User:Hurricane Devon/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at

Wikimedia Foundation

My quotes will be box like this. — HurricaneDevon @ 19:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC) [1]

                                         edit this list
Archive 1 ( 8/26/2005 – 9/9/2005 )
Archive 2 ( 9/10/2005 — 1/6/2006 )
Archive 3 ( 1/7/2006 — 4/30/2006 )
Archive 4 ( 5/1/2006 — 8/31/2006 )

You stole my idea![edit]

Hey! You stole my idea for your User page. I had the Hurricane infobox before anyone else, then you come along and steal it. You even used the same phrases for the hurricane pic, dissipated, and lowest pressure.

...Good for you! I'm honored someone used my idea, and I'm glad it was someone like you. The damage section is awesome :) See you later, and have a good weekend. Hurricanehink 04:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Man, you scared me. I'm not fully awake, but for a sec, I fought that you were angry at me. I thought that hurricane box was a good idea, I just borrowed yours to make mine. The reason I did this was because I finally remembered the first hurricane I remember. Floyd, I remember because we had off school when Floyd whent by Long Island in 1999. I'm still editing the box, but I should be done with it soon. — HurricaneDevon @ 12:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, yea, it's cool. Good luck finishing it. Hurricanehink 14:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no next to no difference between Hurricanes and Typhoons. Storms exceeding 74 mph winds are named hurricanes east of 180º W and north of the equator, west are named typhoons. In addition, typhoons tend to have lower pressures and stronger winds based on amount of water that have to grow. It might be a bad idea to call tropical storm category 0. It should be mentioned on the scale, but not as a 0. If TS's were named 0's, the public might become complacent when they see a tropical storm coming, but there have been many deadly tropical storms. Both Allisons, Amelia, Gordon from 1994 (was a TS when it killed thousands) come to mind. Typically tropical storms are weak and don't cause much damage, but for these types of storms, it should not be called a Category 0, but that's just me. See you later. Hurricanehink 19:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

You marked User:Hurricane Devon/Artical and User:Hurricane Devon/Artical (Devsys) for speedy deletion with the {{db-bio}} tag. I wasn't sure whether you wanted these pages deleted, or whether you were just playing around.

If you were just playing around, please note so in the edit summary when adding the speedy deletion tag, so that admins know not to delete the page. Preferably, though, don't play around with speedy deletion tags as it might frustrate admins trying to mop things up.

If you do want these pages deleted, tag them with something more appropriate than one which says the page is "an article about a real person or persons that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." The appropriate criterion for speedy deletion in this case is U1: "Personal subpages [ie, of a user page], upon request by their owner." If you used tag {{db|u1}} or {{db|owner request}}, your pages would have been removed.

jnothman talk 15:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi. It was actually Lazarus who used Celestia. ;) Anyway, you can see in which constellation the star is located if you turn on constellation borders (display settings somewhere in the menu).--Jyril 08:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Breaks[edit]

Please be advised of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule with regards to OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb and your insistance the the image be broken around.

Several people have removed this, not just myself. Several more a likely to - whitespace is routinely removed by people.

I'm not sure why you are so insistent on this point, but the "edit war" is annoying, and you seem to be outnumbered. - Beowulf314159 22:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put the issue on the talk page. Perhaps someone knows something in the Style guides to straighten this out. - Beowulf314159 22:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

100 "top" stars?[edit]

I like your table of stars, but are they "top" stars or "nearest" stars -- or something else? --James S. 00:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My user page[edit]

You don't need to ask permission, just let me know when you're done so that I can admire your work. If you need some help figuring out what I did, feel free to ask. – ClockworkSoul 04:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Hey Devon, interesting to know that you like a lot of the same things. I'm glad you and I share a special interest in hurricanes. I hope one day that my name is the one at the bottom of those advisories. I have collected satellite images of over 200 different storms from around the world. I have collected basic information (name, formation and dissipation dates, intensity and areas impacted) for every season back to 1939 and plan to expand all the way to 1900. I have hand-tracked every storm of the '04 and '05 seasons in real-time. Another facination of mine is ships and shipwrecks, especially the most famous of them all: Titanic. I'm also a writer and a poet. My intrest in science is mostly restricted to the Earth Sciences but there are a lot of things about astronomy that I find interesting. One good example is supernovas and how a million of the srongest type of man-made bomb in history could hold a candle to one of those. I have no intrest in life sciences whatsoever. Interesting that you live in Tampa because two of my former teachers lived in the Tampa/St Pete area for many years. I don't have classes with either of them anymore, but I still see them around. Nice talking to you! -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 06:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Image upload peer review: 2005-aug-26 to 2005-dec-05[edit]

Hi. Earlier today, I noticed you had uploaded a couple images with deprecated or incorrect copyright tags. Since I was in the mood to do a bit of research, I decided to peer review your image uploads. Please don't interpret this unusual scrutiny as a personal attack. I just want to clear up any ambiguities relatively quickly. The rapidly changing 'net imposes a deadline on this sort of thing.

