, I think I was a bit too bold in using AutoEd. I guess the error came from removing a self-reference within the article. Thanks for the warning Dr. Breznjev ( talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is another example why I should be extra careful when editing scientific articles with mathematical or astronomical subjects. In the mean time, I have repaired another mistake. Thank you! Dr. Breznjev ( talk) 19:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/jup/leda.htm says that the image is in the public domain. (It is created by NASA/JPL). Ruslik_ Zero 19:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Does that happen often? I came back this morning to find the page slapped with an autoprotect. Seemed a bit rough - he'd done nothing to that page that was unconstructive. -- Iridia ( talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Well, afair this image comes from en.wikipedia, I just moved it to Commons. In my opinion the best way is to contact with Scott Sheppard via mail from his website and take permission for this and other images and send it to OTRS. I don't have any 'astronomic' experience, so if you can contact with Mr. Sheppard I will be grateful :). Yarl ✉ 10:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"The definition of a detached object has even recently changed..." citation needed Nergaal ( talk) 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
While adding an external link (to my website describing precovery astrometry) for this object, I took the opportunity to correct the upcoming perihelion date. You reverted it, saying that the "Orbit not determined well enough to pindown the exact day". As a result of my precovery work, involving the finding and measuring of images from nine plates at seven oppositions back to 1980, this TNO has now been observed for a total of 28 years, and the orbit is very well known and the date of perihelion is known to within one day. I even got the opportunity to account for planetary perturbations, so that my perihelion date of November 1, 2096, is based on osculating elements from the same date. Just thought you might want to know the background to my edit.. Lowe4091 ( talk) 23:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, regarding your note about using DSS images within Wikipedia, the following guidelines might be of interest: http://www.stsci.edu/institute/Copyright Lowe4091 ( talk) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Great work for getting approval for 2007 UK126! Take any of my other images: http://members.shaw.ca/andrewlowe/tno-precoveries.htm Lowe4091 ( talk) 19:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, that upper star in the image for 2007 UK126 is mag. 14.1 Lowe4091 ( talk) 19:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
For tenacious knowledge of astronomy and contributions to astronomy articles. |
I have a reduced HST image of Orcus/Vanth lying around on my hard drive. Though figuring out which orbit I got it from might be a bit more tricky. HST data is fine to go on Wikicommons, yes? Iridia ( talk) 22:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
because I wish I could do it myself, but could you name Weywot, please? Serendi pod ous 11:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Apropos your quick repost to my discussion on the apparent visual magnitude for Mercury.
You are at liberty to do the calculations and to ignore the extremes, as you put it. The following may be of interest.
John C. Vetterlein
J. Br. Astron. Assoc. 116, 5, 2006:
It is not generally appreciated just how bright Mercury appears when close to superior conjunction. It is interesting to compare
the two events this year when Mercury and Venus both reach superior conjunction. On 2006 May 18, Mercury was at magnitude
–2.3. When compared to the data for Venus at superior conjunction on October 27, we find that the surface brightness per unit area will be almost identical for both planets. Put another way, Mercury would be at magnitude –3.7 if it had the same apparent diameter as Venus. (Venus on October 27 will be at magnitude –3.9.) There are times in fact when the surface brightness per unit area for Mercury outdoes Venus herself. Naturally, when Mercury is close to inferior conjunction it is both faint and too close to the Sun to even attempt an observation.
I have been an observer of Mercury for over fifty years. -- 86.167.31.80 ( talk) (aka Wilberfalse ( talk)) 11:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a clarify tag in the Mass section of Halley's infobox, but I'm not entirely clear what it's saying. Is it saying that we have no idea at all what Halley's mass is? Since this falls under your jurisdiction I thought I'd ask you before making any further assumptions. Serendi pod ous 22:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
If Halley goes to FAC, would you be interested in being listed as a co-nominator? Serendi pod ous 15:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
In your opinion, if you might spare it, which objects should be added and which should be dropped? Serendi pod ous 19:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of having a name for "real" moons like ours, which are actual worlds, as opposed to the bits of rubble orbiting, say, Mars. But why "terrestrial"? We didn't consider Pluto to be a terrestrial planet, so why should Triton be considered a terrestrial satellite? kwami ( talk) 08:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy 2010! We have not talked much, but I am always amazed how often I find your edits among the vasts sea of objects in space! Have a great year. Fotaun ( talk) 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Might me of interest if you have not seen it already: [2] [3] Fotaun ( talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't seem to avoid getting into scraps over that bloody article. I just got warned for edit warring on that page. I dunno. I sometimes wish more people had the page on their watchlists so I didn't have to wade in at nearly every opportunity, but I can't shake the feeling that *gulp* maybe HarryAlffa had a point. Serendi pod ous 13:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not put parameter view=Far to JPL Small Solar System Body Browser URLs on comet pages. — Chesnok ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Would it not be better to have the new data rather than the out of date data on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03jmgibbens ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kheider. When I uploaded the pictures, I don't know that the license was not compatible with commons. Thanks and greetings. Marcosm21 ( talk) 17:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thanks -- Demomoer ( talk) 06:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs ( talk) 03:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. My preference was to have the data presented in the most prominent place, but I was not sure if it was appropriate to undo the other user moving it. James McBride ( talk) 04:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I know a bunch of us have been less than keen for a while on the state of Template:Trans-Neptunian objects, and I finally felt motivated to try and go through the necessary bureaucratic steps to put the old girl out to pasture. Please consider contributing at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Trans-Neptunian objects. The Tom ( talk) 21:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Per your latest edit, AFAIK, H.E. does not require differentiation, even if differentiation predicates H.E. S.t. Ceres' size may very well be differentiated, but AFAIK we have no evidence for it. — kwami ( talk) 09:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering, I don't have the tools to do it right, but do you think you could crop and brush up the corner of the Solar System image so that it shows only the orbit of Sedna? The other three screens are not really necessary and they make it hard to see. Thanks.
PS. Purely a formality (I was going to do it anyway), but I should ask you whether you wish to be listed as a co-nominator should I take Sedna to FAC. Serendi pod ous 20:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Your figures (I think they're your figures- they usually are :) ) for Sedna's mass are based on assumed densities. I was wondering why you selected those densities to assume? Serendi pod ous 18:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That decision was ridiculous. The deleter appeared to have no comprehension of the issues involved, this has survived previous objections, and there was no community discussion--censorship by bureaucrats. I've restored the image: let's have a real IfD discussion if we're gonna have one. (Under BRD, he made the bold decision to delete, I reverted, now he needs to discuss.) — kwami ( talk) 09:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't really know how to respond to the objection on Talk: 90377 Sedna, since I didn't write the equations. Could you help? Serendi pod ous 07:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
An article you signifigantly contributed to, 90377 Sedna, is one of the 3000th FAs. Congradulations! Res Mar 00:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
— Paine ( Ellsworth's Climax) 05:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've added a reply to your comment in Talk:List of most distant astronomical object record holders. -- Micru ( talk) 14:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The occultation results are very preliminary, and I don't think we can start drawing any firm conclusions from them as of yet. Serendi pod ous 09:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I obviously missed one of the IP's edits when I reverted them - making it look like I made the edit. ;) -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nothing to worry about. This is just the required notice that I've mentioned you at WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by IP user concerning the above IP user. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I want to clarify that the absolute magnitude of Ixion in the V-band is 3.86 and in the R-band 3.25 (See this or this). JPL unfortunately often confuses them. Ruslik_ Zero 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The astronomical unit is a measure of the distance between the Earth and the Sun that serves the basis for parallax measurements and many solar system measurements. What basis do you have for claiming that secular variations of planetary orbits have to do with this particular distance? Please make a mathematical argument or a cited argument from the literature. jps ( talk) 19:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
BLPs require reliable sources, not months, if not years worth of waiting for somebody to notice a cn tag and decide to do something about it. Corvus cornix talk 21:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
is interested in interviewing three members of WP:Solar System about the project. Just thought I'd post to see if you were interested. Serendi pod ous 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
On 21 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tyche (planet), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1999, a giant planet was hypothesized to exist in the outer Oort cloud of the solar system, but most astronomers are skeptical of its existence? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 06:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you check Oort cloud for me? I have no idea what to do. Serendi pod ous 22:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
How do you set epoch 2020-Jan-01 at JPL page for the comet Elenin. Also, I see you reverted or edited many of my edits that came from JPL page for Elenin. Are you implying they are all incorrect? Is there a website that gives more accurate values? Thanks Wildespace ( talk) 15:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You will find for the epoch 2020-Jan-01, that the semi-major axis (A) is 459 AU, AD (Apoapsis distance) = 919 AU, and the period is 3.6*10^6/365.25=9,856 yrs. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Please could you confirm your interest in being interviewed by the signpost. Thomas888b ( Say Hi) 16:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Argh. That was pretty bad. I knew I wouldn't be able to talk about myself without sounding like a total douche. It never occurs to me until the moment that I can't think of the right things to say in those situations. Serendi pod ous 00:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kheider,
Thanks for your message on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cmglee .
I learnt that "they are probably both correct; the first [Mare Foecunditatis] is classical Latin, the other one [Mare Fecunditatis] probably late vulgar Latin...".
Nevertheless, I've redrawn the image as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_names.svg with your suggested correction for consistency.
As it is now a simple text file, feel free to make any more corrections, improvements or translations.
Best wishes, Cmglee ( talk) 17:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello... FYI, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Credo accounts as you're active on FAs and GAs. I mentioned this to Serendipodous a few days ago but went offline before I could post here. Sorry for the delay. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 09:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
You really should add something about the conspiracy theories surrounding the comet's arrival. Otherwise people are just going to keep rewriting it forever. I would suggest Ask an Astrobiologist would be a good place to start for debunking tools. Poor David Morrison deals with the woo woos up close. You belong to Elenin's forum, right? You might ask him how he feels that some assume that he doesn't exist and that his name is in fact a code for ELE-NIN, or " NIN's Extinction Level Event". That would give both you and me a killer usable quote. Serendi pod ous 12:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. C/2002 V1 (NEAT) first arrived at a distance that was closer to the Sun than the asteroid belt in September 2002. However it was not discovered until November. Thus this refers to the comet's early orbit rather than perihelion. Thanks. ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 19:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Would the new image be more suitable? Thanks. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Are astronomers 100% certain the transit of Earth from Mars will happen or is there a slight possibility that the course of the orbit will be put of an event in space? Pass a Method talk 16:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The ball is definitely rolling on the Les Golden article now with its coi/notability problems. I didn't say anything before, but I did wonder why he called you since I didn't see anywhere that you had edited the article. But then I figured it wasn't my place to pry into other people's personal lives. I guess maybe it was because of your interest in astronomy and that's what he got a degree in? Anyway, now I'm off to clean up his mess. SQGibbon ( talk) 03:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This illustration credits NASA with the "red Snow White" image. Since all it is is a tinted version of an image created on Wikipedia, I say if they credit NASA, we can too. Do you have the know-how to paste it into the main picture? Serendi pod ous 13:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could I ask for your input at Talk:Dwarf planet to help resolve this dispute? Whichever way it ends up, at least we'd have a consensus. I find Kwami's continual insistence on inserting his text very frustrating, especially in light of the fact it is under discussion and contested. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 17:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I started an article about 2004 BX159 because it seemed important (1200 meters, 98,000 megatons, close- approach; well, seemed important to me, anyway). Now I'm not so sure, because the JPL small-body and NEO Close Approach data do not seem consistent. The former indicates eccentricity .38, perihelion 1.5AU, and semi-major axis 2.4AU, which would seem to put the asteroid well outside Earth orbit; OTOH the latter shows a close approach with distance 7.6 Earth radii (.0003AU) and a width of 1060 radii (.046 AU). Trying to visualize that, it just doesn't seem reasonable that (with the given perihelion and semi-major figures) the asteroid could get that close to Earth. I would like suggestions on whether to just request delete for the page; or if not, where I might place a link to the page so it is no longer orphaned. (I'm asking you because of your work on YU55.) CoyneT talk 04:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
That guy isn't giving up. I've already exceeded 3RR. You'll have to take it from here. Serendi pod ous 21:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Your original edits were very helpful in restoring neutrality to the article Nemesis (hypothetical star) and are to be commended.
However now you are starting to exhibit bias in the other direction. Please remember that Wikipedia is not for pushing your personal opinions. You should be able to handle it when someone posts a source that is contrary to what you believe, as long as the source is valid. It cab be helpful to learn the difference between manipulation or campaigning and unbiased journalistic neutrality.
Warning: Your revision notes in "History" are also becoming over-emotional-- posting long lines of exclamation points after a revert (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) are frowned upon in Wikipedia and can get you blocked or banned.
I am giving you fair warning that I will report you if you don't calm your self down and remember to tolerate all citable facts, whether or not you personally feel they forward your own personal views. -- 69.171.160.51 ( talk) 15:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Please Note Also: If the "ancient passing non-companion star theory" is acceptable in the article (also as yet unproven) then so also is the Tyche theory (both should be there, because both relate to the credibility of the Nemesis (hypothetical star) theory).
You can't let one theory in and then take the other one out, just because you like one and not the other. You originally did help to make the article more neutral, but now you appear to be pushing your own opinions, exhibiting bias yourself (only theories that support your opinions are allowed in the article, but those theories that don't support your opinons are not). You might also want to review this article, about the word " Unbiased". -- 69.171.160.51 ( talk) 16:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
List of potential woo-woos: 129.82.30.193
(Saving in case I want it): I am requesting Semi-protection for the Nemesis (hypothetical star) article because it has become a victim of disruptive editing which has ignored the consensus on the talk page. The disruptive behavior has come from the anon-IPs:
Eeek. Sorry about that - thanks for catching it.
Incidentally, I do know of a Show Low... -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 01:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Kheider! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Thank you. I had a problem to specify it. Your proposition looks good and I'll modify remainig boxes on other articles. Danim ( talk) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. My editing of Pluto has been questioned (on my talk page), and I referred to your comment of some weeks back. I'd just moved the inline references to the {{ reflist}} and have also started using proper lists in the infobox. Comment welcome, although I have to go out, soon. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 ( talk) 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kheider, Any news on that reference (0.3 AU)? Did you email Dr. Benner? nagualdesign ( talk) 23:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_reliable_media_reports_as_secondary_sources_to_support_primary_sources. Viriditas ( talk) 22:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You added a statement that Lovejoy is the brightest (EDIT: Sungrazer) comet ever observed by the SOHO instruments. Where did you get that information from?? The article is now somewhat self-contradictory, stating simultaneously that C/2006 P1 was brighter by 2 magnitudes (it very likely was brighter judging by images) and C/2002 V1 seemed brighter as well, even as it recorded a lower visual magnitude. As a Kreutz Sungrazer, Lovejoy's properties may be different. However, it looks much smaller than those other comets. Please back up any information using citations. Thanks. ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 20:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Come on, Kheider. No reason to mock. Sheppard put Makemake on par with the Brown four, Tancredi notes that only the three Sheppard accepts unequivocally are actually known rather than estimated to be DPs, and even the IAU has set out provisions for the case that they turn out not to be DPs. Our individual articles for these, as well as the other Tancredi twelve, reflect the degree of certainty in their lead sentences, except for Makemake & Haumea. I'm sure you can come up with a better defense for your position than UFOs. — kwami ( talk) 02:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
*sigh* Kheider, you're intelligent. I find it very difficult to believe that you believe the stuff that you say. You are obviously also literate, so I can't explain your repeated inability to understand what I write.
I am not mocking the IAU, and if I were, what has that to do with WP? There is no rational connection. I have no problem with the IAU, actually; the problem is that they haven't done anything in 3 years, and I do not accept as you seem to that scientific conclusions are determined by committee, and must be put on hold when the committee is out of session.
I never claimed that Makemake was not massive enough to be a DP. You've got to know by now that is not the issue, don't you? The issue is that Makemake is not known to be a DP. That's all. You've seen the refs: Tancredi, Sheppard, the IAU itself. Are you honestly saying that Sheppard's motivation is to mock the IAU?
(And, of course, you are unable to defend against that same argument: do you have any ref that Sedna or OR10 are not massive enough to be DPs?)
BTW, your "scientists are not 100% certain" comment certainly strikes me as mocking. I can think of no good-faith reason for writing something like that.
I do not understand why you are so resistant to following sources. In science there are almost always going to be a variety of opinions, and it is our responsibility to reflect them. According to Tancredi, now a bit dated, there are 12 demonstrable DPs. According to Sheppard, there are 3. According to Brown, there are 9. It is the refusal to follow such sources that IMO is making a mockery of WP, and endangering the FA status of these articles. — kwami ( talk) 12:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you revert to your version of OR10? Rus is continuing his uninformed edit war there now. — kwami ( talk) 19:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Sedna and Ckatz' revision seem good to me. The only quibble I have offhand is priority. In order of importance/interest, I'd say the top by far is that this is the most distant significant body known. That's already partly covered by the first line, though I think we could make it more explicit (in a couple words, since we cover it in the 2nd paragraph.) The 2nd greatest interest is that it's a likely DP (though that's of practically no true importance, as DP is not a particularly meaningful classification). I would therefore want to move that statement up a line. Surface composition is a distant 3rd, or maybe 4th. Maybe move up 'reddest' too, as it's more accessible than "tholins" to most of our audience: Farthest – likely DP – reddest – composition. Does that seem reasonable? — kwami ( talk) 21:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed Sila-Nunam from List of dwarf planet candidates again because we're limiting the list to bodies with H < 6, and either Sila or Nunam would be over 6, since they are 5.52 combined and the delta-H is 0.12. — kwami ( talk) 02:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Kheider, could you explain to Ruslik that comments belong in the comment section, not plastered all over the quotations? Esp. not things like "you're lying" or "you're wrong": If he thinks he knows more than the authors of these articles, he should present new refs that back him up, and discuss them in the discussion section. The whole point of having a separate quotes section is so that we can all refer to them without them getting lost in reams of debate. — kwami ( talk) 15:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Per this edit, are you saying the Jovian system is a quintuple planet? — kwami ( talk) 12:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I added "For comparison, the meteorite that excavated Meteor Crater, which is 1.2 km ( .74 mi ) wide, was about 50 meters across.", because as a non expert I found it hard to figure out what the magnitude of the damage would be if 2011 AG5 were to hit earth ( a gross estimate anyway ). Could you reconsider reverting or suggest a better comparison? Stating the kinetic energy in megatons would be nice, but I haven't found such data and it would still be much more technical than crater size. -- Carel.jonkhout ( talk) 04:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The section deals with cultural references related to the 2012 phenomenon. The fact that the show was released in 2012 is hardly sufficient evidence of a nexus between the two. Granted, I think it's clear they are capitalizing on the 2012 fervor because of all the talk of end-times, but you'll need to find a citation linking the two. Perhaps there's an episode specifically dealing with doomsday preppers who think the world will end in 2012 based on the Mayan calendar? JoelWhy ( talk) 14:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You recently said "third revert of byelf2007". That's not the case. You did only a second one.
