User talk:Icalanise/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with Icalanise. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2 >

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - ... (up to 100)

Re: The U Andromedae and U And RFDs

Is that star notable enough to support an article? If so, it seems like a valid idea. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:GabrielVelazquez incident

I jumped the bandwagon. Thanks for giving me notice. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on its original page has been archived without admins noticing. I moved it here, where probably it is more appropriate. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A request for comment regarding User:GabrielVelasquez has been filed here. You may be interested to join the discussion, since you have been one of the users affected by his behaviour. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing. It would be helpful if you can provide relevant diffs of his behaviour on Gliese 581 c or other relevant mainspace pages. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 581 c

Yes, the current situation is different:

The "contradict" tag
The disputes on the talk and stability

A reassessment can be thought of, but i stand by the version of Gliese 581 c, i passed. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

So what sort of contribution would be helpful?--Marhawkman (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions of copyright-violating articles

Recently, you have performed deep reversions on a number of articles with the motive that they contained copyright violations. I'd like to suggest that, instead of reverting, you remove the material you believe to be a copyright violation; this is the action specified by our policy on copyright violations. Deep reversions remove interwiki links and other useful data and content and so are not helpful to the encyclopedia. Spacepotato (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia and Extrasolar Visions articles

I created two new articles, one Extrasolar Visions was deleted because there was no indication that the article meets inclusion guidelines. If you want, you could recreate this article better with better sources and references. The other, Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia needs more references, so can you make more references and reword this article. BlueEarth (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding newly discovered brown dwarfs and planets to other articles

In addition to adding new planets to list of extrasolar planets, you should add stars with new planets to list of stars by {{constellation}} and update the number of stars with planets in constellation articles. You should add new brown dwarfs (even including unconfirmed brown dwarfs or field brown dwarfs) to list of brown dwarfs. Also you should add new unconfirmed exoplanets to list of unconfirmed exoplanets. BlueEarth (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Hey, Icalanise.

I'm trying to gather a group opinion on how to improve the HD 40307 article. I thank you for correcting my blunders on the star's planets, and I could really use your help here too.

Please get back to me as son as you can.

--Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 08:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Dilemma

Hey again, Icalanise.

I decided I wanted to try to put an image up on the HD 2039 article, which I've been working to expand, but I stumbled upon a problem; the article utilizes the Starbox short template instead of the collection of templates that I found in the HD 40307 article. Can you help me to transfer the information? I don't really know where to start.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 06:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I also understand your need for a break; I've been in for a few myself. ;) --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 21:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayesian Kepler Periodogram

Thanks for taking a look at the Bayesian Kepler Periodogram article. I agree with your concerns regarding notability, what do you think about the proposed merger (which was apparently suggested in September but received little attention)? Icalanise (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense. The first two paragraphs of Gregory (2005) mentions the use of this MCMC algorithm for analysis of Doppler measurements. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:HD 40307

Please click on the link and comment there. I have reviewed the article HD 40307 and I intend to pass it, but would like to seek your opinion first. Thank you for helping to write and maintain the article. Crystal whacker (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: advice..

Your best bet, if he disrupts again, is to see if action can be taken at AN or ANI if it's a conduct issue, or through mediation if it's a content issue. I was thinking of accepting since I don't know how well this would all work, another arb may be able to answer this better. Wizardman 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Topic nomination

See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/HD 40307. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HD 40307 and HD 2039

Cool link; thanks for the heads up.

Also, no problem. The message about the HD 2039 picture simply states I had uploaded it under the wrong license. I'm not even sure why I uploaded it under the license I did... O_o

But whatever the case, it can be easily resolved. Let's see what we can make of this. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 15:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital diagrams?

How to you make your animated orbital diagrams? Could you describe the steps and the tools you use? — Aldaron • T/C 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info — Aldaron • T/C 17:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Icalanise. You have new messages at Aldaron's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Aldaron • T/C 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Diagram requests at astronomy GA articles

I'll tell a story and you (and others involved) decide. Once upon a time I took a GA review of COROT-1 and quick-failed it because of lack of content. The author politely replied "hey, there is a bunch of GAs with similar content in this area". I looked and said "Gosh, indeed". I quickly went through those GAs, tagging whatever I quickly could. I am not an astronomer and asked user:Ruslik0 to have a look. He was really hectic that time with his FA nomination of Magnetosphere of Jupiter and I don't know what he had done - I do not watch those pages.