Looking over your uploads, I encountered four broad categories of correctness:

  • Fully correct.
These images had proper tags, sources, and credits. They are not listed below.
  • Resolvable tag errors and Googlable missing sources.
I was able to fix these issues myself. These images are marked changed. They don't require any additional editing.
  • Unresolveable ambiguities and errors.
Occasionally I was unable to find the original source. Rather than guess, I've left those images unchanged. They're marked fix or delete and require your attention.
  • Images that clearly violate Wikipedia copyright policy.
I've marked these delete. But I haven't made any changes or nominated them for deletion. If you agree these should be deleted, go ahead and do it. If you see I've made an error, you can simply reply on this page. I've never actually deleted an image so I don't know what happens if we can't come to an agreement. I think we take a poll or something.

Also, here are a couple wiki pages related to copyrights. You should give them a read if you haven't already.

--Ryanrs 06:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The list:

This photo is not covered by the STScI copyright policy. Also, ALoan's comment on the talk page is not sufficient to keep the image. Images on Wikipedia must be in the public domain or released under a broad license such as the GFDL. The image must freely useable by any user, not just Wikipedia users. This includes commercial users. You should ask ALoan to release the image under the GFDL, if he is authorized to do so.
Fix or delete.
This NASA image was tagged {{PUI}}. I changed it to {{PD-USGov-NASA}}.
The {{fairuse}} tag is deprecated. Here is a list of more specific fair use tags. I'd change it myself but all traces of the original website are gone. I feel uncomfortable marking it as fair use without knowing the source context.
Fix or delete.
This public domain image was tagged {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. I changes it to {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. See Image talk:Maffei_1.jpg for rationale.
Image description states: Web page & images © 1998, 1999 Monty Sloan.
I uploaded high res 3000x1999 version of this image. It's the exact same shot except horizontally flipped.
You tagged this image {{tl:CopyrightedFreeUse}}. But the original page does not say this. Since this image is not used in any articles, perhaps it should just be deleted. If you like, you can replace it with this NASA Hubble Fork Diagram.
Fix or delete.
I uploaded a higher res version of this image from the NASA Goddard Library. Same image but 755x726.
  • You write: This image isn't copyrighted.
  • But the source page states: Chris Lasley's M109 Processed by me [Ray Gralak].
  • Ray Gralak's home page states: All images (c) Ray Gralak, 1998-2004 (All rights reserved) Please ask before using any of my images.
  • Chris Lasley's Flickr Messier Catalog doesn't include M109 but his other Messier images are marked {{cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}}.
  • Images licensed under cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 cannot be uploaded.
Delete both.
  • Original image source: McDonald Observatory press release 2002-oct-09.
  • Page states: © 2002 The University of Texas McDonald Observatory
  • McDonald Observatory access policy states: This information will be published soon. (aside: idiots!)
  • Their Telescope Image Gallery states: All images copyright McDonald Observatory, The University of Texas at Austin, unless otherwise noted. Permission is granted for media, educational, or personal use. Please credit McDonald Observatory. Commercial use prohibited without special permission.
  • Wikipedia images must allow commercial use.
I can't find this image's original source. This information must be provided in order to defend the {{PD}} tag.
Fix or delete.
  • You tagged this image {{PD-USGov-NASA}} but omitted the source URL.
  • The actual source is Galactic Images]. They sell prints of original images (i.e. they operate telescopes and cameras).
  • Galactic Images Copyright Policy states, in part: Commercial Sale or Reproduction, Use on other web pages, FTP Sites, or BBS is strictly prohibited without written permission of John Chumack, Galactic Images®.
  • You tagged this image {{PD-USGov-NASA}} but omitted the source URL.
  • The actual source is Astronomy Picture of the Day 2005-mar-01.
  • That page states: Credit & Copyright: T. Rector (U. Alaska Anchorage), Gemini Obs., AURA, NSF.
  • The Gemini Observatory Image/Video Usage Policy states, in part: Commercial Use: For copyrighted materials, permission must be obtained from Gemini prior to use. This is incompatible with Wikipedia.
I suggest you email Robert Kennicutt (Steward Observatory, Univ. of Arizona) to clarify the image rights.
Clarify ownership.
Please provide a source for this image. The only duplicate I could find is somewhere in Yugoslavia.
Fix or delete.
I added sources and credits.
  • You tagged this image {{PD}} but omitted the source URL.
  • The original source is Best of AOP: M57 The Ring Nebula.
  • AOP Image Permissions states: The JPEG images found on these pages can be copied for non-printed and non-commercial use. Please use the minimum credit line as shown on each gallery page.
I added source and credit.
  • You tagged this image {{PD-old}} which is clearly not the case; you have failed to provide the image source.
  • Your actual source was University of Florida (with the image description on that site copied as well).
  • The site describes the image as "Image courtesy of P. Marenfeld and NOAO/AURA/NSF"; Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy is not a part of U.S. government and its images are not in public domain.
Delete (unless Mr. Marenfeld agrees to publish the image on Wikipedia under terms compatible with GFDL license). - Mike Rosoft 10:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I worked on it and deleted all bad info. I'll also talk to ALoan about the dw1 picture. ihu
HurricaneDevon @ 21:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