The first time I got reverted I said "most" instead of "the vast majority of", so while I've been reverted three times recently, these were concerning two different types of edits. Byelf2007 ( talk) 11 April 2012
I just created Sutter's Mill meteorite. Then I noticed your great content on the bolide in Lyrids. I've put links in from Carbonaceous chondrite and Lyrids, and just copied your text over. But I wonder if there is a better way for you to get credit for the content (e.g. revert mine and let you add it). ★NealMcB★ ( talk) 14:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
You may be interested in this discussion. Ruslik_ Zero 17:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Doh! Thanks for catching my mistake! Was an embarrassing typo! Benkenobi18 ( talk) 18:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello there, while Fair Use images consists on the usage of medium to low resolution images, images copyright free or with free licenses do not limits the usage of high resolution images, images with low resolution have a inhuman aspect and does not pass a substantial or near real impression, this is why we can count on artistic impression, to give the reader the idea (based on a actual image, not randomly based) of the rendered planet if we could see it with naked eyes. Thanks in advance. Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 15:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but what world do you live in? I don't see any consensus there. A consensus would be everyone supporting the move, yet everyone is NOT doing that and there are many Oppose posts. Trying to gag people who go against your agenda is very shallow and it's quite obvious you're on a power trip. You started editing this page from P1 just 4 days ago. What consensus did you have for that? Where was the discussion? Because I surely couldn't find it....
Sorry, but until there is a clear consensus and if the page is moved to 134340, I will continue to edit the article as it is reflected in the article name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.183.175 ( talk) 06:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
appears to better reflect the object's actual colour. I was thinking maybe of subbing it in File:EightTNOs.png Serendi pod ous 16:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my mistake! -- Anti-Quasar ( talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You might like to see Talk:History of Mars observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberian Patriot ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It is somewhat odd that the view count is spiking every other day. If the wiki counter is being deliberately manipulated, is there anything we can do about it? Serendi pod ous 06:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it worth taking Mauro Lauri to ANI? He's contributed nothing and merely acted antagonistic. Serendi pod ous 16:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I've just nominated the article for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/C/2012 S1, and I thought you might like to write an alternate hook. I'm really looking forward to November 2013. Cheers. Braincricket ( talk) 00:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
On 2 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article C/2012 S1, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when the newly discovered comet C/2012 S1 reaches its perihelion on 28 November 2013, it may appear brighter than the full moon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/C/2012 S1. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I did a quick news search when I came across the Novato meteorite article at new pages and apparently a fourth fragment was found according to this news story from yesterday. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 17:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I see that you have recently added three-letter abbreviations for many well-known meteor showers. Is there a printed or reliable source for this (i.e. is this used by meteor observers) or is this your own invention? AstroLynx ( talk) 14:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :).
I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).
You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I opened a move request in Talk:79360_Sila–Nunam#Requested_move. You are receiving this notice beause you have made substantial changes to the article. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Finding sources on that topic is hard at the best of times, and now that David Morrison has officially retired from doomsday countering, I don't have an easy port of call. Serendi pod ous 10:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
Awarded for continued excellence and perseverance in writing, defending, expanding, and improving space related content. Fotaun ( talk) 01:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC) |
I note with interest your revert of my edit with the note "No, Oort cloud objects do not bounce "star to star"", which was not what I had written. Since the existence of the Oort Cloud is inferred a lot of its qualities are the subject of speculation. The extent of the Oort Cloud around a star (as I understand it) includes the matter at the very limits of its gravitational dominance, a dominance which automatically passes to the next nearest star and its gravitational field. I don't understand why the effects of the "Galactic tide", which I presume to mean the collective gravitational force of all the matter within the Galaxy, should be larger than that of stars in the neighbourhood. My view of the movement of the outermost parts would be more of a slow drift between the stars. I would love to know more about the reasons behind your emphatic rebuttal. cheers Paul venter ( talk) 07:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my bad PROD on HD 135944. When I prodded it, I was accidentally looking at the absolute magnitude instead of the apparent magnitude. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 03:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you *very much* for *all* your recent help with the 2012 YQ1 asteroid article - it's *very much* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 20:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I think that the internal links you create in this edit are wrong according to WP:EASTEREGG : the reader has absolutely no way to know what is linked. So I suggest to remove them again. Regards, Freewol ( talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Plase check Talk:2012_DA14#ADD_SUBSECTION.2C_SUGGESTION answer, to avoid rv. -- Krauss ( talk) 06:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It is see also NOT the main body of text and cited to a source. If you think its not realiable then discus that at RSN. -- Lihaas ( talk) 13:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kheider, I hope you're well. Looks like you're keeping busy! There's a bit of a puzzle that I thought you might be interested in. If you have the time please take a look here. I was hoping for someone else to join the discussion and you sprang to mind (after the work we did on 2005 YU55). Regards, nagualdesign ( talk) 05:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Oops. My bad. Perhaps they still count Pluto? And use the outdated number of 4 moons for it? I think we need a new citation for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.2.215.2 ( talk) 20:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Does this mean that JPL includes Pluto's moons in its figure of the number of planetary satellites (176)? -- JorisvS ( talk) 12:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Copernican principle". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 07:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
(About your recent rv) Please have a look here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:120347_Salacia — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONaNcle ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I still have half a mind that this user is sincere, although obviously sincere with a fixed opinion that they wish to promote in that article, and possibly pointed to it by others with a more definite agenda. I'm not the most tactful and diplomatic person in these situations, but when I try to imagine what it must be like for someone with zero background in "scholarship" then I start to see where they might be coming from. Apologies to you if I'm teaching grandmother to suck eggs. Lithopsian ( talk) 14:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
You know that you are at 3RR at 2MASS, right? I've already warned the IP about another article, will warn them about this one also. Dougweller ( talk) 15:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
When adding Google Translate URLs to the English Wikipedia, it's probably a good idea to use google.com rather than google.de. The usage of the latter appears to have caused some interesting knock-on effects when the bare URL reference was converted to use the cite web template.
The original article is in Russian, not German. Once the problems were identified, they were easily fixed.
I'm surprised no-one else spotted this in the last five months. Note too, the usage of |title=
and |trans-title=
in the latter edit. --
79.67.240.88 (
talk) 10:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Why did you address me in this edit summary? -- JorisvS ( talk) 13:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me, but you made an edit to a page I made, 2013 AZ60, and your edit was on Comet Hale-bopp not being discovered until it was 7.2 AU away from the Sun. I don't see how it is relevant to the article, and could you please edit it to make it more understandable or remove it? Thank you. -- exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 14:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I found it odd that when the first few days of observation of an object allowed some small likelihood of it impacting the earth years from now, NASA or others would assert that additional observations would probably rule out impact. One would certainly hope that is the case, but if wishes were horses all beggers would ride. I say this in the perspective of having recently read The Last Policeman, a novel about life in the months before an expected devastating asteroid impact. In that book, the chances of an impact started out small,like for this object, but over time increased. In this case, the chances start out small, but with the prediction that they will doubtless get smaller.Would the same reassuring statements be made by authorities if they were clueless about whether the data would eventually show an increasing or decreasing chance of impact? . Edison ( talk) 16:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Kheider.
About your undo of my edit to C/2012 S1, my edit of it was not heavily supported and was gained only from observations of the comet ISON recent movies. However, you claimed it "dissipated" but it did not dissipate completely. -142.136.145.221 (A.K.A Exoplanetaryscience)
You made this edit to some asteriod which involved putting in a date with last obs following it. Is my opinion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 25 that removing last obs would not improve article quality correct, or does it add no significant value and can be removed? Josh Parris 01:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
For outstanding contributions and editing on articles about space. Fotaun ( talk) 02:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
For contributions to various projects and related articles. Fotaun ( talk) 02:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For your large contributions to knowledge and editing. Fotaun ( talk) 02:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
For helping keep the peace and outstanding endurance and patience. Fotaun ( talk) 02:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
I edited the Tyche page to reflect your mention that Tyche did not exist. Whether you think its OK or not, you can leave a message on my talk page. Thank you and have a Happy New year. -- 98.183.188.69 ( talk) 19:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
Hello Kheider: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Fotaun ( talk) 02:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Hello! Your submission of 2014 AA at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Miyagawa ( talk) 18:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
On 9 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2014 AA, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the asteroid 2014 AA entered Earth's atmosphere on the early morning of January 2, 2014, less than a day after it was discovered? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2014 AA. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kheider,
With a 2ary, I'd think we'd have the system mass by now, but I'm not coming up w anything. Any ideas? — kwami ( talk) 03:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
On 28 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2011 XC2, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the asteroid 2011 XC2 missed the Earth by less than 1 lunar distance on 3 December 2011? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2011 XC2. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it may be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 06:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Would there be a way to reference those values that are not yet referenced? [8] -- JorisvS ( talk) 20:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, aside from some of those listed, AstDys also lists 2010 GB174, (148209) 2000 CR105, and 2008 ST291 as currently farther from the Sun than 2004 XR190: [9] -- JorisvS ( talk) 20:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Re this: Not really, because 2004 DG77's provisional designation suggests an earlier time than 2004 XR190's. Unless you have ref for the former being 'late'? -- JorisvS ( talk) 22:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You have quite the impressive resume for editing the outer Solar System. Normally I would think of you as quite the distinguished contributor. Which leaves me at a total loss as to why you are making an inaccurate edit to the Pluto page. You didn't provide proof of your edit because you couldn't. There is no way in Hades that you can claim that a complete survey of the outer solar system has been made. Instead you were rude and confrontational. Over just six bytes. Six bytes which definitely add to the accuracy of the article. Fine. I'm required to discuss this before it goes to the Administrators' noticeboard, so here is discussion. Show me some actual evidence that I'm wrong, and I will drop it. The ball is in your court. -- Will102
I was thinking, would there be a way in which we could automate all those recurring updates of orbital elements, maybe a bot reading JPL? -- JorisvS ( talk) 19:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Then now we should see how the bot should be programmed. Do you know anyone who can help? -- JorisvS ( talk) 20:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, we should use barycentric values, but without uncertainties they're false. Do you have fuller data? — kwami ( talk) 06:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
On 1 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2012 VP113, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Biden is believed to be an eccentric frozen pink dwarf? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2012 VP113. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I notice you added some symbols for orbital elements in Sedna and others. Rather than tag them on at every page, could it be added in the template? So the template would show, e.g., "Aphelion (Q) 35 AU". Tbayboy ( talk) 18:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent help - my intention of adding the arXiv reference to select Comet ISON articles was to help better explain the comet - however, please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the ref (& related) of course - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 12:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen it on many long-period/non-periodic comets' pages, and I get the impression that it is some kind of long-term estimation for the effect on a comet's path, but what exactly is it? I haven't been able to find the barycentric calculation on JPL, and the wikipedia page on it isn't very helpful, so could you try to explain what it is to me? -- exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 15:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention that I noticed that in a popular picture of the colors and absolute magnitude of different Kuiper belt objects (right)
that the scattered disk object 2000 CR105 was accidentally misspelled as 2000 CL105. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 17:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could add the parameter MOID to asteroids' orbital characteristics in the template Infobox planet. I would have added it myself but it appears to have been protected. I'm assuming you're a template editor or know an active user who is, as you seem to have received requests previously about similar things. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 18:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
On your recent edit to 2006 RH120, I looked on JPL's orbit simulator, and during the entire course of 2028 the asteroid never comes any closer than 1.876 AU (mid-march of the year), which could hardly be considered a close-approach. The close-approach data seems very odd considering the asteroid's orbit, but if you go to 2058, the asteroid makes a close approach bringing it only 0.0277 AU (~4.3 million kilometers) from Earth in October of the year. It may verge on original research, but having a certain amount of original research is certainly better than incorrect data, isn't it? 142.136.145.221 ( talk) 16:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you think it's time to update our MPC-derived images, like this, this or this? Most haven't been updated since 2007-2008; however, given that the number of known objects is likely to skyrocket soon, should we wait until, say, Pan-STARRS comes online? Serendi pod ous 10:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and...
The Space Barnstar | ||
Thanks for finding that citation; I sure as hell wouldn't have found it. And while it feels a bit like a capitulation, the guy did have a point, and thanks to you, it has been resolved. Would have been nicer if he'd managed to find it, but oh well... Serendi pod ous 14:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC) |
This edit is causing error. {{date=}} parameter is not for writing extended details, when you write details in that parameter it sends itself to the category of errors, look at Category:CS1 errors: dates. Date should only include the Date-Month-Year. Consider reverting all your edits that you've recently made in attempt to recover that error or you want me to do it for you? Thanks. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kheider, regarding this edit, may I ask the source? I could not locate that information. — Huntster ( t @ c) 06:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the discussion of how to define "meteor" at Meteor:Talk? User:HopsonRoad 17:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
"magnitude = 11-36: Can you name a date when the asteroid is brighter than mag 11? This is why Wikipedia:OR is frowned on. On 2009-Dec-16 asteroid was mag 36."
While the asteroid only reached magnitude 11 on the 2014-09-07 approach, the MOID says that it could theoretically be as close as 0.00003 AU from Earth, at which it would likely be at least magnitude 5, if not brighter considering the fact that the provided distance is geocentric and as such it would impact Earth. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 00:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Kheider:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
Halloween!
–
Serendi
pod
ous 15:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Serendipodous! Enjoy your Halloween as well. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
So whatever the next stage is would be appropriate. Serendi pod ous 20:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you do me a favour and give Murder of Kylie Maybury a once-over and clean-up? Paul Austin ( talk) 13:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Kheider,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
JorisvS (
talk) 16:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I figured that you might know better than anyone about this. Recently I've been doing a precovery image survey of TNOs such as 2003 UB292, 2008 VM49, 1999 CL119, 2004 XR190, 2012 BX85, and 2005 GX186. I plan ultimately to do a precovery image search of every TNO above H=7 (translating to approximately magnitude 23 or 24). I've managed to precover a few, and has even led to the numbering of 2012 BX85 (420356) because of precovery images from 2003. However I've encountered a problem that the largest portion of them move extremely slowly, so are hard to distinguish from background and permanent objects, and that they're extremely dim and hard to be sure that what I'm looking at is an object in the outer solar system, or a distant starforming galaxy. As a result, I look for images of the same area at wikisky, WISE, and 2MASS, but none of these have quite enough resolution to see dim TNOs of magnitude 22.5 or dimmer, which is most of them. As a result, it's hard to determine where objects of low-certainty are exactly. Do you know of any websites that have large image databases with a resolution near that of SDSS and whose images can be searched by RA and DEC? exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 17:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I kinda need your help updating the TNOs image. If that's OK with you. Serendi pod ous 12:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you, by any chance, know why the DES pages talk about "the following table comes from a 10My integration of the orbit of the object.", but then no longer have this table below it (e.g. [11])? -- JorisvS ( talk) 11:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed in the Bennu asteroid article that is an Apollo asteroid, and now I read that it is more likely that it originated from the Main Asteroid Belt: [13]. I don't know much about this; is this info contradictory or complementary? Thnks, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 23:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I was wondering where you were while I was going through the asteroids. I tried to be transparent and tried not to be too "bold" (I'll leave that to Boleyn). Glad you're back. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 16:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#User:Kheider_Adding_stuff_to_WP:Notability_.28astronomical_objects.29_to_point_to_at_AfD.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects). Thank you. ― Padenton| ✉ 00:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it is worth noting the result of the content dispute at NASTRO for editors that may have an issue with Padenton in the future. (Update: User:Lukeno94 has been banned from Wikipedia.) -- Kheider ( talk) 15:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
In case you were thinking otherwise, I would like to note that I support your edits to WP:NASTRO, however that this has become bigger than it really should have been. However, I have been hesitant to take a position on the matter for fear of being dragged into it too. While I agree with your edits to WP:NASTRO, I believe, not only Padenton, but you, and essentially everyone involved has collectively let it grow into something much worse. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 22:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
talk 14:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC).
