User talk:Astrogeo

Welcome

Hello Astrogeo, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Astrogeo, good luck, and have fun. --Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2013 TX68

Since 2013 TX68 has not been observed since 2013 and has a poorly constrained orbit, the date of closest approach is only known to be 2016-Mar-08 ± 2_00:26 (±2 days). Claiming an exact distance and/or time is misleading. Your Earthsky reference *incorrectly* assumes that the asteroid was recovered and that the passage time and trajectory are now better known than they were on 2016-Feb-25. Earthsky is is also not the MPC and we should avoid using Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (blogs) as a reference when ever possible. See also: Talk:2013 TX68 -- Kheider (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the trajectory is only known to +/- 2 days. But do you then take into account what Marco Micheli is saying in the Earthsky article?? That the asteroid was also visible on a few images, seven days before it was officially discovered, and are these images taken into account for the +/- 2 days uncertainty? Also, why do MPC post the message they did on their FB-page, if there is nothing to it? And concerning the figures for the distance at closest pass in the article. We don't know where they come from, MPC or other reliable source within the NEO community. OR, they might come from the ephemerides from a NASA/NEO or similar ephemerides generator, but working from the best known orbital elements. Earthsky is the source I find when searching the net, why is the rest missing? One answer is that the asteroid passed so far away, having so low magnitude, it only can be found on the images from the largest telescopes (therefore very few images exist) and no official numbers exist by now, but that Earthsky have been able to get in contact with key persons that have given them the actual numbers from first source. Read the bottom line in their article, why would they write that if they had no confirmed numbers? Also, one reason to use the article, is that this pass has been hyped as a possible impact on Earth. I think everyone, lacking the best understanding, needs to know that this will NOT happen. Keeping this story in the air too long is contradictory to getting out the true facts about the probabilities of any real Earth impacts of NEOs.

--Astrogeo (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the precovery observations to the article on Feb 11th so the current JPL solution accounts for the 10 day observation arc. The generic MPC twitter post is just the MPC's nominal solution and does NOT take ANY uncertainties into account. Earthsky wrote a misleading article IMHO. The asteroid has not been observed since 2013-Oct-09. The numbers in the article come from the JPL SBDB and include the 3-sigma uncertainties. Astronomers have known since 13TX68 had a 3 day observation arc that there was NO risk of impact in March 2016. -- Kheider (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NBCNEWS says nothing that the JPL SBDB does not say. The asteroid has NOT (yet) BEEN RECOVERED during the 2016 pass. I have confirmed that there are currently NO new observations of 13TX68 so any claim of a precise time/distance is bogus. Everything is currently based on 2013 orbital data! You can even read Peter Thomas on twitter. -- Kheider (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Scandinavia drought 2018 (July 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Scandinavia drought 2018 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Scandinavia drought 2018, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 02:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Astrogeo! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! David.moreno72 02:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Scandinavia drought 2018

Hello, Astrogeo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Scandinavia drought 2018.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Rekonstruksjon Ose.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rekonstruksjon Ose.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]