List of asteroid moons[edit]

I've just finished correcting the list. Wherever did you get the fanciful numbers from?? The list of asteroids currently stops at 120,437... Urhixidur 22:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Robert's Quartet[edit]

Heya, what's up with Category:Robert's Quartet? You don't appear to be a stumbling newbie, yet vcmvfd isn't the most coherent category description I've heard today... --W(t) 15:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Andromeda VIII[edit]

It appears that you copypasted Andromeda VIII article directly from the SEDS page [2]. This page [3] says the pages are free for non-profit use. However, according to current policy of Wikipedia, the use of copyrighted material under non-commercial licenses is forbidden too [4] (to my great annoyance). Please rewrite the article with your own words and save me from the effort of adding the {{copyvio}} tag. I may be complaining about copyrights ad nauseam and I really hate that they have become so pervasive, but it is essential for the very survival of Wikipedia that no copyrights are broken. I hope you understand.--Jyril 19:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My name[edit]

Not to be a dick, but I've been a Wikipedian for much longer than you have and have poured my heart and soul into the hurricane pages (50+ articles to my credit). I feel I've earned the right to keep my name. And I think our signiture designs are different enough for people to tell us apart. My original signiture was: E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast. I later added a link to my talk page: Squawk Box. User:Squeak Box asked me to change it and I complied. I thought that was too long and pretty boring, so I changed it to Hurricane Eric. I first used that signiture late on October 21 of last year, attempting to personify a hurricane. I did not copy off of you (not that you accused me of that). Sorry, I just like it the way it is. I hope you understand. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries, mate! ;) -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Katrina memorial box[edit]

Sorry to hear your birthday shared the anniversary of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.... I can't believe you didn't realize it, though ;) Hurricanehink 01:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

One of my classmates was born on September 11, 1988. And the catastrophic 2005 Atlantic hurricane season began on my birthday, when Tropical Depression One formed north of Honduras on the evening of June 8, 2005. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a small world ani't it! Dut at least my birthday being a natural disaster date isn't bad luck. But if it is, I got's my hurricane foot ;) or maybe that's bad luck :| — HurricaneDevon @ 01:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey at least you birthday was just one catastrophic disaster, mine signaled the beginning of many. The History Channel website has this neat "What happened on your birthday" search thing where you put in your birthday and it comes up with a whole bunch of historical events that happened on that day. For example, if I was Muslim, I'd probably be having suicidal thoughts right now because the prophet Mohammed is believed to have died on my birthday. On the bright side, MLK's murderer got arrested on my birthday. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

HTML markup[edit]

Hi - I see you've been adding <br clear=all /> throughout Pleiades (star cluster). I've removed them, because they don't affect how the article is displayed, and HTML markup should be avoided unless really necessary (such as when you want a section heading to be below an image). I see you re-added some without comment - if you believe they are necessary please explain why, either on the talk page or in edit summaries. Thanks very much. Worldtraveller 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you've been adding clear alls to a large number of other astronomy articles now. Can you explain why? It's almost never necessary to use HTML markup to adjust the layout that you get just with normal wiki markup, and often your edits result in a large amount of blank space in the article. Worldtraveller 20:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed more html markup in this edit. Once again can I ask you, please do not use html markup unless there's a very good reason - it's confusing for people who don't know html, and often (as in this case) needlessly increases the amount of data that needs to be stored. Worldtraveller 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Now I see you've started using a template, which you're transcluding rather than substituting thus placing unnecessary load on the servers, to insert HTML markup. You've never bothered to respond to my requests above or explained why you're doing this. This is beginning to look like disruptive behaviour. Please, stop using HTML markup all over the place. If you could acknowledge that you've read this, that would be very helpful. Worldtraveller 22:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