I've done the crime and the time. Lucky me. Actually, I can accept trading a 48 hour block for still being allowed to express my feeling towards some of Wikipedia's greatest flaws when it comes to the wiki-police and how it is common for a gang of users to ridicule others without fully studying the facts simply because they do not have the time and/or are enforcing some policy written by the wiki-police. There is a reason newbies are reluctant to become regulars on Wikipedia and most editors that have edited Wikipedia for as long as I have, just basically retire and walk away. What is funny is that during the asteroid re-direct discussions of March and April I was not even around to discuss the consensus that developed. I did not make a single edit to Wikipedia from March 5 to May 1. It will be a great loss to Wikipedia content (vs the wiki-police force and policies) if editors like myself leave because members such as Padenton are allowed to group attack people without bothering to properly look into the facts. Perhaps I should move my near-Earth asteroid work over to a SETI website, but then I would probably have to leave Wikipedia to prevent being further accused of a COI with my edits. After all, Wikipedia itself is NOT a reliable source, it is the verifiability of the reliable sources. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been in Prague for the last few days so I missed this whole kerfuffle. Wow. This sort of thing is what breaks Wikipedians, on top of the complete lack of thanks for the job we do. Sorry to see you go through that, Kev. Things need to change and fast if Wikipedia is going to last another decade. As far as deletionists go, there are always ways around their claws, if you're clever. Serendi pod ous 11:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I notice that you have been reverting my WolframAlpha-sourced changes to the J2000.0 mean anomaly value. If this is because WolframAlpha is inaccurate, then thank you, JPLSSD is definitely a better source! However, please note that per discussion here and here, the mean anomaly value is only meaningful and accurate if it is the mean anomaly at J2000.0 (1/15/2000 12:00 GMT). Are the JPLSSD values for the mean anomaly at this precise time? (Also, do you think you could shoot me a link for the precise place in JPLSSD where you are getting the values?) A2soup ( talk) 12:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
[14] Although it'll once have said 11400 years, I currently can't find neither 11400 years nor 4.154E+06 in the cited source ( [15]). I do find "PER= 10950.89409". -- JorisvS ( talk) 12:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Vesta's not a DP because of the impact at its south pole, not because of size. It underwent particular circumstances, circumstances that did not happen to Pallas, Hygiea, and Cybele. Just because X asteroid of comparable size got hit does not mean all are. We know about the same about Cybele, Hygiea, and Pallas in 2015 as we did in 2007. The info is still good in this case. -- DN-boards1 ( talk) 03:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Eunomia and Psyche aren't likely to have stayed in HE after their catastrophes, and Vesta for sure did not. But Cybele, Pallas, and Hygiea quite likely DID form in HE, and never experienced catastrophic impacts like those that Vesta, Psyche, and Eunomia did. Therefore, they SHOULD still be in HE. Images from Hubble of Pallas show a round object. -- DN-boards1 ( talk) 04:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Now, we can remove Ceres, known to be a dwarf planet. Vesta, Hygiea, and Davida aren't dwarfs. But of the rest, where do they stand? Which do we know enough about that we know they can't be dwarfs? You said that Interamnia's dimensions are poorly known, so we can place that in the "maybe" pile. Pallas is bigger than Vesta, and looks rounded, even, so we can put it in the "likely pile", and with Cybele being the right shape and size, it can go in that pile too. Hygiea fails the shape and density test, so goes in the "not" pile. But where do the others fall? -- DN-boards1 ( talk) 04:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
May you explain why exactly you think this comet's orbit doesn't have a semi-major axis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.140.139 ( talk) 08:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been copied to Talk:C/1980_E1 and should be continued there, as it pertains directly to the article. -- JustBerry ( talk) 01:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC) |
I just happen to come by to reply to another discussion taking place on your talk page. However, observing the great length of your talk page, I wanted to suggest that you look into archiving your talk page to keep it cleaner, shorter, and easier to work in. -- JustBerry ( talk) 01:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
At Formation and evolution of the Solar System, we have "The current standard theory for Solar System formation, the nebular hypothesis" [emphasis mine]. At Nebular hypothesis, we have "is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System". Yet we call it nebular hypothesis? Do you know any good reason not to move it to "nebular theory"? -- JorisvS ( talk) 12:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I just got an email from David Morrison; not something I expected would ever happen again. Apparently, the web weather around Nibiru is getting a bit stormy; stormy enough at least for him to get swept up in it again. There does seem to be an upswing in Nibiru interest at grok.se and Google Trends but it appears to focus on this Youtube video which is so transparently a sundog I don't really know what to do with it. This is the closest I can find to a reliable source on the topic; the Irish Independent did a frankly shameful write-up on it which makes me question whether they can ever be called a reliable source. Any ideas as to where to go from here? Serendi pod ous 09:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
See: https://www.metabunk.org/explained-two-suns-sanibel-causeway-florida-offset-lens-reflection.t6932/ -- Kheider ( talk) 14:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know it's in the past (of course), and patently it was not true, but why is it not valid to discuss, in the article about PHAs, public fears about PHAs. It's certainly notable that NASA felt it necessary to issue a denial. Spinning Spark 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/WT1190F. Hi, I saw you have edited this article. You can help to fix some issues of this to article so that this article will feature on main page of Wikipedia within 2 days. Thanks. Human3015 TALK 14:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
This is User:Georgewilliamherbert in disguise... Out of curiosity are you on the Minor Planet Mailing List? Just saw flurry of alert stuff on there about WY032FF / 2015 YB... aha, my mail archive dragged you out from MPML posts in 2014 and 2013. Good job on the prompt update of the page here! 208.66.205.104 ( talk) 01:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Kheider, here's a link to the online tool I created for the revision of minor planet articles on wikipedia. Please check it out and give me a feedback if you want to. It is still a beta-version with lots of bugs and debug-comments, but it should work. Kind regards, Rfassbind – talk 16:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
There are now tools that actually rank a paper's impact by how many times it gets cited in Wikipedia [16]. This is a terrible idea, of course, for science, for Wikipedia, and it's unfair for the researchers themselves. An actual link in the citation does not seem to be necessary. Therefore, when a particular research group appears too often in too many articles, it's probably spam. This is a completely separate issue from the question of reliability. For the time being, most editors still think that being cited in Wikipedia "doesn't matter", but when it becomes widely known that it does matter enough to create COI issues, then I think the pitchforks will come out and guidelines on spam will be re-written to address this specifically. Geogene ( talk) 02:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
tags, and make people cite their edits more frequently, which is where help is needed. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 18:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)I have nominated Venus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Anon 09:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you know, or can you guess for me, why, for most categories that contain them, the preliminarily-designated asteroids are predominantly sorted without 0-padding, while the much larger number of numbered asteroids use 0-padding? Preliminary designated asteroids span (correct me if I'm wrong) the 19th-21st centuries, so it would be much easier to find them in a 0-padded list (they would be clumped) than in an article-name sorted list (they would be scattered), if that list contained both numbered and unnumbered asteroids. My guess is that this is a historical artifact of Wikipedia, perhaps because this interaction wasn't taken into account, or because it was easier at the time (prior to tools like AWB and the like), or that it was done prior to the mass-creation of numbered asteroid stubs. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I've been expanding the stub at Accretion (astrophysics) and I would be happy if you could please check it out and give it a makeup as needed. Thanks, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 14:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Though I am not insisting for the inclusion on this info, but it is part of the intro of the referenced Nature article. http://www.nature.com/news/evidence-grows-for-giant-planet-on-fringes-of-solar-system-1.19182 prokaryotes ( talk) 20:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead of the article is not the place to go into alternative names.....-- Kheider (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
A featured article is an article that has gone through a long and detailed review process. There are many that do include an alternate name. See....
The later is even an astronomy article!
Please reconsider your opinion. -- Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy ( talk) 01:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Check my recent edits to see the other articles I updated, and then let me know if I have made systematic errors. In that case I will fix them. Jehochman Talk 15:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Minor planet 90377 Sedna > Sedna (minor planet) discussion taking place at Talk:90377_Sedna#Odd_name. Please join in if it catches your fancy. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
As has been made clear in the recent Comets mailing list discussion on comet P/2010 V1 (Ikeya-Murakami), the comet has been fragmenting significantly in recent times with fragments ABCDE recognized by the MPC and fragments FG(H?) remaining not accepted. I have a project with the dynamic orbits of comets to work on at the moment, and I would greatly appreciate if you could do what you can to update the article to what is currently known. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 16:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Regards, nagual design 15:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting experiment on NEOs using the ExoMars: [18]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk)
Hi Kheider, I just want to run something by you regarding
this.
JPL and
MPC only provide a mean motion term with units of deg/day. {{
Infobox planet}}'s closest parameter is |p_mean_motion=
, which has units of deg/year (there is no |mean_motion=
). I assumed I could multiply JPL's deg/day value by 365.25 to determine |p_mean_motion=
since:
|p_mean_motion=
parameter (and excludes |mean_motion=
param),|mean_motion=
and not |p_mean_motion=
.My questions/observations are:
|p_mean_motion=
= |mean_motion=
* 365.25 is correct|mean_motion=
should be added to {{
Infobox planet}}What do you suggest? (P.S. My code added "(n)" after the |p_mean_motion=
value, which produced
this display error, and has now been corrected) ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 13:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey Kheider, I was cleaning up a reference error on 349 Dembowska when I noticed a dead link with your name on it. I ran a search which found 42 total like this. Spot-checking a few of these, I found that they're mostly, if not all, dead. Can you restore the documents to their current URLs or provide a new link to the old content and update these refs? Let me know if you want my automation services for any help. Thanks. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Kheider. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
For writing and or updating many articles about astronomy. Happy new year! Fotaun ( talk) 17:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
Hi Kheider, I've done some additional changes in 2012 DR30.
I saw you re-added the centaur classification to the article which seems to agree with the dynamical classification by DES but not by any means how JPL/MPC define centaurs. Don't you think that we should stick to a consistent classification system for all MPs on Wikipedia? I was also guessing that ejected centaur might apply, but you removed that as well. Is this just a special case I shouldn't worry about? Rfassbind – talk 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
Distant minor planets sidebar}}
Hey there, and welcome back to wikipedia I suppose! I've actually missed you a bit for help with some small body articles (we went through all of 2016 without a single linked asteroid on the asteroid approach list) as well as a fantastic wikipedian in general. Either way, I figured as the creator of category:ejected centaurs, that it was more of a filler category for objects that aren't necessarily damocloids/extinct comets, and orbit beyond Neptune, yet still remain under significant perturbational (rather than resonant) gravitational influence from any or all of the major planets. If you want to move it to category:Extended centaurs as suggested in the above discussion, I believe it would be quite appropriate. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 00:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Would you mind quickly cleaning up the now officially designated 2013 SY99? It's probably only a matter of hours before news sites notice it, hours I don't have at the moment. exoplanetaryscience ( talk)
Greetings Kheider! I noticed your many recent updates to comet infoboxes, thanks for that. FYI, you can save yourself some typing by using {{
cvt}} instead of {{
convert}}, which automatically sets the |abbr=on
parameter. See
an example of how it works. —
JFG
talk 07:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
How should we deal with the virtual impactors list after they (hopefully) don't hit us? Should we leave it up there, or take stuff off as it misses, or something else? exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 19:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
I recently created File:2023-10-14annularsolareclipsephases.jpg (a completely original piece of work based on my own software) to insert into the article on the October 14, 2023 annular eclipse. I can't figure out how to access the smaller-sized version to insert in the article. But perhaps a bigger question is whether you think it would be an appropriate addition; I was planning to add it to the right of the animated gif. Please let me know what you think... thanks!
Andrew
Hi Kevin,
I recently created File:2023-10-14annularsolareclipsephases.jpg (a completely original piece of work based on my own software) to insert into the article on the October 14, 2023 annular eclipse. I can't figure out how to access the smaller-sized version to insert in the article. But perhaps a bigger question is whether you think it would be an appropriate addition; I was planning to add it to the right of the animated gif. Please let me know what you think... thanks!
Andrew Lowe4091 ( talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Kheider. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Kheider, this edit is not the best way to go. By directing readers to the archived version by default, you present them with the data we are using in the article, rather than whatever it might be at a future date. When we update the article, we can re-archive the SDBD page. — Huntster ( t @ c) 04:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
For outstanding contributions to astronomy, space exploration, and solar system objects. Have a great 2018 and thanks for your contributions. Fotaun ( talk) 17:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC) |
I propose to simplify minor-planet articles, by adding ;cad=1
to the URL of the <"jpldata" />
citation. Example:
<ref name="jpldata">{{cite web |type = 2016-09-12 last obs. |title = JPL Small-Body Database Browser: 7482 (1994 PC1) |url = http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2007482;cad=1 |publisher = [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] |accessdate = 3 February 2018}}</ref>
I think I noticed this useful URL extension in one of your edits (but I cant be sure). As far as I see, we no-longer need a redundant <"jpl-close" />
cite when ;cad=1
is added to "jpldata" since this little addition opens up the "Close-Approach Data"-section. Do you agree with that? Best,
Rfassbind
– talk 04:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay (wiki didn't notify me).
{{
JPL}}
as just demonstrated.;cad=1#cad
does not throw an error, even if there is no such section in the object page.Hope that #1 and #2 is not an issue. I still have questions about how to cite best the Barycentric Osculating Orbital Elements in our minor-planet object articles. Best, Rfassbind – talk 08:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
JPL small body}}
now includes an item "
Close approach"
Rfassbind
– talk 02:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)So I assume #1 and #2 is fine with you (otherwise you would have let me know). Here's a related question I came across today: Do you know what is "Amphi" in the body-column of the CAD section of 10476 Los Molinos? Thx, Rfassbind – talk 22:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Over in the Talk:Messier 58, you said of Deep Sky Videos that "Random people on youtube are generally unreliable sources/non-notable.". This is not a criticism of your removal of what were in fact throwaway remarks, but of your notion that the scientists on Deep Sky Videos are random people, and are "generally unreliable sources/non-notable" Deep Sky Videos is one of a number of video channels run by video journalist Brady Haran who was awarded an honorary doctorate for his work on YouTube with the University of Nottingham. Primary contributers to Deep Sky Videos are Professor Mike Merrifield, the head of astronomy at the University of Nottingham and an expert on galaxy evolution; Paul Crowther is a professor of astrophysics at the University of Sheffield, whose interests include massive stars; Dr Meghan Gray, STFC advanced fellow and lecturer at the University of Nottingham, her research combines galaxy evolution and a long-standing interest in gravitational lensing; and more recently, Dr Rebecca Smethurst, Sixty Symbols Ogden Fellow at the University of Nottingham, who does research into the co-evolution of galaxies and black holes. These are videos presented by professional astronomers, and made by a professional video journalist who, before he started working with the University of Nottingham, worked at the BBC. Their work across all the channels is highly respected, some of it award winning within the science community, and funded in part by the scientific community. Everlong Day ( talk) 17:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted my edit on linking to A106fgF. I wanted to mention that I intended on creating an article on it (and still do) primarily because while impact is not necessarily certain (or even probable) we haven't had any other objects with a 'reasonable' chance of impact in a while. I talked to one of the ATLAS PIs and he said that the odds of it having impacted earth are about 9%. I'm currently reviewing the discovery images, and may possibly be doing a thorough review paper on the subject. At any rate, I just wanted to let you know that I consider an article on the object would be notable, whether or not it did end up impacting. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 04:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
In November 2014, JorisvS created:
which redirect to Classical Kuiper belt object § Orbits: 'hot' and 'cold' populations.
On 16 February 2018, I created:
which redirect to Classical Kuiper belt object § SSBN07 classification
On 17 February 2018, you created:
Sources and usage:
|mp_category=
. However, this classification tag is neither linked nor does it appear in the body of the article.Do you see a need for a basic discussion on how to deal with these TNO subclasses? First thing I see is:
Based on our orbital classification conversation on ejected/extended centaurs and damocloids from February 2017, this may not be an easy thing to do. However, if we proceed on different/uncoordinated paths, we will potentially change each others edits several times. This post tries to avoid this situation. Hope we can cooperate, Rfassbind – talk 12:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
PS: I think the category's name should be "Cold classical Kuiper belt objects", not "Cold Classical Kuiper belt objects". I also notice that it was created just a day after the redirect were created/implemented. Coincidence?
Yes, the terms cold and hot as well as inner classical Kuiper belt object are used in the peer reviewed literature. (All three subdivisions are mentioned here together). I've written my lengthy post above because of the problematic approach you have chosen: to create a category first (adding it to a small number of articles; plus an unlinked infobox-tag), seemingly without prior discussion and consideration for the overall project, while I have resisted to create "my" inner-classical category before things are sorted out.
This seems to me avoidable monkey stuff, where editors shoot first and ask questions later. More precisely:
Do you acknowledge that with the creation of Category:Cold Classical Kuiper belt objects, you have taken the initiative, and the questions above now need to be resolved (as described in my first post) in order to avoid inconsistencies or even confusion? Or do you think differently? Rfassbind – talk 23:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Follow-up: based on the Johnston's archive, this plot shows the TNO subclasses in the core region (a: 38–49 AU; i: <40°). This could be helpful for the discussion, I think. Rfassbind – talk 12:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Kheider: Just a quick question. Your recent edit gives " https://twitter.com/astrokiwi/status/973668674933526528" as the edit summary. I don't see how that reflects the edit you made? -- Renerpho ( talk) 02:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kheider, you'll probably want to know this, although I don't think you could get away with posting it just yet: A/2018 F4 is weird. I performed a search for precovery images with DECaLS and was able to rule out any orbital solutions with e = 0.965 to 1.004 and 1.050 to 1.077. Either it's a typical halley-like or long period comet (e < 0.965), an unusually eccentric hyperbolic comet (1.004 < e < 1.050), or a bona fide interstellar object (e > 1.077). I'm not sure what this thing is exactly, but it's definitely not normal. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 14:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I found these two articles that seem to deal with the same effect: Yarkovsky effect and Yarkovsky–O'Keefe–Radzievskii–Paddack effect. Am I missing something that makes them different phenomena or should they be merged? Thanks. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
I noticed that you added my paper on 2004 EW95 to the external links in its wikipedia article. Thanks very much! I was curious as to whether you have any intention to add the paper's findings to the body of the article? I'd be happy to make an edit to the article but I wanted to check first in case you were already working on something.
Thanks! Tom Seccull Tseccull ( talk) 10:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you approve of an expansion/renaming of template {{
JPL SBDB Jupiter Trojans}}
with additional columns for mean-diameter estimates from Akari and IRAS (SIMPS)?
Also, most edits made to 18 large Jupiter trojans by an anon user during 3–13 March 2018 are hardly helpful (those with overly long edit comments). Since going through all these edited articles take a lot of time, and I don't want to get into a potential WP:EDITWAR with said anon user all by myself (wasting additional time better spent on other tasks), I need to know whether you approve of/ are in favor of such revision. Thx, Rfassbind – talk 16:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
Largest Jupiter trojans}}
. Any suggestions? Thx,
Rfassbind
– talk 08:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Thanks for uploading File:MinorPlanet-2007uk126-19970930.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 19:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Kheider. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
I read in an old blog that there's a HST image of 10 Hygiea that reveals its shape (though presubably at low res). The link was dead and I haven't been able to find it. If you can, I think it would be a worthwhile addition to the article, maybe replacing the 2MASS image I just added. — kwami ( talk) 22:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I saw an image of it on twitter during one of the conference IIRC from SPHERE on the VLT, it was round like it was in hydrostatic equilibrium. I haven't seen an official version yet though. Agmartin ( talk) 02:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated Ceres (dwarf planet) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 20:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Since you added 300P/Catalina, I think Category:Asteroids removed from the Sentry Risk Table should be renamed to Category:Near-Earth objects removed from the Sentry Risk Table, which was the alternative suggestion when Category:Removed from Sentry Risk Table was discussed and moved to its current name in June 2016. Do you agree? Rfassbind – talk 00:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kheider. We normally use ±1σ, don't we? I ask because in the Pluto info box we copied ±2σ from the source. I halved it, but wanted to check. — kwami ( talk) 04:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
For your contribution to
2I/Borisov. Thank you very much!
