User talk:Ardenau4

Welcome!

Hello, Ardenau4! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà

Hi. You wrote, "added calculated diameter of 229762 G!kun?'homdima from Ortiz et. al. 2018 refit of the occultation with the eighth chord included (678 x 678 x 611.4 km)."

Could you provide a link to the ref? — kwami (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here - https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1905/1905.04335.pdf Ortiz et. al. 2019 - 16th page, the occultation results have been refitted with the new chord from Sierra RO added.

Ardenau4 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Diameter cannot be calculated from two axes" -- indeed. But that's precisely what our source did. If the source made such a basic error, why do we trust their figures at all? (Though I think they might mention it's just the size of the occultation shadow.) Also, we don't know that we saw Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà along its equatorial plane, which means its polar diameter may well be less that what we list. Do we have any way of knowing its effective diam actually is 655km? — kwami (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - I know this. The original fit presented results with a Maclaurin fit with the observed ellipse having an equatorial diameter of 676 km, and a equivalent diameter of 638 km (therefore making the minor axis 600 km - ((638 x 2) - 676 = 600), with an effective diameter (assuming a Maclaurin spheroid shape) 650.7 km. The new Sierra RO chord seems to make the fit larger - dimensions of 678 x 611.4 km, with an equivalent diameter of 644.7 km ((611.4 + 678)/2 = 644.7), and an effective diameter (assuming a Maclaurin spheroid shape) 655.8 km. It is true that the true oblateness cannot be well established, but among the three occultation papers so far the observed apparent oblatenesses are consistently low (0.118/0.106, Bendetti-Rossi, et. al. 2017, 0.0982, Ortiz, et. al. 2019, 0.0743, Schindler, et. al. 2016) suggesting that the true oblateness is not much higher than 0.12 - making G!kun?'homdima a Maclaurin spheroid - and therefore making the effective diameter 655.8 km. I know that this is most likely not the actual diameter for G!kun?'homdima but it is at least better than averaging only two axes. I'm trying to follow the precedent set in 174567 Varda's article - the mean diameter was updated from 756.5 km to 767.7 km - the result of switching to a three axis calculation instead of a two-axis calculation - this was reflected on the "List of possible dwarf planets" article. We need to be consistent - if Varda's diameter is calculated with a three-axis solution (767.7 km), the G!kun?'homdima's diameter should also be calculated this way (655.8 km). Hope this explains my thinking a bit better. Ardenau4 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New 'AD' paper

Hi Ardenau4,

I saw that on the talk for the list of largest stars, you mentioned a certain AD paper. Could you please share this paper with me? Also, could you please share your personal list so I may add it to the temporary 'new' list of largest stars?

Thanks!

PMurthy1011 (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the resulting Vizier database: https://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=II/361/mdfc-v10 Here's my personal in-development list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LmzrfDEwzv9ldTofTgu4iOxGCw9SlOCsZ6tHynAcMnE/edit?usp=sharing

Ardenau4 (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! They will be added!PNSMurthy (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

I have encountered a lot of articles where you have added text including the words "based off of" (eg [1], [2], [3]). Would you please use the grammatically-correct "based on" in future. Sankura (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oof thanks for catching that! Yeah I'll make sure to note that lmao.

WikiProject Solar System invitation

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's articles related to the Solar System. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Solar System? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello. I want to apologize for my behaviour. I'm going through really rough times in life. Feel free to delete this; I just wanted to let you know my apology. Kind regards. ExoEditor 15:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers![reply]

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

SPI

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SevenSpheresCelestia, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.