Image:Antennen-galaxies2.jpg was uploaded with information suggesting that it was a public domain image. As best I can tell it was acquired from NRAO via a third party site, and the NRAO usage guidelines are pretty clearly non-commercial use only. If you can seek out permission to use this image before someone deletes it, please do, but otherwise it will likely go the way of all non-commercial use only images on Wikipedia. Sorry. -Harmil 22:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Renaming deep sky objects[edit]

Hello, thank you for your work on cleaning up some of the deep sky object articles like Spiral Galaxy M74. Before you rename articles such as these though, could you please make sure it is a well established name. I noticed you renamed this particular one to "Phantom Galaxy" but that is not established at all. Yes, some sources may call it that but that does not mean it is established in the astronomical community. There are literally hundreds of proper names to be found but only relatively few have caught on like Ring Nebula or Virgo A. Mentioning a possible alias in the article is fine but the title should be what it is properly called.--Kalsermar 15:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Images for deletion[edit]

Hi, could you put {{ifd}} and {{ifdc}} tags on the image description pages for those you list for deletion? I was looking through the March 7 entries and noticed that two images you listed didn't have these on the image description pages. Thanks! --Christopherlin 16:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Extrasolar planets template[edit]

I appreciate you don't call my edits vandalism, thank you. I added default values to the template, so that most extrasolar planets infoboxes don't show that ugly {{{...}}} thingy. It also makes easier adding new planets when you don't have to add question marks for unknown values. I'd like to see you not to revert my edits.--Jyril 16:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OGLE-2005-BLG-169L infobox[edit]

I'm not sure why you are so insistent on having the standard extrasolar planet infobox on this article. The article OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb uses a custom infobox, because for microlensing planets most of the data in that infobox is unavailable. In addition, some of the terms are inaccurate - "semimajor axis" implies we know the orbit, when in fact all we have is a projected separation.

In addition, where do you get the value of 72 kelvins from, the discovery paper gives 70 kelvin as the value - 72 seems rather precise for an estimated value. Chaos syndrome 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your reasons for wanting to leave the infobox in the article. Chaos syndrome 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
There is already a precedent for not using the infobox when dealing with planets detected through microlensing (see the OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb article). As I have stated before "semimajor axis" is not a known property for this system, so the standard infobox is actually misrepresenting the information, which is good cause not to use the standard infobox. There is a difference between "semimajor axis" and "projected separation", the two quantities are not interchangeable. Chaos syndrome 23:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Leo I group of galaxies[edit]

Hi Devon. So what's going on with that article? You did a bunch of work on it and then blanked it and put it up for speedy. I'm sure you have a good reason, but could you explain on the article's talk page, because the deletion is being contested. (Also, you're technically not supposed to blank articles, even ones where its all your work, because once in Wiki space they belong to the community, although in this case its probably not a huge deal. People sometimes work on articles in my userspace when they're not ready for public viewing.) Herostratus 23:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

pronunciations to be deleted[edit]

Hi Hurricane,

Just a heads up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pronunciation respelling key.

kwami 21:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Please give the exact source and a fair use rationale for the image You uploaded. The page says: All Images Copyright Paul & Liz Downing. Thanks. feydey 00:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cha 110913-773444[edit]

I see that you reverted my resizing of the {{Starbox image}} picture in Cha 110913-773444, which makes it quite a bit larger than the infobox itself in my browser. I realize that the size of the infobox changes with the font size, so there is no "correct" size. However, 250px has become somewhat of a standard size for these images; you can confirm that by checking other pages using that template. For {{Taxobox}} even 200px seems more common. Algae 14:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi Devon, I'm just wondering what you think is good about the drawing of the Polaris system. It's not to scale with respect to star radius or orbit radius, does not have the right colors. It doesn't convey any scientific information about the stars, and there's already a real-life image of the same thing at the top. -- Xerxes 18:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy tags[edit]

Hi there, and thanks for correctly tagging some pages for speedy deletion. Might I ask that if you are tagging pages for speedy deletion in future, you would:

  1. Use a more specific tag (see the bottom of WP:CSD for a list, or just use {{db|reason goes here}}
  2. Not blank pages that you tag for deletion (excluding the case of copyright violations)

Each of these will help admins to quickly determine if a page should indeed be deleted. Thanks again! Stifle 16:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

star names[edit]