Hashar ( talk) 21:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC) |
The Space Barnstar | ||
For starting the 2I/Borisov article. ↠Pine (✉) 06:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC) |
I had an idea about calculating sigma a for the barycentric orbits using the vectors available from JPL to see which of the hyperbolic comets had semimajor axes > 0 when that was included. But when I compared the downloaded and calculated semimajor axes, some didn't match. It turned out that one day while collecting data I forgot to select @0 to get barycentric data so about 100 or so of them are heliocentric semimajor axes. So those numbers in that big comet file I posted are wrong. Next time I'm at the public library I will get the right data ( OCD ) and replace that backup file. Agmartin ( talk) 02:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
If interested, a new asteroid article, re 2019 TA7, has been created - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Gr8 source of info for astro stuff
Finding your page is illuminating in the current environment, gotta trust the info by you regd 29 april, so is it surely missing now, guess thats why the lockdowns are receeding too, any risk of cyanogen from comet atlas tail? Thanks. Kbxads ( talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2000 YH2 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 YH2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sam-2727 ( talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=(163348)_2002_NN4&diff=961575859 ? this article sucks? DerianGuy40 ( talk) 08:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
On 14 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Andrew🐉( talk) 09:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I just noted your addition to Limiting magnitude It seems reasonable, but do you have a source? I guess astronomy is big for you. (I just finished a pier with a deck for my 12" SCT. Unfortunately I am in the Atlanta area and will never have dark skies. If it does not work out, I can remove the scope and mount and replace it with a bird bath or table top.) — Neonorange ( Phil) 22:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The table you just added with the pre- and post-pertubation data is awesome. ONly problem, you did not provide a source for those data. Could you please add one? Thanks. N2e ( talk) 04:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The Photographer's Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your contributions in the field of asteroids! ExoEditor 01:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC) |
Please see the discussion at the top of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 24. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
I totally take your point about "currently observable", as it excludes comets we technically "know" but are way off the scopes. However I think mentioning that we're talking about natural objects is also useful. One could argue that Voyager 1 is currently observable, as we routinely receive its radio transmissions (and in fact communicate bidirectionally with it). -- johantheghost ( talk) 10:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
For your helpful contributions to minor planet articles! Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 22:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
Hi Kevin,
JPL now has 11163±6 yr, but I can't tell if that's heliocentric or barycentric. Are we able to better constrain the period than the ≈ 11,400 yr we currently have in the article?
— kwami ( talk) 04:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, this topic may be too detailed for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy page so I am responding on your talk page instead. I suspect that the main benefit for OD accuracy of newly discovered comets long period comets would be from the parallax effect due to Earth's orbit around the sun. I would expect better improvement from a 3 month precovery than from a 2.0 year precovery that provides a smaller base for "triangulation". Annette Maon ( talk) 07:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The comet would indeed travel a longer distance over 2 years. However, if it is on a highly elliptical orbit at a distance more than 5AU from the sun most of that movement would be in the radial direction. A 2.0 year precovery image would be taken from roughly the same place in Earth's orbit and would therefore show little movement on the celestial sphere. On the other hand a 3 month parallax would show several degrees of movement with respect to the celestial sphere even for a comet 10AU away that would not move much in those 3 month. Annette Maon ( talk) 11:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Imagine you need to determine the orbit of a comet with an ecliptic orbit moving almost straight toward the sun. Assume it is discovered at a distance of 5 AU. Would you rather have the last observation as well as 4 precovery images for a total 5yr arc but all at opposition, or one 3 month old precovery image? Annette Maon ( talk) 18:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
If you have just discovered said comet, you have already detected some movement in the three most recent photos even if your precovery images show none (precovery images maybe an older lower resolution camera even if on the same telescope). In the event of an Oort cloud comet impacting Earth in 6 months with high confidence, the observation arc (including precovery images) would need to be months/years, not hours/days. In the movie I see no mention of precovery images, only 5 photos (1h ago, 2h, 3h, 4h, 5h ago) with a 4 HOUR arc (What the Minor Planet Center would call a "single-nighter"). You can not expect serious science in a Hollywood movie as no one would want to watch the snorefest. This is why the less accurate Armageddon (1998 film) is a cult classic and Deep Impact (film) is more scientific. -- Kheider ( talk) 14:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated 90377 Sedna for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho ( talk) 05:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello Kevin! Thanks for your recent addition to 319 Leona. The occultation of this asteroid by Betelgeuse was the topic of the very first edit I ever made on Wikipedia (over on the German version) and on Wikimedia Commons, both in October 2012. So this brought back some nice memories! I was surprised to see that the English article didn't include any mention of the event. After creating the article SOLEX (software) today, I added the image [19] to the Leona article, to illustrate the occultation path. Maybe you can assist with including additional information? I marked the new 319_Leona#2023_occultation_of_Betelgeuse section as "needing expansion". Some info can be found here, but I am also looking for other sources, since this one is from 2004. Renerpho ( talk) 05:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C/2012 S4 (PanSTARRS) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
C messier ( talk) 09:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C/2000 U5 (LINEAR) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
C messier ( talk) 17:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Category:Contact binary (small Solar System body) has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
I haven't gotten around to updating the list for the recent December discoveries. I just saw your edit to the list mentioning the total 2022 count while the list isn't updated--did you include the recent December discoveries in this? Just making sure before I add the December discoveries. Nrco0e ( talk) 07:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
On 1 February 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article C/2022 E3 (ZTF), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Template:Solar encounters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Artem.G ( talk) 08:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 November 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 14, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
For the majority of its orbit it is the most distant known object in the Solar System other than long-period comets.) on the article talk page earlier today; that's no longer true. The rest of the 2010 text still seems to reflect the current state of the article.
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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
If you just joined, welcome to Wikipedia!
I’ve noticed that you’re changing diameters in many TNO articles. If you’re updating the data, please consider the following:
Otherwise, a well-meant update actually ruins the work of many editors and will ultimately be reverted as unreferenced. Eurocommuter 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ceres is not considered as an asteroid and is considered as a Small Solar System Body. -- Deenoe 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There has been NO OFFICIAL STATEMENT from the IAU committee removing (1) Ceres as an asteroid. A poorly worded Q&A article that says Ceres both 'IS and WAS' is NOT a good official statement.
Using the IAU 2006 definitions an object is either a Planet, 'Dwarf Planet' (compound noun), or a Small Solar System Body (SSSB). This does not affect the definition of the older terms asteroids and comets.
Pluto is a Kuiper Belt Object (KBO) even though it is also a 'dwarf planet'. I believe that 1 Ceres will still considered an Asteroid since it orbits in the asteroid belt and has the same origin as the other asteroids. In the closing sentence, MPEC 2006-R19 states, "does not preclude their having dual designations"
Has Pallas become the 1st asteroid discovered? Has Vesta become the largest asteroid (at least until the IAU decides that since Vesta is a damaged, differentiated protoplanet that it was probably a healthy dwarf planet in the past)? *IF* Ceres is truly no longer an asteroid, because it is spherical, then those two very basic questions have new answers.
2 Pallas is similar to 4 Vesta in volume, but significantly less massive. If the IAU ever reclassifies Vesta as a dwarf planet AND officially declares that dwarf planets are not asteroids, then Pallas may someday be considered the largest asteroid. -- Kheider 23:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit other comments, unless merely formatting a conversation to become more readable (e.g. by inserting proper indentations). Otherwise, such edits are unnecessary and could be considered to corrupting the original context. Thank you. -- Iamunknown 18:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Under "Spheroid or not?", I added a link to Neptune's moon Proteus. Proteus is one of the largest non-spheroids in the solar system. Your re-edit (rv) moved the link from the moon to Greek mythology ;-) Kheider 19:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Since I have only been using Wiki for 1 month, I did not known how to get Wiki to link to the wiki copy of the "(moon) Proteus". The original link to Greek mythology would not help anyone trying to study spheroids. Thank you for making Proteus point to something relevant to the discussion. Kheider 18:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --
Iamunknown 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)An occulation chord is the width of an asteroid along a particular line, as inferred from stellar occulation. This is not the same as a solar eclipse: no asteroid can be observed to transit the Sun (particularly since most are further from the Sun than the Earth). The process works like this: we can predict roughly where an asteroid will pass in front a star, as seen from some part of the surface of the Earth. We then place a large number of telescopes across this region, with known positions, and measure the brightness of the star + the asteroid as a function of time. We see a drop when the asteroid passes in front of the star, and a jump when the star becomes visible again. The time of these events tells us the extent of the asteroid along a line defined by its projected velocity, a single chord. Taking many telescopes, we can construct an occulation silhouette. This process is very laborous and prone to difficulty, but was the only way to get asteroid dimensions with any accuracy until the advent of radar astronomy, adaptive optics, and spacecraft observations.
There is no penumbra in an asteroid occulation, because the asteroid's angular size is far larger than the angular size of the star (an asteroid may subtend an angle of a tenth of an arcsecond, while stars have angular sizes in the milliarcsecond range). The penumbra in a solar or lunar eclipse is caused by diffraction (which is neglible for an object with no atmosphere) and by partial shadowing, which doesn't apply here. An occulation chord passing through the equator is not the same as the diameter, because the diameter of an irregular asteroid is ill-defined. The occulation chords given the plane-of-sky silhouette, and nothing else. Michaelbusch 22:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
When linking an image, template, or category without adding it to the article, use a leading : For example: [[:Category:Binary_asteroids|Category:Binary_asteroids]] Rmhermen 16:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
'Red' in this context means that the object is relatively more reflective in the red and near-infrared than in the blue (the reflectance spectrum slopes upward toward red). Such spectra on outer solar system objects are often caused by organic compounds, such as tholins. However, to the unaided eye these objects would be brownish or black, because of their low albedos. Michaelbusch 01:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Redder objects have higher V-R and B-V. On this plot, (0,0) is equal magnitude in all three bands. This is not quite the same as a perfectly white, because the bands are broad, but a white object would be at (0,0). A blue object would plot at negative B-V and negative V-R. Michaelbusch 23:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. 1994 ES2 has higher V-R, but much lower B-V. This means that ES2 has relatively more blue in its spectrum as compared to KP77. So if we looked only between V & R, ES2 would be more red, but if we looked only between B & V, KP77 would be redder. This simply is a problem with the definition of redness. Michaelbusch 23:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kheider, I wonder if we could compare our methods of obtaining the range of magnitudes. While entering angular size values for the planets in their infoboxes, I noticed that the reference I was using ( e.g. this one for Saturn) also gave peak magnitudes. The values I obtain based on this (how , I will explain below) differ somewhat from the ranges you put in a few days ago. It'd be good to sort these numbers out.
So, for example, for Saturn, that nasa fact sheet gives:
Apparent diameter from Earth Maximum (seconds of arc) 20.1 Minimum (seconds of arc) 14.5 Maximum apparent visual magnitude 0.43
Obviously the maximum magnitude I use is right there. To get the minimum, I assume that the brightness maximum must occur at the same time as the given maximum apparent diameter, and that the minimum brightness must occur simultaneously with the minimum apparent diameter. (This is inapplicable to Venus and Mercury, since they are not in full phase at their closest approach to Earth). This consideration gives a minimum intensity that is (14.5/20.1)^2=0.520 times the maximum, assuming a circular orbit for Saturn, therefore a magnitude change of 0.709, hence a minimum magnitude of 0.43+0.71=1.14. I notice that you obtained a significantly darker minimum magnitude of 1.4, and am wondering at how that comes about. Deuar 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Deuar. I used "A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets" (Pasachoff, 1983) for some of the values, and I used JPL Horizons to confirm the values.
You are right there is deviation based on the source and probably the methods used. I do agree that maximum apparent diameter is important, but keep in mind that the "Sun-Target-Observer angle" (target's apparent PHASE ANGLE as seen at observer's location) might affect magnitude. Some of NASA's own sources conflict one another. :-)
NASA Reference Publication 1349 lists Mercury as high as -2.3 (full phase) on May 19 2006. I went with -1.9
Different sources list values of -4.7 and -4.6 for Venus.
I have confirmed Mars (using
Horizons) at -2.88 on 2003-Aug-29: You will need to set the "Target Body" as MB:Mars, the date range to cover 2003, and include the QUANTITIES: 9 (vmag) and 20 (range AU).
I can not get Jupiter's brightest magnitude greater than Mars's maximum in our lifetime.
I have heard (can not remember the source it was years ago), that when tilted at their maximum of 27 degrees, such as in 1988, that the rings increase Saturn's brightness by 0.2 to .7(?) magnitude. The book "A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets", does list Saturn at +0.2 opposition magnitude for 1985 through 1989. In 1984 with the rings only tilted 20 degrees Saturn is listed at +0.3.
NASA Reference Publication 1349 lists Saturn at -0.2 (yes, that is a minus) on Jan 2 2004! The +1.47 (Horizons) value for Saturn on 2017-Oct-23 probably does not account for the rings either.
Numbers I used (vs generated with Horizons)
Mercury -1.9 2051-Jun-04 -2.20 (brightest when full)
Venus -4.6 1989-Dec-18 -4.57 (brightest when cresent)
Mars -2.9 2003-Aug-29 -2.88; 2021-Jul-11 1.84
Jupiter -2.8 2010-Sep-20 -2.79
Saturn -0.24 1973-Dec-23 0.42; 2017-Oct-23 1.47 (error since rings tilted a lot!?) (
File:Saturnoppositions.jpg)
Uranus 5.5 2048-Feb-25 5.31; 2008-Feb-26 5.95
Neptune 7.7 2032-Oct-07 7.80; 1973-Dec-04 8.02
Kheider 19:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Go to Horizons. Make sure it is set to Ephemeris: OBSERVER. Go to "Table Settings" (2nd from the bottom) and click on the blue "change". Make sure that "9. Vis mag. & Surf Brt" has a check mark next to it. :-) Kheider 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It does not appear as if Horizons or the NASA Fact Sheet consider Saturn's ring system. I have updated Saturn to magnitude
-0.24 for the 2000-12-08 opposition at ring tilt 24° / solar phase angle 0.038. I wonder how bright Saturn was at opposition in 2002-12-17 when it was at ring tilt 26.5° / solar phase angle 0.027? This
abstract does not seem to publicly show it.
--
Kheider 23:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can reasonably prove that the data sources are reliable and accurate, you should just go ahead and make the changes. — Viriditas | Talk 04:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Maxim (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this edit - the reference is broken. -- mikeu ( talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads-up. I moved the "Horizons1223" citation details to top ref to prevent the ref error that did not exist on 21:35, 3 January 2008. Perhaps citation details should not be placed in external link sections. -- Kheider ( talk) 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It might or might not be unlikely, who knows if the astronomical community wants to enlist another planet? I know I'm for it. Besides, Mercury's probably tired of being the littlest! Secondly, size isn't -currently- use to decide which objects get to be "Planets". Thirdly, Eris doesn't cross Sedna's orbit, check the latest version of Celestia if you don't believe me.
They don't. I admitted it, but neither is your insistence that Sedna can't be a planet. And as I'd type before, there's only three standards by which a 'planet' is a 'planet,' and "orbital dominance" (except in the case of planets with moons) is not one of them, especially if we're talking about unknown Solar System bodies. You can type until you have carpal-tunnel, but the rules won't be changing until next year. -- IdLoveOne ( talk) 02:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Chariklo will probably look a lot like Phoebe or Hyperion. There are many known Centaurs and their orbit are unstable over a million years as they are perturbed by the dominant gas giants. Some of these centaurs will become future comets. -- Kheider ( talk) 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The E=mc² Barnstar | ||
For helping get Neptune to FA, and for coining the phrase "a lot of inbred rocks", to which I chortled heartily, I award you the science barnstar. :-) Serendi pod ous 12:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
Hey mate, about your change to go to the abstract. I understand citing the abstract as it is na HTML and not PDF, but can I still cite the pages where that info appears, even if citing the abstract? Samuel Sol ( talk) 15:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And sorry to hear about your loss. :-( I know how difficult these times can be, and wish you all the best. Serendi pod ous 07:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You wrote that 1995 GJ is cubewano. But on Minor Planet Ephemeris Service you can find that the object was observed only on two days 1995 Apr. 3-4, and eccentricity is assumed. So, it may be SDO as well as cubewano. Excuse my English. Regards, Chesnok ( talk) 08:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI. Thanks again for all of your help on this project. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm on the verge of starting an edit war, and having just got blocked for edit warring I really don't want to start over again. I could use a third person arbitration before things get hairy. The issue is quite simple, but rather fraught. There's an article called " Hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets" that was created as a merge article for the articles on the ninth planet and the tenth planet. I've never been a fan of this article; it's meandering, vague, gossipy, unsourced and lacking in anything approaching historical and scientific rigour. Since much of what it said was already in the Planet X article, which is far better sourced and organised, and since no one had made any substantial edits to the other article in months, I decided to merge the other article with Planet X, assuming no one would even notice, let alone care. However, a few days later, to my absolute shock, someone showed up who apparently cared. User:The Tom not only reinstated the other article, but began removing similar material from "Planet X", much to my chagrin, as the material in Planet X was cited and the equivalent material in the other article was not. Eventually we came to a kind of compromise (although not one I liked very much) that "Planet X" would be strictly about Lowell's idea, with all other hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets kept in the other article. Specifically, the other article was to hold material on the recent announcement by Patryk Lykawka of Kobe University that gravitational effects suggest the presence of a large planet in the outer Solar System. Since this is essentially the same rationale for Lowell's Planet X, Lykawka's planet is called "Planet X" in the media. There are also other "Planet X"s out there, proposed by other astronomers.