Staggering for me was lack of content, images and reliable references (by GA standards). Those GAs passed the spring sweep 2009, but I take that particular sweep as a quick look by a non-scientist. I never delist GAs myself (well, who knows, not thus far), but someone will. I saw that as an emergency. That is what I remember. If you ask more specific questions I shall answer correspondingly. Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanet numbers? - lists and catagories

How are you calculating your exoplanet numbers for List of extrasolar planets? I rely on the Exoplanets Database and I'm having trouble mapping what's there to the numbers in the article. (I'm sure you have them right, I'm just wondering.) — Aldaron • T/C 19:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Extrasolar planets: inclination constraint of Gl 581 planets from Mayor et al. (2009))" [1]
Likewise if you are going to start switching planets from list to list would you at least place that reference (link) in the discovery date column of the "confirmed" list.
It would save a lot of arguments with people on the addition of the words "Unconfirmed," "Candidate," and "Confirmed" in the corresponding articles.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What exactly constitutes confirmation?"
You added this trouble without leaving your thoughts on the question yourself.
Fess up. - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GabrielVelasquez

Any thoughts on how to handle him? I'm trying not to edit war with him, but he seems determined to be confrontational and to take control of every exchange he engages in, and to ignore or dismiss (often belligerently) anything he does not agree with. Maybe it's me and I'm just not seeing it? — Aldaron • T/C 23:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... 'Cause you can't possibly be wrong, try admiting when you are. Like, why did you have to be asked twice to find another place for your picture discussion. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've agreed that that discussion belongs somewhere else. I'm simply seeking help in locating it, and in incorporating the relevant archived discussions you refer to. Beyond that, I'm truly at a loss to understand your belligerence. — Aldaron • T/C 03:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to refrain from editing artists impressions of exoplanets or the exoplanet lists if that will cool things off and avoid an edit war, but please, let's discuss the issues related to both civilly. — Aldaron • T/C 20:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Also posted at User talk:Aldaron) Aldaron, I suggest that if you want to talk to GabrielVelasquez you do so at his talk page. At present, since I'm not involved in the dispute, and since there is no way I could be regarded as a neutral third party given previous history (which I am not particularly keen to resurrect), I really do not believe it would be appropriate for me to make any contributions to this. Icalanise (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, feel free to delete this. — Aldaron • T/C 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually; FYI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gliese_581_c&diff=301424193&oldid=301283510

Alien Earths from A to Z

This article, sited at Gliese 581 c, had a chart of silhouettes of varying radii for the various compositions she proposed.
If there is a way to copy it into the article is would look nice with the citation. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the range of allowable masses needs to be taken into account as well. It's perfectly possible to input 5.36 Earth masses into a bunch of equations-of-state and end up with a bunch of radii, but the mass may well be more than that: the currently determined upper bound from dynamics gives a factor of about 2 in mass. This means we've potentially got a planet with a hydrogen atmosphere, and that causes significant increases in radius. I'm not aware of any estimates for the radius of this planet which take the upper mass bound into account, but ignoring it is somewhat misleading.

Incidentally I think the A&A habitable zone diagram you uploaded probably violates copyright, and in any case SVG is preferred for such things. I'll try to get round to taking another look at the von Bloh and Selsis papers to see if I can extract any numbers which would allow me to create a similar diagram (and move planet d to its correct location). Icalanise (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I concede your point and raise you another. The chart I mention has been used in different articles (can't rememeber the other I saw it in), and it can be scaled for both ends of the possible ranges of mass you are referring to (I haven't seen an upper limit?) and stacked into one image, and then you would have all ranges of various compositions and it would not be "misleading."

Also the chart from A&A, I guess you are referring to not synthesizing something new but rather illustrating what is there. but I noticed it was taken from one of those papers, von Bloh or Selsis, itself almost directly and then colored up, so it's a matter of doing the same yourself, no? I mean it is taken from one of those papers and so changing the colors makes it original for who wrote the A&A article, so it should for anyone else who just changes the colors in their drawing. Or just shift everything over to make room for planet e, and the difference makes it a new image. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longitude of the ascending node?

Sorry for the very specific question, but the article on longitude of the ascending node isn't helping me understand what the reference plane for extrasolar planets would be. And if it isn't helping me, it's probably not helping most people. Could take a look? — Aldaron • T/C 22:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for some clarification of how the articles describing this concept (and related concepts) apply to exoplanets on the argument of periapsis talk page. Any input is appreciated. — Aldaron • T/C 03:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]