Please don't move star names from Bayer designation to traditional names. The traditional names (for all but first magnitude stars and a few others) are less well known, or there is more than one traditional name (eg, Alphecca or Gemma), or the spelling is not fixed, or more than one star shares the same traditional name. -- Curps 02:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cetus A[edit]

The name of a galaxy shouldn't be renamed to the name of a radio source. After all, we wouldn't rename Milky Way to Sagittarius A. The radio source may be associated with the galaxy but it is not the galaxy. -- Curps 02:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Gliese 3021[edit]

Should this be Gliese 3021 or GJ 3021? I'm quite unfamiliar with naming conventions, I'll admit, and I usually rely on Sol Station to help me out with stuff like this. Here it lists the star as GJ 3021m with HD 1237 and CD-80 9 as alternatives. Can anything in the Gliese catalogue be listed as "Gliese ####"? Marskell 10:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in Galaxy names?[edit]

You just can't change the names of the NGC galaxies. Those beggining names are part of the rules of astonomical wikipedia. I moved those vandilisms back to normal. Plese don't change them again. — HurricaneDevon @ 11:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Please, give me some credit and don't refer to them as "vandalism." If the galaxy names are part of some greater scheme, then why is it not consistent? By far the dominant trend appears to be for there to be no prefix at all. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I hate to jump into an argument between two other people, but would it be possible to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Naming_Conventions? Ardric47 02:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo. LOL, I'll make sure I watch my typing. — HurricaneDevon @ 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Two points about your recent edit to OGLE-2005-BLG-169L. The enlarged image size is both non-standard (270px seems to be the most common in use for the extrasolar planet infobox) and makes the page difficult to read under low screen resolutions (bear in mind that some users may be using 800x600 or even 640x480). Also the heading level "Planet" seems redundant - it basically contains just one object (OGLE-2005-BLG-169Lb) which already has its own heading. Chaos syndrome 14:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Other resources" sections[edit]

Hi, sorry to bother you again, but according to Wikipedia:External links, the convention when dealing with External links is that it should be a top-level heading (==External links==) rather than grouped in an other resources section. This is done even when there is a "See also" section (e.g. in Centipede, Baseball), so the addition of the "other resources" section goes against convention. Chaos syndrome 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

List of New England hurricanes[edit]

I noticed that you have drastically improved the article. Thanx for helping me! But, if you hadn't noticed, I was trying to undo the table and turn them into the setup that is at the upper part of the page. So maybe you could help undo them. Also I think there were a couple more storms (ie ex-Cindy, Ophelia). Thanx again! Icelandic Hurricane #12 11:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sorry to Bug[edit]

No problem at all! The difference between a tropical storm and a subtropical storm is very shady, but generally, tropical storms have a much more compact core with maximum sustained winds very close to the center of circulation. Subtropical storms are very large with winds away from the center. Extratropical storms are cold core systems with not much convection near the center. On my list, yes, if a storm is destructive enough, it would be retired. That is the main reason I wanted to use the list in real life. Suppose another storm formed in September of this year. Wilma, the strongest and among the costliest Atlantic hurricanes, would have been Alpha. Because Greek letters can't be retired (to the best of my knowledge), human names would be retired instead on my list. I suppose if it got far enough, more names might be required, but for now my list is all that's needed. I never thought of associating it with the Pacific typhoons, really. The idea just came up one day. LOL, that would be pretty cool, but then it would have to be replaced with Darian! Hurricanehink 23:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Expanded starboxes[edit]

Hi, thanks for the work in expanding starboxes. Please note, however, that b-v and u-b are not the B and V magnitudes themselves, but differences between the two bands. So a star with B-magnitude 5.6 and V-magnitude 5.0 would have b-v = 0.6. Chaos syndrome 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's on the SIMBAD star info pages and the Hipparcos catalog (link at the bottom of the SIMBAD pages). The Hipparcos catalogue is particularly useful for astrometric properties such as parallax, proper motion. Chaos syndrome 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

M109 as Milky Way's twin[edit]

I have edited the article Spiral Galaxy M109 again after you readded the part about the Milky Way and M109 being its twin. For starters, the discovery of the Milky Way being barred belongs in the article Milky Way, not M109. Secondly, stating that is is the Milky Way's twin is misleading and confusing. It suggests a link that is not there. It might as well be said that all barred spirals are the Milky Way's twin and I sure hope none of the other articles about barred spirals say that.--Kalsermar 00:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek letters in star designations[edit]

Please stop removing the bracketed star designations from articles e.g. (η2 Hyi / η2 Hydri) - these brackets are standard in star articles. Chaos syndrome 18:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising articles. These prefixes are standard in long-established articles on stars, e.g. Alpha Centauri, Delta Pavonis, Beta Hydri. Chaos syndrome 18:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Messier 109 speedy deletion[edit]

You said it was an experiment and it should not be reverted, but please explain why then on the talk page or in the delete tag.