Nonetheless, I held for a few days, because I didn't particularly care. However, today, a slew of information has been added to the Planet X article about Lykawka's planet, and I realised that if I was to hold to Tom's separation policy I would be spending the rest of my Wiki career removing this information, which I didn't particularly want to do, especially since I felt it should be there anyway, and that the other article wasn't worth saving. So I reverted the merge and reinstated all the old material. But I figured Tom would burst his gasket when he found out, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Let me know what you think. Serendi pod ous 14:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What you mean as summary by mars and gas giant may be rip by white dwarf star? I thoguht Venus and Earth may or may not survive over sun's giant star stage. I thought Venus has slightly less than to survive than Earth. mars is likely to survive, but not positively.-- Freewayguy Msg USC 03:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you please answer this question?-- Freewayguy Msg USC 04:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you think you could give this a once-over to tidy up the prose? I would, but I find it very difficult to edit my own work. Serendi pod ous 06:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kheider!
Yeah, Serendipodous and I have been discussing the whole 1999 TD10 issue and trying to figure out where to come down. I have quite literally found contradicting sources: some say centaur, some say SDO... so perhaps the best thing would be to remove it for now, but actively pursue this question on the talk page. I'll remove it... Ling. Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Kheider, is there any actual proof that all of the centaurs will be removed from their orbit? Because, especially in the case of Chariklo which doesn't cross any "planet's" orbit, I don't think the article should say that -- especially without citations. As I said in my edit summary, it seems too intangible and unlikely that they all will or that it could be proven that they all will.
In fact, I think I read somewhere that the centaurs between Saturn and Uranus (Chariklo) could survive there for the "lifespan of the Solar System" or words to that effect. -- IdLoveOne ( talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That page confuses me. How could both Makemake and Eris be in the same resonance? Eris is three times farther from the Sun! Serendi pod ous 14:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The Gravity Simulator web pages is using old data for both Makemake and Eris. What appeared to be mean-motion resonances with the data released shortly after discovery, turned out to be simply near-resonances. I'm the author of that web page. I'll update it soon to reflect the current data. I found this discussion from my web logs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.186.100 ( talk) 05:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You changed the diameter estimate in the article from "1300-1800" (my edit) to "1200-1600". It seems the source we both used (Brown 2007) is self-contradicting: in the section on Sedna it gives the lower estimate, in Table 1 at the end it gives the higher one. Maybe we should find a better reference. -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 16:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you go to the wikipedia article, it mentions that the mean radius is 256 km. Do you think this is true? Either way I would be wrong, but 130 km is definitely nowhere near 256 km. Please answer - Interchange88 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC).
If you check the edit history of the article, you wil see that the mean radius has been changed/revised a few times. I will upload a more up-to-date comparison soon. Thanks for pointing that out - -- Interchange88 ( talk) 17:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
K, I'm not so sure that ref you provided would stand up to GA scrutiny. It's certainly not a published source, and borders on original research. Serendi pod ous 18:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW: Great edit on the classification section. :=) Serendi pod ous 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 3 Juno, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 4 Vesta, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Once List of planetary bodies or whatever we finally decide to call it is fully referenced (a long, slow and suicidally boring task) I intend to bring it up for featured list review. The Solar System FT reviewers have demanded that more lists be included, so I've begun a serious drive to get more lists up to FL status. One tack I'm considering following is to merge list of Solar System objects by mass, list of solar system objects by radius and list of solar system objects by surface gravity into a single, sortable list. Do you think there are enough good sources to track down the mass and radius of all the objects? Serendi pod ous 13:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to give this some thought. There appears to be difficulty in figuring out the diameter (within a factor of about 2) for typical objects beyond Saturn. For example 2060 Chiron was estimated as 208km in diameter by Campins in 1994, 142km in diameter by spectroscopic observations in 2003, and 230km in diameter by Spitzer in 2007. Since it is not a binary object, we have no idea what it's mass/density is. So for non-binary TNOs I have some confidence in the diameters, but no real confidence in the "unreferenced wiki-assumed" masses/densities.
For the main belt, since it is so much closer and been studied longer, the diameters are known fairly well. But even the mass of 2 Pallas has recently varied from 3.1×1020 (Hilton1999) to 2.3×1020 (Goffin2001) to 2.1×1020 (Baer/Chesley2008). The mass calculations of Pallas and Ceres are interconnected, as the mass of one goes up, the mass of the other will go down. Mass estimates of 4 Vesta have been consistent
52 Europa (300km) was considered the sixth most massive asteroid at 5.2×1020 kg (Michalak2001), but (Baer/Chesley2008) seem to believe it is highly porous at 1.9×1019 and may have suffered a severe collision. Even 9 Metis (a 190km asteroid that may be the core remnant of a disrupted large asteroid) may be more massive. A lot of asteroids are just starting to get their first mass estimates. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Kheider,
You recently updated the estimated mass of 28978 Ixion. Could you also update and ref the diameter?
Thanks, kwami ( talk) 09:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that this article is undergoing a GA reassessment as part of the GA sweeps. It has been on hold for over two weeks, but several concerns remain. If they are not addressed soon, I will have to delist the article. Because it is part of the Main asteroid belt Featured Topic, this would also mean that the Featured Topic would be delisted. There's not much left to do, so any help you can provide would be great. The reassessment page is here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It might be simpler just to make the list sortable, and then sort it. Also, I think radius and surface gravity can also be included. I'll help you with it if you want to do it. Serendi pod ous 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I used the work of Karkoschka of 2001 ( Karkoschka, Erich (2001). "Voyager's Eleventh Discovery of a Satellite of Uranus and Photometry and the First Size Measurements of Nine Satellites". Icarus. 151: 69–77. doi: 10.1006/icar.2001.6597.). He reproceessed old Voayger 2 images and arrived at larger values for sizes. I think NASA/JPL still use older date from Thomas, 1988 (or Davies, 1992). I think Karkoschka's estimates are better. Ruslik ( talk) 06:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
If you want to read this paper I uploaded it to filefactory (see http://www.filefactory.com/file/4ba0e6/n/Icarus_Karkoschka_2001c_pdf ) Ruslik ( talk) 08:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You must find a better way to include that information. Right now it looks like vandalism. Serendi pod ous 00:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Sorry I got mad. Serendi pod ous 03:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Please be careful. If you change an object's radius, please remember to move it up the chart. Serendi pod ous 21:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if that post came across as a bit accusatory. It's not so much meant to reflect on you as on the strange situation Wikipedia's in right now. I wish there was a better alternative, but there isn't right now. All we can do is be sure to clearly state our sources. Serendi pod ous 10:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I nominated this list to WP:FLC. Ruslik ( talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering what source you used for the albedo range; I need to cite it for my FLC. Thanks. Serendi pod ous 20:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There are some discrepancies between the largest asteroids on this page and the asteroids on the size list. Since neither is cited, I don't know which is right. Serendi pod ous 13:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, those 3 were making me make weird faces back in November: :-)
-- Kheider ( talk) 17:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Red links from List of plutoid candidates (Object, Absolute Magnitude (H), Burton km diameter (generic assumed albedo 0.09):
Sorry if this is a burden, but could you check these with Baer? Serendi pod ous 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for having to take out the dimensions you put; I couldn't find those exact set of numbers anywhere in the tables of Rabinowitz et al. or Stansberry et al.. Feel free to change it back, if you could let me know where they were, or if you prefer we can discuss it instead on the talk page at Haumea. Iridia ( talk) 10:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Was that vandalism or just crazy talk? I dunno. I think if we don't refute their arguments they'll just keep coming. Serendi pod ous 18:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Could you add something at orbital resonance about resonance orders and the strength of a resonance? I can't tell from your description at Haumea if the resonance gets weaker as the ratio approaches 1 or as it approaches 0; the wording ("the lower the difference") makes it sound like the former, but that would mean a 1:1 resonance is the weakest possible. kwami ( talk) 21:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Don't know why I saved that. Serendi pod ous 15:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice you do that when you're attempting to calculate the masses of small objects. Do you also assume that they are spherical? I need to know because I might have to do it. Serendi pod ous 16:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been using 2.0 density to complete the top list, and including Earth comparisons, which works somewhat against your point in the introduction, which I hadn't noticed before now. So I think we need to come together on what should be included. Serendi pod ous 19:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Using the singular does appear to be the standard, so I would. Serendi pod ous 10:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm probably going to include data about Venus-Earth approaches. But if I do, I'll post a spreadsheet or files on my Google account, so you can check for typos.
About the argument that the calculations were OR. Some OR edits do consist of editors making calculations that are not straightforward, and possibly going beyond their ability level. Those are suspect. But in my edits I just got the predictions from a source, which can and should be be judged on its merits, not whether I am using it in an OR manner. And in fact, Solex matches Vitagliano's other long term predictions that are included in Wikipedia. Solex can hardly predict the positions so well at 100k+ years, and not well enough to make these predictions much closer to the present. By the way, the main uncertainty is in the incomplete modeling of the asteroid belt, so like Vitagliano I ran the simulations with and without the big three asteroids, to check for differences the asteroid belt would make. I also tried different starting positions (DE421, DE200, etc), as a check for that uncertainty.
As for whether this all is OR, I argue that using some quality program is the equivalent of getting these numbers from a peer-reviewed article or a source like the Astronomical Almanac because it is also certified by experts to be reliable, and I am using it in its intended manner. OR is about going beyond the sources; this is just the routine uses of one Saros136 ( talk) 10:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kheider, I'm currently doing a lot of work on this article; I'm hoping to get it up to good article status. You've made more than a few edits there so I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping out.
Cheers, Reyk YO! 10:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey,
Before we start adding stuff to Nice model, let's see if Iridia wishes to do a page move to preserve the article's history. kwami ( talk) 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you're interested in astronomy, and have some expertise in the area of featured articles. Would you be interested in reviewing 243 Ida? Wronkiew ( talk) 06:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. As you've pretty much asserted yourself as somewhat of an expert on astronomy, I was wondering if you could find a better image of Pallas. I asked on the talk page and got nothing. The one we have is good, but do you know where we could get a less depressing to look at and more educational colored image? Or do you have some idea what it would look like in true color? I'm guessing probably like Ceres or Vesta. I contacted the media director of this article about releasing these images (the detail is much better I think) but didn't get a response, though I could just take 'em a credit the page and author and that they were taken with the HST as I did with the current one. -- IdLoveOne ( talk) 00:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind please updating the dimensions, orbit info and the like per the new Ragozzine and Brown ref I added a few days ago? I'm going to get back there and incorporate the new info from that ref into the article once I've done a bit more on Nice model, but it seems a pity to leave the technical details incorrect in the meantime, and you're good on these things :) Iridia ( talk) 07:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I kinda asked for it after finally blowing my top at Fotaun. I was hoping to woo him back into the fold but he seems to have permanently absconded. Not that I blame him. Anyway, now I have to sort through and source all of Fotaun's mass edits, as well as figure out how to fill the remaining gaps. I have the top list pretty well sorted; all that's required is filling in the blank fields. There are, however, a lot left to do. It's the lower lists I can't figure. What values should I use, do you think? Serendi pod ous 16:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
I noticed that your frequently revert vandalism. To my surprise, I discovered that you do not have rollback! Would not you mind if I assign rollback bit to your account? Ruslik ( talk) 19:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with your NPOV-conscious addition (after all, the Gladman’s scheme is not always followed in the same Arizona book). However, the place of your ref is a bit awkward, as the Chiang’s article you quote appeared in the previous collection (Protostars and Planets, 2007) from the same renowned series (University of Arizona Space Science Series). Suggest re-ordering. Eurocommuter ( talk) 13:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you be interested in finishing that off with me? I know the job is immensely tedious but I can't do it alone, and now that Fotaun is out of the picture, I have no one to get me started. The attributes of the remaining 200km+ objects, since they're all constant and based on the assumed radius, should be pretty simple (if not easy) to finish. As for the rest I have no idea. This list will have to be filled in, reffed and checked for comprehensiveness. The asterisks will have to be converted to Ref_label format. Before Fotaun went off in a huff (or before I scared him off, not sure which), he seemed to be intent on making the list comprehensive for objects above 50km in radius. I have no idea if he succeeded. Serendi pod ous 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I just finished the 200+ sortable table, so at least this page is, to a certain extent, useful. Do you have any ideas on where I could go to finish and cite this monster? Serendi pod ous 11:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Truly sorry, I think I was a bit too bold in using AutoEd. I guess the error came from removing a self-reference within the article. Thanks for the warning Dr. Breznjev ( talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is another example why I should be extra careful when editing scientific articles with mathematical or astronomical subjects. In the mean time, I have repaired another mistake. Thank you! Dr. Breznjev ( talk) 19:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/jup/leda.htm says that the image is in the public domain. (It is created by NASA/JPL). Ruslik_ Zero 19:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Does that happen often? I came back this morning to find the page slapped with an autoprotect. Seemed a bit rough - he'd done nothing to that page that was unconstructive. -- Iridia ( talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Well, afair this image comes from en.wikipedia, I just moved it to Commons. In my opinion the best way is to contact with Scott Sheppard via mail from his website and take permission for this and other images and send it to OTRS. I don't have any 'astronomic' experience, so if you can contact with Mr. Sheppard I will be grateful :). Yarl ✉ 10:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
"The definition of a detached object has even recently changed..." citation needed Nergaal ( talk) 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
While adding an external link (to my website describing precovery astrometry) for this object, I took the opportunity to correct the upcoming perihelion date. You reverted it, saying that the "Orbit not determined well enough to pindown the exact day". As a result of my precovery work, involving the finding and measuring of images from nine plates at seven oppositions back to 1980, this TNO has now been observed for a total of 28 years, and the orbit is very well known and the date of perihelion is known to within one day. I even got the opportunity to account for planetary perturbations, so that my perihelion date of November 1, 2096, is based on osculating elements from the same date. Just thought you might want to know the background to my edit.. Lowe4091 ( talk) 23:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, regarding your note about using DSS images within Wikipedia, the following guidelines might be of interest: http://www.stsci.edu/institute/Copyright Lowe4091 ( talk) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Great work for getting approval for 2007 UK126! Take any of my other images: http://members.shaw.ca/andrewlowe/tno-precoveries.htm Lowe4091 ( talk) 19:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, that upper star in the image for 2007 UK126 is mag. 14.1 Lowe4091 ( talk) 19:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
For tenacious knowledge of astronomy and contributions to astronomy articles. |
I have a reduced HST image of Orcus/Vanth lying around on my hard drive. Though figuring out which orbit I got it from might be a bit more tricky. HST data is fine to go on Wikicommons, yes? Iridia ( talk) 22:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
because I wish I could do it myself, but could you name Weywot, please? Serendi pod ous 11:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Apropos your quick repost to my discussion on the apparent visual magnitude for Mercury.
You are at liberty to do the calculations and to ignore the extremes, as you put it. The following may be of interest.
John C. Vetterlein
J. Br. Astron. Assoc. 116, 5, 2006:
It is not generally appreciated just how bright Mercury appears when close to superior conjunction. It is interesting to compare
the two events this year when Mercury and Venus both reach superior conjunction. On 2006 May 18, Mercury was at magnitude
–2.3. When compared to the data for Venus at superior conjunction on October 27, we find that the surface brightness per unit area will be almost identical for both planets. Put another way, Mercury would be at magnitude –3.7 if it had the same apparent diameter as Venus. (Venus on October 27 will be at magnitude –3.9.) There are times in fact when the surface brightness per unit area for Mercury outdoes Venus herself. Naturally, when Mercury is close to inferior conjunction it is both faint and too close to the Sun to even attempt an observation.
I have been an observer of Mercury for over fifty years. -- 86.167.31.80 ( talk) (aka Wilberfalse ( talk)) 11:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a clarify tag in the Mass section of Halley's infobox, but I'm not entirely clear what it's saying. Is it saying that we have no idea at all what Halley's mass is? Since this falls under your jurisdiction I thought I'd ask you before making any further assumptions. Serendi pod ous 22:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
If Halley goes to FAC, would you be interested in being listed as a co-nominator? Serendi pod ous 15:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
In your opinion, if you might spare it, which objects should be added and which should be dropped? Serendi pod ous 19:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of having a name for "real" moons like ours, which are actual worlds, as opposed to the bits of rubble orbiting, say, Mars. But why "terrestrial"? We didn't consider Pluto to be a terrestrial planet, so why should Triton be considered a terrestrial satellite? kwami ( talk) 08:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy 2010! We have not talked much, but I am always amazed how often I find your edits among the vasts sea of objects in space! Have a great year. Fotaun ( talk) 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Might me of interest if you have not seen it already: [2] [3] Fotaun ( talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't seem to avoid getting into scraps over that bloody article. I just got warned for edit warring on that page. I dunno. I sometimes wish more people had the page on their watchlists so I didn't have to wade in at nearly every opportunity, but I can't shake the feeling that *gulp* maybe HarryAlffa had a point. Serendi pod ous 13:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not put parameter view=Far to JPL Small Solar System Body Browser URLs on comet pages. — Chesnok ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Would it not be better to have the new data rather than the out of date data on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 03jmgibbens ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kheider. When I uploaded the pictures, I don't know that the license was not compatible with commons. Thanks and greetings. Marcosm21 ( talk) 17:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thanks -- Demomoer ( talk) 06:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs ( talk) 03:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. My preference was to have the data presented in the most prominent place, but I was not sure if it was appropriate to undo the other user moving it. James McBride ( talk) 04:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I know a bunch of us have been less than keen for a while on the state of Template:Trans-Neptunian objects, and I finally felt motivated to try and go through the necessary bureaucratic steps to put the old girl out to pasture. Please consider contributing at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Trans-Neptunian objects. The Tom ( talk) 21:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Per your latest edit, AFAIK, H.E. does not require differentiation, even if differentiation predicates H.E. S.t. Ceres' size may very well be differentiated, but AFAIK we have no evidence for it. — kwami ( talk) 09:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering, I don't have the tools to do it right, but do you think you could crop and brush up the corner of the Solar System image so that it shows only the orbit of Sedna? The other three screens are not really necessary and they make it hard to see. Thanks.
PS. Purely a formality (I was going to do it anyway), but I should ask you whether you wish to be listed as a co-nominator should I take Sedna to FAC. Serendi pod ous 20:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Your figures (I think they're your figures- they usually are :) ) for Sedna's mass are based on assumed densities. I was wondering why you selected those densities to assume? Serendi pod ous 18:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
That decision was ridiculous. The deleter appeared to have no comprehension of the issues involved, this has survived previous objections, and there was no community discussion--censorship by bureaucrats. I've restored the image: let's have a real IfD discussion if we're gonna have one. (Under BRD, he made the bold decision to delete, I reverted, now he needs to discuss.) — kwami ( talk) 09:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't really know how to respond to the objection on Talk: 90377 Sedna, since I didn't write the equations. Could you help? Serendi pod ous 07:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
An article you signifigantly contributed to, 90377 Sedna, is one of the 3000th FAs. Congradulations! Res Mar 00:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
— Paine ( Ellsworth's Climax) 05:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've added a reply to your comment in Talk:List of most distant astronomical object record holders. -- Micru ( talk) 14:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The occultation results are very preliminary, and I don't think we can start drawing any firm conclusions from them as of yet. Serendi pod ous 09:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I obviously missed one of the IP's edits when I reverted them - making it look like I made the edit. ;) -RadicalOne• Contact Me• Chase My Tail 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nothing to worry about. This is just the required notice that I've mentioned you at WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by IP user concerning the above IP user. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I want to clarify that the absolute magnitude of Ixion in the V-band is 3.86 and in the R-band 3.25 (See this or this). JPL unfortunately often confuses them. Ruslik_ Zero 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The astronomical unit is a measure of the distance between the Earth and the Sun that serves the basis for parallax measurements and many solar system measurements. What basis do you have for claiming that secular variations of planetary orbits have to do with this particular distance? Please make a mathematical argument or a cited argument from the literature. jps ( talk) 19:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
BLPs require reliable sources, not months, if not years worth of waiting for somebody to notice a cn tag and decide to do something about it. Corvus cornix talk 21:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
is interested in interviewing three members of WP:Solar System about the project. Just thought I'd post to see if you were interested. Serendi pod ous 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
On 21 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tyche (planet), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1999, a giant planet was hypothesized to exist in the outer Oort cloud of the solar system, but most astronomers are skeptical of its existence? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 06:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you check Oort cloud for me? I have no idea what to do. Serendi pod ous 22:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
How do you set epoch 2020-Jan-01 at JPL page for the comet Elenin. Also, I see you reverted or edited many of my edits that came from JPL page for Elenin. Are you implying they are all incorrect? Is there a website that gives more accurate values? Thanks Wildespace ( talk) 15:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You will find for the epoch 2020-Jan-01, that the semi-major axis (A) is 459 AU, AD (Apoapsis distance) = 919 AU, and the period is 3.6*10^6/365.25=9,856 yrs. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Please could you confirm your interest in being interviewed by the signpost. Thomas888b ( Say Hi) 16:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Argh. That was pretty bad. I knew I wouldn't be able to talk about myself without sounding like a total douche. It never occurs to me until the moment that I can't think of the right things to say in those situations. Serendi pod ous 00:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kheider,
Thanks for your message on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cmglee .
I learnt that "they are probably both correct; the first [Mare Foecunditatis] is classical Latin, the other one [Mare Fecunditatis] probably late vulgar Latin...".
Nevertheless, I've redrawn the image as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_names.svg with your suggested correction for consistency.
As it is now a simple text file, feel free to make any more corrections, improvements or translations.
Best wishes, Cmglee ( talk) 17:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello... FYI, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Credo accounts as you're active on FAs and GAs. I mentioned this to Serendipodous a few days ago but went offline before I could post here. Sorry for the delay. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 09:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
You really should add something about the conspiracy theories surrounding the comet's arrival. Otherwise people are just going to keep rewriting it forever. I would suggest Ask an Astrobiologist would be a good place to start for debunking tools. Poor David Morrison deals with the woo woos up close. You belong to Elenin's forum, right? You might ask him how he feels that some assume that he doesn't exist and that his name is in fact a code for ELE-NIN, or " NIN's Extinction Level Event". That would give both you and me a killer usable quote. Serendi pod ous 12:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. C/2002 V1 (NEAT) first arrived at a distance that was closer to the Sun than the asteroid belt in September 2002. However it was not discovered until November. Thus this refers to the comet's early orbit rather than perihelion. Thanks. ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 19:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Would the new image be more suitable? Thanks. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Are astronomers 100% certain the transit of Earth from Mars will happen or is there a slight possibility that the course of the orbit will be put of an event in space? Pass a Method talk 16:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The ball is definitely rolling on the Les Golden article now with its coi/notability problems. I didn't say anything before, but I did wonder why he called you since I didn't see anywhere that you had edited the article. But then I figured it wasn't my place to pry into other people's personal lives. I guess maybe it was because of your interest in astronomy and that's what he got a degree in? Anyway, now I'm off to clean up his mess. SQGibbon ( talk) 03:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This illustration credits NASA with the "red Snow White" image. Since all it is is a tinted version of an image created on Wikipedia, I say if they credit NASA, we can too. Do you have the know-how to paste it into the main picture? Serendi pod ous 13:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could I ask for your input at Talk:Dwarf planet to help resolve this dispute? Whichever way it ends up, at least we'd have a consensus. I find Kwami's continual insistence on inserting his text very frustrating, especially in light of the fact it is under discussion and contested. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 17:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I started an article about 2004 BX159 because it seemed important (1200 meters, 98,000 megatons, close- approach; well, seemed important to me, anyway). Now I'm not so sure, because the JPL small-body and NEO Close Approach data do not seem consistent. The former indicates eccentricity .38, perihelion 1.5AU, and semi-major axis 2.4AU, which would seem to put the asteroid well outside Earth orbit; OTOH the latter shows a close approach with distance 7.6 Earth radii (.0003AU) and a width of 1060 radii (.046 AU). Trying to visualize that, it just doesn't seem reasonable that (with the given perihelion and semi-major figures) the asteroid could get that close to Earth. I would like suggestions on whether to just request delete for the page; or if not, where I might place a link to the page so it is no longer orphaned. (I'm asking you because of your work on YU55.) CoyneT talk 04:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
That guy isn't giving up. I've already exceeded 3RR. You'll have to take it from here. Serendi pod ous 21:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Your original edits were very helpful in restoring neutrality to the article Nemesis (hypothetical star) and are to be commended.
However now you are starting to exhibit bias in the other direction. Please remember that Wikipedia is not for pushing your personal opinions. You should be able to handle it when someone posts a source that is contrary to what you believe, as long as the source is valid. It cab be helpful to learn the difference between manipulation or campaigning and unbiased journalistic neutrality.
Warning: Your revision notes in "History" are also becoming over-emotional-- posting long lines of exclamation points after a revert (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) are frowned upon in Wikipedia and can get you blocked or banned.
I am giving you fair warning that I will report you if you don't calm your self down and remember to tolerate all citable facts, whether or not you personally feel they forward your own personal views. -- 69.171.160.51 ( talk) 15:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Please Note Also: If the "ancient passing non-companion star theory" is acceptable in the article (also as yet unproven) then so also is the Tyche theory (both should be there, because both relate to the credibility of the Nemesis (hypothetical star) theory).
You can't let one theory in and then take the other one out, just because you like one and not the other. You originally did help to make the article more neutral, but now you appear to be pushing your own opinions, exhibiting bias yourself (only theories that support your opinions are allowed in the article, but those theories that don't support your opinons are not). You might also want to review this article, about the word " Unbiased". -- 69.171.160.51 ( talk) 16:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
List of potential woo-woos: 129.82.30.193
(Saving in case I want it): I am requesting Semi-protection for the Nemesis (hypothetical star) article because it has become a victim of disruptive editing which has ignored the consensus on the talk page. The disruptive behavior has come from the anon-IPs:
Eeek. Sorry about that - thanks for catching it.
Incidentally, I do know of a Show Low... -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 01:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Kheider! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Thank you. I had a problem to specify it. Your proposition looks good and I'll modify remainig boxes on other articles. Danim ( talk) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. My editing of Pluto has been questioned (on my talk page), and I referred to your comment of some weeks back. I'd just moved the inline references to the {{ reflist}} and have also started using proper lists in the infobox. Comment welcome, although I have to go out, soon. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 ( talk) 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kheider, Any news on that reference (0.3 AU)? Did you email Dr. Benner? nagualdesign ( talk) 23:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_reliable_media_reports_as_secondary_sources_to_support_primary_sources. Viriditas ( talk) 22:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You added a statement that Lovejoy is the brightest (EDIT: Sungrazer) comet ever observed by the SOHO instruments. Where did you get that information from?? The article is now somewhat self-contradictory, stating simultaneously that C/2006 P1 was brighter by 2 magnitudes (it very likely was brighter judging by images) and C/2002 V1 seemed brighter as well, even as it recorded a lower visual magnitude. As a Kreutz Sungrazer, Lovejoy's properties may be different. However, it looks much smaller than those other comets. Please back up any information using citations. Thanks. ~ AH1 ( discuss!) 20:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Come on, Kheider. No reason to mock. Sheppard put Makemake on par with the Brown four, Tancredi notes that only the three Sheppard accepts unequivocally are actually known rather than estimated to be DPs, and even the IAU has set out provisions for the case that they turn out not to be DPs. Our individual articles for these, as well as the other Tancredi twelve, reflect the degree of certainty in their lead sentences, except for Makemake & Haumea. I'm sure you can come up with a better defense for your position than UFOs. — kwami ( talk) 02:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
*sigh* Kheider, you're intelligent. I find it very difficult to believe that you believe the stuff that you say. You are obviously also literate, so I can't explain your repeated inability to understand what I write.
I am not mocking the IAU, and if I were, what has that to do with WP? There is no rational connection. I have no problem with the IAU, actually; the problem is that they haven't done anything in 3 years, and I do not accept as you seem to that scientific conclusions are determined by committee, and must be put on hold when the committee is out of session.
I never claimed that Makemake was not massive enough to be a DP. You've got to know by now that is not the issue, don't you? The issue is that Makemake is not known to be a DP. That's all. You've seen the refs: Tancredi, Sheppard, the IAU itself. Are you honestly saying that Sheppard's motivation is to mock the IAU?
(And, of course, you are unable to defend against that same argument: do you have any ref that Sedna or OR10 are not massive enough to be DPs?)
BTW, your "scientists are not 100% certain" comment certainly strikes me as mocking. I can think of no good-faith reason for writing something like that.
I do not understand why you are so resistant to following sources. In science there are almost always going to be a variety of opinions, and it is our responsibility to reflect them. According to Tancredi, now a bit dated, there are 12 demonstrable DPs. According to Sheppard, there are 3. According to Brown, there are 9. It is the refusal to follow such sources that IMO is making a mockery of WP, and endangering the FA status of these articles. — kwami ( talk) 12:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you revert to your version of OR10? Rus is continuing his uninformed edit war there now. — kwami ( talk) 19:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Sedna and Ckatz' revision seem good to me. The only quibble I have offhand is priority. In order of importance/interest, I'd say the top by far is that this is the most distant significant body known. That's already partly covered by the first line, though I think we could make it more explicit (in a couple words, since we cover it in the 2nd paragraph.) The 2nd greatest interest is that it's a likely DP (though that's of practically no true importance, as DP is not a particularly meaningful classification). I would therefore want to move that statement up a line. Surface composition is a distant 3rd, or maybe 4th. Maybe move up 'reddest' too, as it's more accessible than "tholins" to most of our audience: Farthest – likely DP – reddest – composition. Does that seem reasonable? — kwami ( talk) 21:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed Sila-Nunam from List of dwarf planet candidates again because we're limiting the list to bodies with H < 6, and either Sila or Nunam would be over 6, since they are 5.52 combined and the delta-H is 0.12. — kwami ( talk) 02:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Kheider, could you explain to Ruslik that comments belong in the comment section, not plastered all over the quotations? Esp. not things like "you're lying" or "you're wrong": If he thinks he knows more than the authors of these articles, he should present new refs that back him up, and discuss them in the discussion section. The whole point of having a separate quotes section is so that we can all refer to them without them getting lost in reams of debate. — kwami ( talk) 15:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Per this edit, are you saying the Jovian system is a quintuple planet? — kwami ( talk) 12:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I added "For comparison, the meteorite that excavated Meteor Crater, which is 1.2 km ( .74 mi ) wide, was about 50 meters across.", because as a non expert I found it hard to figure out what the magnitude of the damage would be if 2011 AG5 were to hit earth ( a gross estimate anyway ). Could you reconsider reverting or suggest a better comparison? Stating the kinetic energy in megatons would be nice, but I haven't found such data and it would still be much more technical than crater size. -- Carel.jonkhout ( talk) 04:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The section deals with cultural references related to the 2012 phenomenon. The fact that the show was released in 2012 is hardly sufficient evidence of a nexus between the two. Granted, I think it's clear they are capitalizing on the 2012 fervor because of all the talk of end-times, but you'll need to find a citation linking the two. Perhaps there's an episode specifically dealing with doomsday preppers who think the world will end in 2012 based on the Mayan calendar? JoelWhy ( talk) 14:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You recently said "third revert of byelf2007". That's not the case. You did only a second one.
The first time I got reverted I said "most" instead of "the vast majority of", so while I've been reverted three times recently, these were concerning two different types of edits. Byelf2007 ( talk) 11 April 2012
I just created Sutter's Mill meteorite. Then I noticed your great content on the bolide in Lyrids. I've put links in from Carbonaceous chondrite and Lyrids, and just copied your text over. But I wonder if there is a better way for you to get credit for the content (e.g. revert mine and let you add it). ★NealMcB★ ( talk) 14:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
You may be interested in this discussion. Ruslik_ Zero 17:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Doh! Thanks for catching my mistake! Was an embarrassing typo! Benkenobi18 ( talk) 18:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello there, while Fair Use images consists on the usage of medium to low resolution images, images copyright free or with free licenses do not limits the usage of high resolution images, images with low resolution have a inhuman aspect and does not pass a substantial or near real impression, this is why we can count on artistic impression, to give the reader the idea (based on a actual image, not randomly based) of the rendered planet if we could see it with naked eyes. Thanks in advance. Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 15:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but what world do you live in? I don't see any consensus there. A consensus would be everyone supporting the move, yet everyone is NOT doing that and there are many Oppose posts. Trying to gag people who go against your agenda is very shallow and it's quite obvious you're on a power trip. You started editing this page from P1 just 4 days ago. What consensus did you have for that? Where was the discussion? Because I surely couldn't find it....
Sorry, but until there is a clear consensus and if the page is moved to 134340, I will continue to edit the article as it is reflected in the article name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.183.175 ( talk) 06:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
appears to better reflect the object's actual colour. I was thinking maybe of subbing it in File:EightTNOs.png Serendi pod ous 16:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my mistake! -- Anti-Quasar ( talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You might like to see Talk:History of Mars observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberian Patriot ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It is somewhat odd that the view count is spiking every other day. If the wiki counter is being deliberately manipulated, is there anything we can do about it? Serendi pod ous 06:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it worth taking Mauro Lauri to ANI? He's contributed nothing and merely acted antagonistic. Serendi pod ous 16:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I've just nominated the article for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/C/2012 S1, and I thought you might like to write an alternate hook. I'm really looking forward to November 2013. Cheers. Braincricket ( talk) 00:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
On 2 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article C/2012 S1, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when the newly discovered comet C/2012 S1 reaches its perihelion on 28 November 2013, it may appear brighter than the full moon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/C/2012 S1. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I did a quick news search when I came across the Novato meteorite article at new pages and apparently a fourth fragment was found according to this news story from yesterday. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 17:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I see that you have recently added three-letter abbreviations for many well-known meteor showers. Is there a printed or reliable source for this (i.e. is this used by meteor observers) or is this your own invention? AstroLynx ( talk) 14:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :).
I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).
You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I opened a move request in Talk:79360_Sila–Nunam#Requested_move. You are receiving this notice beause you have made substantial changes to the article. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Finding sources on that topic is hard at the best of times, and now that David Morrison has officially retired from doomsday countering, I don't have an easy port of call. Serendi pod ous 10:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
Awarded for continued excellence and perseverance in writing, defending, expanding, and improving space related content. Fotaun ( talk) 01:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC) |
I note with interest your revert of my edit with the note "No, Oort cloud objects do not bounce "star to star"", which was not what I had written. Since the existence of the Oort Cloud is inferred a lot of its qualities are the subject of speculation. The extent of the Oort Cloud around a star (as I understand it) includes the matter at the very limits of its gravitational dominance, a dominance which automatically passes to the next nearest star and its gravitational field. I don't understand why the effects of the "Galactic tide", which I presume to mean the collective gravitational force of all the matter within the Galaxy, should be larger than that of stars in the neighbourhood. My view of the movement of the outermost parts would be more of a slow drift between the stars. I would love to know more about the reasons behind your emphatic rebuttal. cheers Paul venter ( talk) 07:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my bad PROD on HD 135944. When I prodded it, I was accidentally looking at the absolute magnitude instead of the apparent magnitude. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 03:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you *very much* for *all* your recent help with the 2012 YQ1 asteroid article - it's *very much* appreciated - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 20:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I think that the internal links you create in this edit are wrong according to WP:EASTEREGG : the reader has absolutely no way to know what is linked. So I suggest to remove them again. Regards, Freewol ( talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Plase check Talk:2012_DA14#ADD_SUBSECTION.2C_SUGGESTION answer, to avoid rv. -- Krauss ( talk) 06:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It is see also NOT the main body of text and cited to a source. If you think its not realiable then discus that at RSN. -- Lihaas ( talk) 13:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kheider, I hope you're well. Looks like you're keeping busy! There's a bit of a puzzle that I thought you might be interested in. If you have the time please take a look here. I was hoping for someone else to join the discussion and you sprang to mind (after the work we did on 2005 YU55). Regards, nagualdesign ( talk) 05:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Oops. My bad. Perhaps they still count Pluto? And use the outdated number of 4 moons for it? I think we need a new citation for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.2.215.2 ( talk) 20:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Does this mean that JPL includes Pluto's moons in its figure of the number of planetary satellites (176)? -- JorisvS ( talk) 12:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Copernican principle". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 07:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
(About your recent rv) Please have a look here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:120347_Salacia — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONaNcle ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I still have half a mind that this user is sincere, although obviously sincere with a fixed opinion that they wish to promote in that article, and possibly pointed to it by others with a more definite agenda. I'm not the most tactful and diplomatic person in these situations, but when I try to imagine what it must be like for someone with zero background in "scholarship" then I start to see where they might be coming from. Apologies to you if I'm teaching grandmother to suck eggs. Lithopsian ( talk) 14:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
You know that you are at 3RR at 2MASS, right? I've already warned the IP about another article, will warn them about this one also. Dougweller ( talk) 15:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
When adding Google Translate URLs to the English Wikipedia, it's probably a good idea to use google.com rather than google.de. The usage of the latter appears to have caused some interesting knock-on effects when the bare URL reference was converted to use the cite web template.