New infobox[edit]

I like the new "small exoplanet infobox". Whew, solves that tug of war rather nicely :) - Vedexent 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the new infobox, there are more parameters possible for microlensing planets, though it is a good start. I'd appreciate some feedback on my proposed extrasolar planet template sequence (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical Objects), hopefully when finished it should provide a consistent way to handle planets detected by radial velocity, imaging and microlensing. Chaos syndrome 21:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: MACHO-1997-BLG-41[edit]

I just read the paper disproving the planet interpretation, and finding all the revised parameters for the system. Apologies for removing the images, I didn't manage to integrate the versions terribly well during an edit conflict. I'm uploading a new version with the details of the system as it is currently understood. Please don't refer to an edit replacing outdated information with current as "vandalism". Regards, Chaos syndrome 22:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The old lens model involving a planet had the binary as a K-star and an M-star, this is correct. However, the new lens model has different stellar parameters in which both stars are red dwarfs of spectral type M (read the abstract of the Albrow paper). In addition, I replaced the designation because "MACHO-1997-BLG-41c" was never used in the publications, it was only referred to as "the planet of 97-BLG-41" or "the 97-BLG-41 planet". The planet never received an official designation, so we shouldn't invent one because we feel like it. Chaos syndrome 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
When the planet model was disproven, the entire parameters of the system were revised, including distance, total mass and spectral type of the two stars. The new model has both stars as red dwarfs of spectral type M. You aren't going to get a K-dwarf in the system with a total mass of both stars being 0.3 solar masses!
Also a Google search reveals no hits for any form of designation of the planet in the scientific literature. The planet didn't receive a designation in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia either, so I'm removing it from the article. Chaos syndrome 11:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to clarify a few things about MACHO-1997-BLG-41, since you seem to keep reverting any edits I make to the article.

  • The designation MACHO-1997-BLG-41 refers to the microlensing event itself, not to the stars causing it. A microlensing event involves two systems: the source and the lens. We therefore have to say what we mean when we are referring to the stars: the source star (which is a K star of luminosity class III or IV) or the lens star (which is the binary system). We cannot just say "MACHO-1997-BLG-41" to refer to the lens system!
  • You asked me to prove that both of the stars are red dwarfs. Have you read the Albrow paper (see the references)? The abstract refers to the system as "an M-dwarf binary" i.e. both stars are red dwarfs of spectral type M. The lowest-mass K-dwarfs have a mass of about 0.5 solar masses, which is greater than the total mass of the binary system! I have spent quite a while now reading both the discovery paper (Bennett et al.) and the paper disproving the planet (Albrow et al.). I do have some idea of what I am talking about here!
  • Unless you can find a reference which uses the designation MACHO-1997-BLG-41c, I am going to remove it from the article. That designation is not used in any of the papers about the system linked to from The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. A Google search turns up no results for it. Even Extrasolar Visions doesn't use it. While it would be nice if the planet did have a designation which conformed to the current naming system for extrasolar planets, it seems that it hasn't got one and never had one, and we shouldn't give it one.
  • I put the orbital diagram under the planet heading, because it is a description of the now-disproven planet, not a diagram of the lens system as we currently understand it. It makes more sense to group it with the discussion of the disproven planet model rather than at the top, because that diagram is incorrect according to our current understanding.
  • We should not say the planet is "doubtful" when it is in fact disproven.
  • We should use the standard template for web references here ({{cite web}}). We do not need three different links to Extrasolar Visions in the article! In addition, one of the external links is to a copy of one of the papers linked in the references, which is why I keep taking it out. Your link to SIMBAD is for MACHO-1997-BLG-4 (a totally different microlensing event), not MACHO-1997-BLG-41.

Hope that clears things up. Regards, Chaos syndrome 13:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm getting tired of all this. I've spent way too much of my time re-reading those papers to try and find evidence to expand this article, and every time I do that you go and revert all my work out of the article.

From the article abstract (emphasis mine):

The relative probability distributions for these parameters peak at a total lens mass M ∼ 0.3 M&odot; (M-dwarf binary system), lens distance DL ∼ 5.5 kpc, and binary period P ∼ 1.5 yr

Extrasolar Visions was apparently not updated to take this into account.

Let's stop calling each other's edits vandalism shall we? I am not destroying the external links: this is my reasoning:

  • the link to "Gravitational Microlensing Evidence for a Planet Orbiting a Binary Star System" is the same as the preprint of the Bennett paper.
  • Check the address of the SIMBAD link yourself: it ends ident=MACHO+97-BLG-4

Regards, Chaos syndrome 14:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, apology accepted. I still stand by my point about the orbit diagram: the measurements on it are incorrect as well, as the binary system separation was changed from 1.8 AU to 0.9 AU under the new model. Chaos syndrome 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop treating me as a vandal[edit]

I am making edits here in good faith, I make sure I check my sources and I try to improve the accuracy of the WikiPedia in the areas I am knowledgeable about. Please note that I have spent quite some time reading through scientific papers to ensure the accuracy of my contributions.

Yet it seems that every edit I make, I come back to my watchlist to find you've come along and reverted the article, seemingly without checking any of what I have written. If I am editing a point made on an article, or adding new sources, I generally add references to the end of the article so that anyone can check what I have written. Yet you seem to automatically assume the edit is a vandalism and revert immediately.

I really do not want to get any admins involved, but if you persist in treating me as a vandal and automatically reverting my edits, I will have no choice but to do so.

Regards, Chaos syndrome 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we both have had issues with each other. I'm willing to put them behind me and start from a blank slate. Deal? Chaos syndrome 14:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia has to take copyright seriously. Back in September or October of last year I remember you were adding copyright images (for instance, at Iota Horologii). More recently, User:Chaos syndrome has noted that you seem to be copying text from to various articles such as Delta Trianguli and Delta Pavonis. In some cases, such as at Delta Pavonis, there was perfectly good existing original text, which you simply deleted and replaced with's copyright text. I think you seem to be an enthusiastic contributor, but at times you are not as careful as we need to be. -- Curps 05:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You've been hit...[edit] 2004, 2005 hurricanes? Which ones? Tampa didnt get hardly anything. I know because Huricane Charley threated, but came across me. Just wondering. Oh BTW, glad to see someone else from Florida. Cyclone1 01:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait, wait wait wait. It says in your bigraphy that you were hit by 2004 and 2005 hrricanes. It also says you live in Tampa. No storms hit tampa. Just wondering why you put that. Im not callin you a liar or anything. Just wondering. Sorry Iget tounge twisted sometimes. Cyclone1 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. My house almost got destroyted by Charley... and Jeanne. I get it now. Cyclone1 19:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical names[edit]

Hurrican Devon, could you please stop renaming deep sky objects to names that make no sense whatsoever. I now find Messier 60 on Arp 116. Please quote me people in the astronomical community, especially those who are not professionals studying very specific things who ever routinely talks about Arp 116. Messier designations are infinitely more frequently used. Also, I came across an old one you did in January 2006 renaming a Seyfert Galaxy to the Fried Egg Galaxy. Did you check to see whther that was an established name? I hope you won't take this message the wrong way as I appreciate your work on astronomical articles but your naming practises leave somewhat to be desired. Greetings, Kalsermar 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the Arp 116 was a mistake, thank you for clearing that up. As for the Fried Egg, my point is that it may very well be a name someone gave that particular galaxy and maybe even others have been calling it that too but it is not a widely known name for that galaxy and neither are some of the others I have encountered. Mentioning a nickname in the article is one thing but renaming it to an obscure name is something else altogether.--Kalsermar 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical naming conventions[edit]

I see you added that the IAU uses H (Hermes) to designate Mercury. Do you have a source for this? I'm curious, as I've always wondered where the proper letters to use wer laid out... Urhixidur 18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I note you also labeled Mercury's spurious moon as S/1974 H 1 (Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their natural satellites), but I fail to find any instance of this in the ADS or elsewhere. Please relieve my worry... Urhixidur 18:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Planetbox classification[edit]

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the classification system is rather more appropriate for a speculative site such as Extrasolar Visions, rather than an encyclopaedia which should deal with what we know, rather than trying to extrapolate beyond that. In addition, there is no officially accepted classification system for planets (there isn't even a universally-accepted definition of the term "planet").