The original article is in Russian, not German. Once the problems were identified, they were easily fixed.
I'm surprised no-one else spotted this in the last five months. Note too, the usage of |title=
and |trans-title=
in the latter edit. --
79.67.240.88 (
talk) 10:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Why did you address me in this edit summary? -- JorisvS ( talk) 13:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me, but you made an edit to a page I made, 2013 AZ60, and your edit was on Comet Hale-bopp not being discovered until it was 7.2 AU away from the Sun. I don't see how it is relevant to the article, and could you please edit it to make it more understandable or remove it? Thank you. -- exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 14:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I found it odd that when the first few days of observation of an object allowed some small likelihood of it impacting the earth years from now, NASA or others would assert that additional observations would probably rule out impact. One would certainly hope that is the case, but if wishes were horses all beggers would ride. I say this in the perspective of having recently read The Last Policeman, a novel about life in the months before an expected devastating asteroid impact. In that book, the chances of an impact started out small,like for this object, but over time increased. In this case, the chances start out small, but with the prediction that they will doubtless get smaller.Would the same reassuring statements be made by authorities if they were clueless about whether the data would eventually show an increasing or decreasing chance of impact? . Edison ( talk) 16:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Kheider.
About your undo of my edit to C/2012 S1, my edit of it was not heavily supported and was gained only from observations of the comet ISON recent movies. However, you claimed it "dissipated" but it did not dissipate completely. -142.136.145.221 (A.K.A Exoplanetaryscience)
You made this edit to some asteriod which involved putting in a date with last obs following it. Is my opinion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 25 that removing last obs would not improve article quality correct, or does it add no significant value and can be removed? Josh Parris 01:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
For outstanding contributions and editing on articles about space. Fotaun ( talk) 02:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
The WikiProject Barnstar | ||
For contributions to various projects and related articles. Fotaun ( talk) 02:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For your large contributions to knowledge and editing. Fotaun ( talk) 02:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
For helping keep the peace and outstanding endurance and patience. Fotaun ( talk) 02:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
I edited the Tyche page to reflect your mention that Tyche did not exist. Whether you think its OK or not, you can leave a message on my talk page. Thank you and have a Happy New year. -- 98.183.188.69 ( talk) 19:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
Hello Kheider: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Fotaun ( talk) 02:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Hello! Your submission of 2014 AA at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Miyagawa ( talk) 18:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
On 9 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2014 AA, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the asteroid 2014 AA entered Earth's atmosphere on the early morning of January 2, 2014, less than a day after it was discovered? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2014 AA. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kheider,
With a 2ary, I'd think we'd have the system mass by now, but I'm not coming up w anything. Any ideas? — kwami ( talk) 03:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
On 28 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2011 XC2, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the asteroid 2011 XC2 missed the Earth by less than 1 lunar distance on 3 December 2011? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2011 XC2. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it may be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 06:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Would there be a way to reference those values that are not yet referenced? [8] -- JorisvS ( talk) 20:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, aside from some of those listed, AstDys also lists 2010 GB174, (148209) 2000 CR105, and 2008 ST291 as currently farther from the Sun than 2004 XR190: [9] -- JorisvS ( talk) 20:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Re this: Not really, because 2004 DG77's provisional designation suggests an earlier time than 2004 XR190's. Unless you have ref for the former being 'late'? -- JorisvS ( talk) 22:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
You have quite the impressive resume for editing the outer Solar System. Normally I would think of you as quite the distinguished contributor. Which leaves me at a total loss as to why you are making an inaccurate edit to the Pluto page. You didn't provide proof of your edit because you couldn't. There is no way in Hades that you can claim that a complete survey of the outer solar system has been made. Instead you were rude and confrontational. Over just six bytes. Six bytes which definitely add to the accuracy of the article. Fine. I'm required to discuss this before it goes to the Administrators' noticeboard, so here is discussion. Show me some actual evidence that I'm wrong, and I will drop it. The ball is in your court. -- Will102
I was thinking, would there be a way in which we could automate all those recurring updates of orbital elements, maybe a bot reading JPL? -- JorisvS ( talk) 19:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Then now we should see how the bot should be programmed. Do you know anyone who can help? -- JorisvS ( talk) 20:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, we should use barycentric values, but without uncertainties they're false. Do you have fuller data? — kwami ( talk) 06:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
On 1 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2012 VP113, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Biden is believed to be an eccentric frozen pink dwarf? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2012 VP113. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I notice you added some symbols for orbital elements in Sedna and others. Rather than tag them on at every page, could it be added in the template? So the template would show, e.g., "Aphelion (Q) 35 AU". Tbayboy ( talk) 18:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent help - my intention of adding the arXiv reference to select Comet ISON articles was to help better explain the comet - however, please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the ref (& related) of course - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 12:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen it on many long-period/non-periodic comets' pages, and I get the impression that it is some kind of long-term estimation for the effect on a comet's path, but what exactly is it? I haven't been able to find the barycentric calculation on JPL, and the wikipedia page on it isn't very helpful, so could you try to explain what it is to me? -- exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 15:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention that I noticed that in a popular picture of the colors and absolute magnitude of different Kuiper belt objects (right)
that the scattered disk object 2000 CR105 was accidentally misspelled as 2000 CL105. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 17:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could add the parameter MOID to asteroids' orbital characteristics in the template Infobox planet. I would have added it myself but it appears to have been protected. I'm assuming you're a template editor or know an active user who is, as you seem to have received requests previously about similar things. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 18:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
On your recent edit to 2006 RH120, I looked on JPL's orbit simulator, and during the entire course of 2028 the asteroid never comes any closer than 1.876 AU (mid-march of the year), which could hardly be considered a close-approach. The close-approach data seems very odd considering the asteroid's orbit, but if you go to 2058, the asteroid makes a close approach bringing it only 0.0277 AU (~4.3 million kilometers) from Earth in October of the year. It may verge on original research, but having a certain amount of original research is certainly better than incorrect data, isn't it? 142.136.145.221 ( talk) 16:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you think it's time to update our MPC-derived images, like this, this or this? Most haven't been updated since 2007-2008; however, given that the number of known objects is likely to skyrocket soon, should we wait until, say, Pan-STARRS comes online? Serendi pod ous 10:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and...
The Space Barnstar | ||
Thanks for finding that citation; I sure as hell wouldn't have found it. And while it feels a bit like a capitulation, the guy did have a point, and thanks to you, it has been resolved. Would have been nicer if he'd managed to find it, but oh well... Serendi pod ous 14:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC) |
This edit is causing error. {{date=}} parameter is not for writing extended details, when you write details in that parameter it sends itself to the category of errors, look at Category:CS1 errors: dates. Date should only include the Date-Month-Year. Consider reverting all your edits that you've recently made in attempt to recover that error or you want me to do it for you? Thanks. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kheider, regarding this edit, may I ask the source? I could not locate that information. — Huntster ( t @ c) 06:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the discussion of how to define "meteor" at Meteor:Talk? User:HopsonRoad 17:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
"magnitude = 11-36: Can you name a date when the asteroid is brighter than mag 11? This is why Wikipedia:OR is frowned on. On 2009-Dec-16 asteroid was mag 36."
While the asteroid only reached magnitude 11 on the 2014-09-07 approach, the MOID says that it could theoretically be as close as 0.00003 AU from Earth, at which it would likely be at least magnitude 5, if not brighter considering the fact that the provided distance is geocentric and as such it would impact Earth. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 00:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Kheider:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
Halloween!
–
Serendi
pod
ous 15:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Serendipodous! Enjoy your Halloween as well. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
So whatever the next stage is would be appropriate. Serendi pod ous 20:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you do me a favour and give Murder of Kylie Maybury a once-over and clean-up? Paul Austin ( talk) 13:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Kheider,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
JorisvS (
talk) 16:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I figured that you might know better than anyone about this. Recently I've been doing a precovery image survey of TNOs such as 2003 UB292, 2008 VM49, 1999 CL119, 2004 XR190, 2012 BX85, and 2005 GX186. I plan ultimately to do a precovery image search of every TNO above H=7 (translating to approximately magnitude 23 or 24). I've managed to precover a few, and has even led to the numbering of 2012 BX85 (420356) because of precovery images from 2003. However I've encountered a problem that the largest portion of them move extremely slowly, so are hard to distinguish from background and permanent objects, and that they're extremely dim and hard to be sure that what I'm looking at is an object in the outer solar system, or a distant starforming galaxy. As a result, I look for images of the same area at wikisky, WISE, and 2MASS, but none of these have quite enough resolution to see dim TNOs of magnitude 22.5 or dimmer, which is most of them. As a result, it's hard to determine where objects of low-certainty are exactly. Do you know of any websites that have large image databases with a resolution near that of SDSS and whose images can be searched by RA and DEC? exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 17:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I kinda need your help updating the TNOs image. If that's OK with you. Serendi pod ous 12:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you, by any chance, know why the DES pages talk about "the following table comes from a 10My integration of the orbit of the object.", but then no longer have this table below it (e.g. [11])? -- JorisvS ( talk) 11:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed in the Bennu asteroid article that is an Apollo asteroid, and now I read that it is more likely that it originated from the Main Asteroid Belt: [13]. I don't know much about this; is this info contradictory or complementary? Thnks, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 23:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I was wondering where you were while I was going through the asteroids. I tried to be transparent and tried not to be too "bold" (I'll leave that to Boleyn). Glad you're back. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ contribs ⋅ dgaf) 16:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive886#User:Kheider_Adding_stuff_to_WP:Notability_.28astronomical_objects.29_to_point_to_at_AfD.The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects). Thank you. ― Padenton| ✉ 00:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it is worth noting the result of the content dispute at NASTRO for editors that may have an issue with Padenton in the future. (Update: User:Lukeno94 has been banned from Wikipedia.) -- Kheider ( talk) 15:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
In case you were thinking otherwise, I would like to note that I support your edits to WP:NASTRO, however that this has become bigger than it really should have been. However, I have been hesitant to take a position on the matter for fear of being dragged into it too. While I agree with your edits to WP:NASTRO, I believe, not only Padenton, but you, and essentially everyone involved has collectively let it grow into something much worse. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 22:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
talk 14:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC).
I've done the crime and the time. Lucky me. Actually, I can accept trading a 48 hour block for still being allowed to express my feeling towards some of Wikipedia's greatest flaws when it comes to the wiki-police and how it is common for a gang of users to ridicule others without fully studying the facts simply because they do not have the time and/or are enforcing some policy written by the wiki-police. There is a reason newbies are reluctant to become regulars on Wikipedia and most editors that have edited Wikipedia for as long as I have, just basically retire and walk away. What is funny is that during the asteroid re-direct discussions of March and April I was not even around to discuss the consensus that developed. I did not make a single edit to Wikipedia from March 5 to May 1. It will be a great loss to Wikipedia content (vs the wiki-police force and policies) if editors like myself leave because members such as Padenton are allowed to group attack people without bothering to properly look into the facts. Perhaps I should move my near-Earth asteroid work over to a SETI website, but then I would probably have to leave Wikipedia to prevent being further accused of a COI with my edits. After all, Wikipedia itself is NOT a reliable source, it is the verifiability of the reliable sources. -- Kheider ( talk) 16:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been in Prague for the last few days so I missed this whole kerfuffle. Wow. This sort of thing is what breaks Wikipedians, on top of the complete lack of thanks for the job we do. Sorry to see you go through that, Kev. Things need to change and fast if Wikipedia is going to last another decade. As far as deletionists go, there are always ways around their claws, if you're clever. Serendi pod ous 11:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I notice that you have been reverting my WolframAlpha-sourced changes to the J2000.0 mean anomaly value. If this is because WolframAlpha is inaccurate, then thank you, JPLSSD is definitely a better source! However, please note that per discussion here and here, the mean anomaly value is only meaningful and accurate if it is the mean anomaly at J2000.0 (1/15/2000 12:00 GMT). Are the JPLSSD values for the mean anomaly at this precise time? (Also, do you think you could shoot me a link for the precise place in JPLSSD where you are getting the values?) A2soup ( talk) 12:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
[14] Although it'll once have said 11400 years, I currently can't find neither 11400 years nor 4.154E+06 in the cited source ( [15]). I do find "PER= 10950.89409". -- JorisvS ( talk) 12:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Vesta's not a DP because of the impact at its south pole, not because of size. It underwent particular circumstances, circumstances that did not happen to Pallas, Hygiea, and Cybele. Just because X asteroid of comparable size got hit does not mean all are. We know about the same about Cybele, Hygiea, and Pallas in 2015 as we did in 2007. The info is still good in this case. -- DN-boards1 ( talk) 03:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Eunomia and Psyche aren't likely to have stayed in HE after their catastrophes, and Vesta for sure did not. But Cybele, Pallas, and Hygiea quite likely DID form in HE, and never experienced catastrophic impacts like those that Vesta, Psyche, and Eunomia did. Therefore, they SHOULD still be in HE. Images from Hubble of Pallas show a round object. -- DN-boards1 ( talk) 04:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Now, we can remove Ceres, known to be a dwarf planet. Vesta, Hygiea, and Davida aren't dwarfs. But of the rest, where do they stand? Which do we know enough about that we know they can't be dwarfs? You said that Interamnia's dimensions are poorly known, so we can place that in the "maybe" pile. Pallas is bigger than Vesta, and looks rounded, even, so we can put it in the "likely pile", and with Cybele being the right shape and size, it can go in that pile too. Hygiea fails the shape and density test, so goes in the "not" pile. But where do the others fall? -- DN-boards1 ( talk) 04:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
May you explain why exactly you think this comet's orbit doesn't have a semi-major axis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.140.139 ( talk) 08:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been copied to Talk:C/1980_E1 and should be continued there, as it pertains directly to the article. -- JustBerry ( talk) 01:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC) |
I just happen to come by to reply to another discussion taking place on your talk page. However, observing the great length of your talk page, I wanted to suggest that you look into archiving your talk page to keep it cleaner, shorter, and easier to work in. -- JustBerry ( talk) 01:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
At Formation and evolution of the Solar System, we have "The current standard theory for Solar System formation, the nebular hypothesis" [emphasis mine]. At Nebular hypothesis, we have "is the most widely accepted model in the field of cosmogony to explain the formation and evolution of the Solar System". Yet we call it nebular hypothesis? Do you know any good reason not to move it to "nebular theory"? -- JorisvS ( talk) 12:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I just got an email from David Morrison; not something I expected would ever happen again. Apparently, the web weather around Nibiru is getting a bit stormy; stormy enough at least for him to get swept up in it again. There does seem to be an upswing in Nibiru interest at grok.se and Google Trends but it appears to focus on this Youtube video which is so transparently a sundog I don't really know what to do with it. This is the closest I can find to a reliable source on the topic; the Irish Independent did a frankly shameful write-up on it which makes me question whether they can ever be called a reliable source. Any ideas as to where to go from here? Serendi pod ous 09:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
See: https://www.metabunk.org/explained-two-suns-sanibel-causeway-florida-offset-lens-reflection.t6932/ -- Kheider ( talk) 14:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know it's in the past (of course), and patently it was not true, but why is it not valid to discuss, in the article about PHAs, public fears about PHAs. It's certainly notable that NASA felt it necessary to issue a denial. Spinning Spark 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/WT1190F. Hi, I saw you have edited this article. You can help to fix some issues of this to article so that this article will feature on main page of Wikipedia within 2 days. Thanks. Human3015 TALK 14:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
This is User:Georgewilliamherbert in disguise... Out of curiosity are you on the Minor Planet Mailing List? Just saw flurry of alert stuff on there about WY032FF / 2015 YB... aha, my mail archive dragged you out from MPML posts in 2014 and 2013. Good job on the prompt update of the page here! 208.66.205.104 ( talk) 01:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Kheider, here's a link to the online tool I created for the revision of minor planet articles on wikipedia. Please check it out and give me a feedback if you want to. It is still a beta-version with lots of bugs and debug-comments, but it should work. Kind regards, Rfassbind – talk 16:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
There are now tools that actually rank a paper's impact by how many times it gets cited in Wikipedia [16]. This is a terrible idea, of course, for science, for Wikipedia, and it's unfair for the researchers themselves. An actual link in the citation does not seem to be necessary. Therefore, when a particular research group appears too often in too many articles, it's probably spam. This is a completely separate issue from the question of reliability. For the time being, most editors still think that being cited in Wikipedia "doesn't matter", but when it becomes widely known that it does matter enough to create COI issues, then I think the pitchforks will come out and guidelines on spam will be re-written to address this specifically. Geogene ( talk) 02:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
tags, and make people cite their edits more frequently, which is where help is needed. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 18:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)I have nominated Venus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Anon 09:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you know, or can you guess for me, why, for most categories that contain them, the preliminarily-designated asteroids are predominantly sorted without 0-padding, while the much larger number of numbered asteroids use 0-padding? Preliminary designated asteroids span (correct me if I'm wrong) the 19th-21st centuries, so it would be much easier to find them in a 0-padded list (they would be clumped) than in an article-name sorted list (they would be scattered), if that list contained both numbered and unnumbered asteroids. My guess is that this is a historical artifact of Wikipedia, perhaps because this interaction wasn't taken into account, or because it was easier at the time (prior to tools like AWB and the like), or that it was done prior to the mass-creation of numbered asteroid stubs. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I've been expanding the stub at Accretion (astrophysics) and I would be happy if you could please check it out and give it a makeup as needed. Thanks, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 14:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Though I am not insisting for the inclusion on this info, but it is part of the intro of the referenced Nature article. http://www.nature.com/news/evidence-grows-for-giant-planet-on-fringes-of-solar-system-1.19182 prokaryotes ( talk) 20:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead of the article is not the place to go into alternative names.....-- Kheider (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
A featured article is an article that has gone through a long and detailed review process. There are many that do include an alternate name. See....
The later is even an astronomy article!