Basically, my viewpoint here is that while the Sudarsky system can (and should) be described, actually applying it to real planets is too speculative - we shouldn't pretend we have knowledge of unknown quantities. In addition, until we have the spectrum of a large sample of extrasolar planets, we can't test the Sudarsky system. There is a limit to our knowledge of the universe, and we should accept that and admit it, rather than trying to fill the gaps with speculation. This is why I removed temperature/radius values from the infoboxes: putting them in is (I feel) trying to convince people that we know more than we actually do. Chaos syndrome 23:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Was it you who added the "Discovery status" thing to {{Planetbox discovery}}? I was considering doing that myself. Not sure what kind of system we should use though - the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia distinguishes "published in refereed journal", "submitted to journal" and "announced in conference", but presumably that can be gathered from the reference section. Maybe "confirmed", "unconfirmed" and "disproven" would be a better system: "imaged" is more a discovery method than a status methinks. Chaos syndrome 23:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Planetbox classification[edit]

Template:Planetbox classification has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chaos syndrome 10:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Clear" HTMLs[edit]

Hey, I have a question. I'm in an argument with Worldtraveller and have to get your support. Is putting the {{clear}} on between exoplanet articals (i.e. HD 217107) a right idea. Or is it a bad idea. In my opinion, it's a good idea because you won't get confused with other planet or sections in the artical. Please respond. — HurricaneDevon @ 23:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Can't say. On the other hand the template creates way too much clear space in the articles, and on the other hand the extrasolar planet templates would be in wrong places. I think it would be better to use extrasolar planet templates only in the individual planet articles and use one table for all planets in this kind of articles. See the list of the brightest KBOs for an example of a such table.--Jyril 05:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 02:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your question[edit]

It’s nice to talk to you again, Devon. To answer your question, you do not have the ability to block a user—only administrators have that capability. You can report vandalism on something like Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but that would be inappropriate here. I do not believe Worldtraveller has done anything to merit blocking, nor can his edits be considered vandalism, under either the Wikipedia definition or the English definition. In particular, good-faith actions should not be interpreted as vandalism. I understand that you and he disagree on how the article shoud be structured (a content dispute), but accusing him of vandalism is needlessly inflammatory. My quick review of your communication does appear to show that Worldtraveller attempted to discuss this matter with you beforehand. In addition, I'm afraid I think you were a bit rude to him here. I know it’s frustrating when other editors don’t agree with how we think an article should be written, but it’d be better if you could discuss your differences first, without getting angry, and without edit-warring. If you really can’t solve your dispute, there are other methods of dispute resolution, including inviting other editors to review the situation (to help decide which is better, not to issue blocks). I see that you’ve been blocked for violating the three-revert rule, and it certainly appears you did despite being warned. Take advantage of the block to spend some time away from Wikipedia, to gain a fresh perspective. Perhaps you can work on other articles when you return, or engage in constructive discussion on how to improve the articles in question. Does this help? — Knowledge Seeker 05:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Extrasolar planets[edit]

It's outrageous to delete a whole load of content that someone's added on the grounds that other articles of the same type don't have as much content. You're claiming that there are rules that simply don't exist. Your editing on these HD 217107-related articles is really not helpful at the moment and I think you should leave them alone for a bit. Worldtraveller 08:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:47UrsaeMajorisb.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:47UrsaeMajorisb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

New look for box headers[edit]

There's a discussion on the WikiProject Astronomical objects page regarding a new look for box headers. I was hoping you could drop by and comment. Thank you. — RJH 14:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Public domain" images[edit]

Hi again. I see you've been busy uploading new images to Wikipedia, that's good. However, you've tagged the following images as being in public domain:

If the source site doesn't have copyright information, it does not mean the image is free to use. You must realize that only if the author has explicitly expressed the image is in public domain you can use the tag. If you have information on that, please add it to the image page. Images produced by a US governmental agency (for example, NASA) are automatically in public domain but that is an exception. Others, like images produced by a university, observatory or some other organization (examples: Keck, ESO, NOAO) are usually not copyright free. That applies even to some images in NASA sites: many ground based images in Hubble press releases are often copyrighted. Note also that Wikipedia policy forbids using images that can be used only for non-commercial purposes. I'm not sure if some of those images can be used under the fair use policy, either. Image of a galaxy can't be compared to an album cover, screen shot etc.--Jyril 13:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Star-planetbox type boxes[edit]

Not sure about this, but it might be an idea to make a template for the heading row only and subst: it into articles, rather than have a full-blown template structure for the whole table. That might make things both more consistent and easier to manage, so everybody wins. I'll suggest not using the term "planet" though: we'd probably want to use such a table for systems such as HD 168443 which contain brown dwarfs. Also, given that the table gets used in a "planetary system" section, we probably don't need the caption since this is clear from the context. Chaos syndrome 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


If you recreate deleted content again you will be blocked. --Cyde Weys 00:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about your recreation of Category:Hurricane Devon (which was voted for deletion at WP:CFD). Categories are for encyclopedic content, not something you slap on everything in your userspace. --Cyde Weys 00:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)