Please reconsider your opinion. -- Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy ( talk) 01:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Check my recent edits to see the other articles I updated, and then let me know if I have made systematic errors. In that case I will fix them. Jehochman Talk 15:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Minor planet 90377 Sedna > Sedna (minor planet) discussion taking place at Talk:90377_Sedna#Odd_name. Please join in if it catches your fancy. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
As has been made clear in the recent Comets mailing list discussion on comet P/2010 V1 (Ikeya-Murakami), the comet has been fragmenting significantly in recent times with fragments ABCDE recognized by the MPC and fragments FG(H?) remaining not accepted. I have a project with the dynamic orbits of comets to work on at the moment, and I would greatly appreciate if you could do what you can to update the article to what is currently known. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 16:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Regards, nagual design 15:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting experiment on NEOs using the ExoMars: [18]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk)
Hi Kheider, I just want to run something by you regarding
this.
JPL and
MPC only provide a mean motion term with units of deg/day. {{
Infobox planet}}'s closest parameter is |p_mean_motion=
, which has units of deg/year (there is no |mean_motion=
). I assumed I could multiply JPL's deg/day value by 365.25 to determine |p_mean_motion=
since:
|p_mean_motion=
parameter (and excludes |mean_motion=
param),|mean_motion=
and not |p_mean_motion=
.My questions/observations are:
|p_mean_motion=
= |mean_motion=
* 365.25 is correct|mean_motion=
should be added to {{
Infobox planet}}What do you suggest? (P.S. My code added "(n)" after the |p_mean_motion=
value, which produced
this display error, and has now been corrected) ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 13:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey Kheider, I was cleaning up a reference error on 349 Dembowska when I noticed a dead link with your name on it. I ran a search which found 42 total like this. Spot-checking a few of these, I found that they're mostly, if not all, dead. Can you restore the documents to their current URLs or provide a new link to the old content and update these refs? Let me know if you want my automation services for any help. Thanks. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Kheider. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
For writing and or updating many articles about astronomy. Happy new year! Fotaun ( talk) 17:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
|
Hi Kheider, I've done some additional changes in 2012 DR30.
I saw you re-added the centaur classification to the article which seems to agree with the dynamical classification by DES but not by any means how JPL/MPC define centaurs. Don't you think that we should stick to a consistent classification system for all MPs on Wikipedia? I was also guessing that ejected centaur might apply, but you removed that as well. Is this just a special case I shouldn't worry about? Rfassbind – talk 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
Distant minor planets sidebar}}
Hey there, and welcome back to wikipedia I suppose! I've actually missed you a bit for help with some small body articles (we went through all of 2016 without a single linked asteroid on the asteroid approach list) as well as a fantastic wikipedian in general. Either way, I figured as the creator of category:ejected centaurs, that it was more of a filler category for objects that aren't necessarily damocloids/extinct comets, and orbit beyond Neptune, yet still remain under significant perturbational (rather than resonant) gravitational influence from any or all of the major planets. If you want to move it to category:Extended centaurs as suggested in the above discussion, I believe it would be quite appropriate. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 00:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Would you mind quickly cleaning up the now officially designated 2013 SY99? It's probably only a matter of hours before news sites notice it, hours I don't have at the moment. exoplanetaryscience ( talk)
Greetings Kheider! I noticed your many recent updates to comet infoboxes, thanks for that. FYI, you can save yourself some typing by using {{
cvt}} instead of {{
convert}}, which automatically sets the |abbr=on
parameter. See
an example of how it works. —
JFG
talk 07:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
How should we deal with the virtual impactors list after they (hopefully) don't hit us? Should we leave it up there, or take stuff off as it misses, or something else? exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 19:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
I recently created File:2023-10-14annularsolareclipsephases.jpg (a completely original piece of work based on my own software) to insert into the article on the October 14, 2023 annular eclipse. I can't figure out how to access the smaller-sized version to insert in the article. But perhaps a bigger question is whether you think it would be an appropriate addition; I was planning to add it to the right of the animated gif. Please let me know what you think... thanks!
Andrew
Hi Kevin,
I recently created File:2023-10-14annularsolareclipsephases.jpg (a completely original piece of work based on my own software) to insert into the article on the October 14, 2023 annular eclipse. I can't figure out how to access the smaller-sized version to insert in the article. But perhaps a bigger question is whether you think it would be an appropriate addition; I was planning to add it to the right of the animated gif. Please let me know what you think... thanks!
Andrew Lowe4091 ( talk) 21:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Kheider. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Kheider, this edit is not the best way to go. By directing readers to the archived version by default, you present them with the data we are using in the article, rather than whatever it might be at a future date. When we update the article, we can re-archive the SDBD page. — Huntster ( t @ c) 04:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
For outstanding contributions to astronomy, space exploration, and solar system objects. Have a great 2018 and thanks for your contributions. Fotaun ( talk) 17:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC) |
I propose to simplify minor-planet articles, by adding ;cad=1
to the URL of the <"jpldata" />
citation. Example:
<ref name="jpldata">{{cite web |type = 2016-09-12 last obs. |title = JPL Small-Body Database Browser: 7482 (1994 PC1) |url = http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=2007482;cad=1 |publisher = [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] |accessdate = 3 February 2018}}</ref>
I think I noticed this useful URL extension in one of your edits (but I cant be sure). As far as I see, we no-longer need a redundant <"jpl-close" />
cite when ;cad=1
is added to "jpldata" since this little addition opens up the "Close-Approach Data"-section. Do you agree with that? Best,
Rfassbind
– talk 04:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay (wiki didn't notify me).
{{
JPL}}
as just demonstrated.;cad=1#cad
does not throw an error, even if there is no such section in the object page.Hope that #1 and #2 is not an issue. I still have questions about how to cite best the Barycentric Osculating Orbital Elements in our minor-planet object articles. Best, Rfassbind – talk 08:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
JPL small body}}
now includes an item "
Close approach"
Rfassbind
– talk 02:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)So I assume #1 and #2 is fine with you (otherwise you would have let me know). Here's a related question I came across today: Do you know what is "Amphi" in the body-column of the CAD section of 10476 Los Molinos? Thx, Rfassbind – talk 22:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Over in the Talk:Messier 58, you said of Deep Sky Videos that "Random people on youtube are generally unreliable sources/non-notable.". This is not a criticism of your removal of what were in fact throwaway remarks, but of your notion that the scientists on Deep Sky Videos are random people, and are "generally unreliable sources/non-notable" Deep Sky Videos is one of a number of video channels run by video journalist Brady Haran who was awarded an honorary doctorate for his work on YouTube with the University of Nottingham. Primary contributers to Deep Sky Videos are Professor Mike Merrifield, the head of astronomy at the University of Nottingham and an expert on galaxy evolution; Paul Crowther is a professor of astrophysics at the University of Sheffield, whose interests include massive stars; Dr Meghan Gray, STFC advanced fellow and lecturer at the University of Nottingham, her research combines galaxy evolution and a long-standing interest in gravitational lensing; and more recently, Dr Rebecca Smethurst, Sixty Symbols Ogden Fellow at the University of Nottingham, who does research into the co-evolution of galaxies and black holes. These are videos presented by professional astronomers, and made by a professional video journalist who, before he started working with the University of Nottingham, worked at the BBC. Their work across all the channels is highly respected, some of it award winning within the science community, and funded in part by the scientific community. Everlong Day ( talk) 17:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted my edit on linking to A106fgF. I wanted to mention that I intended on creating an article on it (and still do) primarily because while impact is not necessarily certain (or even probable) we haven't had any other objects with a 'reasonable' chance of impact in a while. I talked to one of the ATLAS PIs and he said that the odds of it having impacted earth are about 9%. I'm currently reviewing the discovery images, and may possibly be doing a thorough review paper on the subject. At any rate, I just wanted to let you know that I consider an article on the object would be notable, whether or not it did end up impacting. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 04:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
In November 2014, JorisvS created:
which redirect to Classical Kuiper belt object § Orbits: 'hot' and 'cold' populations.
On 16 February 2018, I created:
which redirect to Classical Kuiper belt object § SSBN07 classification
On 17 February 2018, you created:
Sources and usage:
|mp_category=
. However, this classification tag is neither linked nor does it appear in the body of the article.Do you see a need for a basic discussion on how to deal with these TNO subclasses? First thing I see is:
Based on our orbital classification conversation on ejected/extended centaurs and damocloids from February 2017, this may not be an easy thing to do. However, if we proceed on different/uncoordinated paths, we will potentially change each others edits several times. This post tries to avoid this situation. Hope we can cooperate, Rfassbind – talk 12:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
PS: I think the category's name should be "Cold classical Kuiper belt objects", not "Cold Classical Kuiper belt objects". I also notice that it was created just a day after the redirect were created/implemented. Coincidence?
Yes, the terms cold and hot as well as inner classical Kuiper belt object are used in the peer reviewed literature. (All three subdivisions are mentioned here together). I've written my lengthy post above because of the problematic approach you have chosen: to create a category first (adding it to a small number of articles; plus an unlinked infobox-tag), seemingly without prior discussion and consideration for the overall project, while I have resisted to create "my" inner-classical category before things are sorted out.
This seems to me avoidable monkey stuff, where editors shoot first and ask questions later. More precisely:
Do you acknowledge that with the creation of Category:Cold Classical Kuiper belt objects, you have taken the initiative, and the questions above now need to be resolved (as described in my first post) in order to avoid inconsistencies or even confusion? Or do you think differently? Rfassbind – talk 23:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Follow-up: based on the Johnston's archive, this plot shows the TNO subclasses in the core region (a: 38–49 AU; i: <40°). This could be helpful for the discussion, I think. Rfassbind – talk 12:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Kheider: Just a quick question. Your recent edit gives " https://twitter.com/astrokiwi/status/973668674933526528" as the edit summary. I don't see how that reflects the edit you made? -- Renerpho ( talk) 02:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kheider, you'll probably want to know this, although I don't think you could get away with posting it just yet: A/2018 F4 is weird. I performed a search for precovery images with DECaLS and was able to rule out any orbital solutions with e = 0.965 to 1.004 and 1.050 to 1.077. Either it's a typical halley-like or long period comet (e < 0.965), an unusually eccentric hyperbolic comet (1.004 < e < 1.050), or a bona fide interstellar object (e > 1.077). I'm not sure what this thing is exactly, but it's definitely not normal. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 14:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I found these two articles that seem to deal with the same effect: Yarkovsky effect and Yarkovsky–O'Keefe–Radzievskii–Paddack effect. Am I missing something that makes them different phenomena or should they be merged? Thanks. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
I noticed that you added my paper on 2004 EW95 to the external links in its wikipedia article. Thanks very much! I was curious as to whether you have any intention to add the paper's findings to the body of the article? I'd be happy to make an edit to the article but I wanted to check first in case you were already working on something.
Thanks! Tom Seccull Tseccull ( talk) 10:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you approve of an expansion/renaming of template {{
JPL SBDB Jupiter Trojans}}
with additional columns for mean-diameter estimates from Akari and IRAS (SIMPS)?
Also, most edits made to 18 large Jupiter trojans by an anon user during 3–13 March 2018 are hardly helpful (those with overly long edit comments). Since going through all these edited articles take a lot of time, and I don't want to get into a potential WP:EDITWAR with said anon user all by myself (wasting additional time better spent on other tasks), I need to know whether you approve of/ are in favor of such revision. Thx, Rfassbind – talk 16:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
{{
Largest Jupiter trojans}}
. Any suggestions? Thx,
Rfassbind
– talk 08:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Thanks for uploading File:MinorPlanet-2007uk126-19970930.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 19:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Kheider. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
I read in an old blog that there's a HST image of 10 Hygiea that reveals its shape (though presubably at low res). The link was dead and I haven't been able to find it. If you can, I think it would be a worthwhile addition to the article, maybe replacing the 2MASS image I just added. — kwami ( talk) 22:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I saw an image of it on twitter during one of the conference IIRC from SPHERE on the VLT, it was round like it was in hydrostatic equilibrium. I haven't seen an official version yet though. Agmartin ( talk) 02:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated Ceres (dwarf planet) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 20:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Since you added 300P/Catalina, I think Category:Asteroids removed from the Sentry Risk Table should be renamed to Category:Near-Earth objects removed from the Sentry Risk Table, which was the alternative suggestion when Category:Removed from Sentry Risk Table was discussed and moved to its current name in June 2016. Do you agree? Rfassbind – talk 00:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kheider. We normally use ±1σ, don't we? I ask because in the Pluto info box we copied ±2σ from the source. I halved it, but wanted to check. — kwami ( talk) 04:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
For your contribution to
2I/Borisov. Thank you very much!
Hashar ( talk) 21:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC) |
The Space Barnstar | ||
For starting the 2I/Borisov article. ↠Pine (✉) 06:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC) |
I had an idea about calculating sigma a for the barycentric orbits using the vectors available from JPL to see which of the hyperbolic comets had semimajor axes > 0 when that was included. But when I compared the downloaded and calculated semimajor axes, some didn't match. It turned out that one day while collecting data I forgot to select @0 to get barycentric data so about 100 or so of them are heliocentric semimajor axes. So those numbers in that big comet file I posted are wrong. Next time I'm at the public library I will get the right data ( OCD ) and replace that backup file. Agmartin ( talk) 02:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
If interested, a new asteroid article, re 2019 TA7, has been created - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Gr8 source of info for astro stuff
Finding your page is illuminating in the current environment, gotta trust the info by you regd 29 april, so is it surely missing now, guess thats why the lockdowns are receeding too, any risk of cyanogen from comet atlas tail? Thanks. Kbxads ( talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2000 YH2 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 YH2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sam-2727 ( talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=(163348)_2002_NN4&diff=961575859 ? this article sucks? DerianGuy40 ( talk) 08:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
On 14 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Andrew🐉( talk) 09:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I just noted your addition to Limiting magnitude It seems reasonable, but do you have a source? I guess astronomy is big for you. (I just finished a pier with a deck for my 12" SCT. Unfortunately I am in the Atlanta area and will never have dark skies. If it does not work out, I can remove the scope and mount and replace it with a bird bath or table top.) — Neonorange ( Phil) 22:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The table you just added with the pre- and post-pertubation data is awesome. ONly problem, you did not provide a source for those data. Could you please add one? Thanks. N2e ( talk) 04:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The Photographer's Barnstar | ||
Thank you for your contributions in the field of asteroids! ExoEditor 01:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC) |
Please see the discussion at the top of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 24. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
I totally take your point about "currently observable", as it excludes comets we technically "know" but are way off the scopes. However I think mentioning that we're talking about natural objects is also useful. One could argue that Voyager 1 is currently observable, as we routinely receive its radio transmissions (and in fact communicate bidirectionally with it). -- johantheghost ( talk) 10:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
For your helpful contributions to minor planet articles! Nrco0e ( talk · contribs) 22:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC) |
Hi Kevin,
JPL now has 11163±6 yr, but I can't tell if that's heliocentric or barycentric. Are we able to better constrain the period than the ≈ 11,400 yr we currently have in the article?
— kwami ( talk) 04:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, this topic may be too detailed for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy page so I am responding on your talk page instead. I suspect that the main benefit for OD accuracy of newly discovered comets long period comets would be from the parallax effect due to Earth's orbit around the sun. I would expect better improvement from a 3 month precovery than from a 2.0 year precovery that provides a smaller base for "triangulation". Annette Maon ( talk) 07:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The comet would indeed travel a longer distance over 2 years. However, if it is on a highly elliptical orbit at a distance more than 5AU from the sun most of that movement would be in the radial direction. A 2.0 year precovery image would be taken from roughly the same place in Earth's orbit and would therefore show little movement on the celestial sphere. On the other hand a 3 month parallax would show several degrees of movement with respect to the celestial sphere even for a comet 10AU away that would not move much in those 3 month. Annette Maon ( talk) 11:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Imagine you need to determine the orbit of a comet with an ecliptic orbit moving almost straight toward the sun. Assume it is discovered at a distance of 5 AU. Would you rather have the last observation as well as 4 precovery images for a total 5yr arc but all at opposition, or one 3 month old precovery image? Annette Maon ( talk) 18:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
If you have just discovered said comet, you have already detected some movement in the three most recent photos even if your precovery images show none (precovery images maybe an older lower resolution camera even if on the same telescope). In the event of an Oort cloud comet impacting Earth in 6 months with high confidence, the observation arc (including precovery images) would need to be months/years, not hours/days. In the movie I see no mention of precovery images, only 5 photos (1h ago, 2h, 3h, 4h, 5h ago) with a 4 HOUR arc (What the Minor Planet Center would call a "single-nighter"). You can not expect serious science in a Hollywood movie as no one would want to watch the snorefest. This is why the less accurate Armageddon (1998 film) is a cult classic and Deep Impact (film) is more scientific. -- Kheider ( talk) 14:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated 90377 Sedna for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho ( talk) 05:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello Kevin! Thanks for your recent addition to 319 Leona. The occultation of this asteroid by Betelgeuse was the topic of the very first edit I ever made on Wikipedia (over on the German version) and on Wikimedia Commons, both in October 2012. So this brought back some nice memories! I was surprised to see that the English article didn't include any mention of the event. After creating the article SOLEX (software) today, I added the image [19] to the Leona article, to illustrate the occultation path. Maybe you can assist with including additional information? I marked the new 319_Leona#2023_occultation_of_Betelgeuse section as "needing expansion". Some info can be found here, but I am also looking for other sources, since this one is from 2004. Renerpho ( talk) 05:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C/2012 S4 (PanSTARRS) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
C messier ( talk) 09:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C/2000 U5 (LINEAR) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
C messier ( talk) 17:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Category:Contact binary (small Solar System body) has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
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) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
I haven't gotten around to updating the list for the recent December discoveries. I just saw your edit to the list mentioning the total 2022 count while the list isn't updated--did you include the recent December discoveries in this? Just making sure before I add the December discoveries. Nrco0e ( talk) 07:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
On 1 February 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article C/2022 E3 (ZTF), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Template:Solar encounters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Artem.G ( talk) 08:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 November 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 14, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
For the majority of its orbit it is the most distant known object in the Solar System other than long-period comets.) on the article talk page earlier today; that's no longer true. The rest of the 2010 text still seems to reflect the current state of the article.
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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)