User talk:Vegasprof

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Vegasprof, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Awolf002 11:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Messier object pages[edit]

Thanks for the heads up! I am watching many astronomical objects article, being a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects and I saw your valuable contributions. Feel free to join us "over there". Awolf002 11:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Awolf! Thanks for the warm welcome. I did notice the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects group. What is the procedure for joining? BTW, did you decide to edit the German M67 page? It now has less information than the English one, and I believe it is incorrect to flatly state that M67 is 5 billion years old; that's only one estimate. Vegasprof 19:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It's easy to "sign up"! Just put the page on your watch list, help in the discussions, and if you care sign your name as a participant.
Yes, I plan to update the German article, when I get to it. I plan to work on this in the next few days. Most likely Tuesday. One thing you may want to add to the M67 article are references. Please, check out some of the featured articles, to see how we currently do this here at WP. The main point of this "exercise" is that all statements must be attributed to reliable sources, per one of the main pillar in the five pillars, especially where verifiable sources are mentioned. I trust you will have no problem with providing these citations. Thanks! Awolf002 04:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have tried a few times to add citations to the Messier 67 page. I am doing something wrong. Vegasprof 01:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I see you have edited the article, but I can't see which references you are trying to add, or why you think you are doing something wrong. Can you explain further or provide an example? -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just edited the Messier 67 page again and inserted the citation, right after the words "fully understood". The problem is that the section "References" does not appear. What am I doing wrong? Vegasprof 02:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. You need to add the section seperately using:
==References==
<references />

You can find more info at WP:CITE, WP:FOOT and m:cite.php. Just ask again if there is anything else. Happy editing! -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zzuuzz! 02:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Your edits look very good. We may get Messier 67 to become an exemplary "standard" for other cluster and/or Messier object articles. Thanks! Awolf002 12:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Awolf! Sorry it's slow going, but I'm slowly learning the system. For example, I still haven't figured out all the sytax for adding tables, figures, etc. Vegasprof 00:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Accounts[edit]

I also saw that on de the Blue stragglers page is rather weak. Thanks for the heads up! Regarding the account on de, a general mechanism to share an account between "projects" is in preparation. For now, if you want to edit in another language or project you must create a new account. People who develop the "single sign on" software ask us all to use the same user id (and password?) to make the transition easier, once it will happen. Hope this helps. Awolf002 14:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Supergiant planet[edit]

This article should probably be deleted. The information in the article is probably presented better at extrasolar planet. Using the ADS Abstract Service , I cannot find papers that use the term "supergiant planet". ("Giant planet" was used by some papers to describe planets that are larger than Jupiter.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article cited in supergiant planet, an arXiv electronic preprint by V. Joergens, does use the word, once, on page 7: "The only other explanation could be a companion with a mass of several Jupiter masses or more, i.e. a supergiant planet or a brown dwarf." I don't feel that Joergens is trying to define the term, but rather is using it informally. Do you think that's enough to save the article from deletion? Vegasprof 00:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Embargo[edit]

I responded to your query that you placed on my talk page. My response can be found here. If the message isn't on my talk page, please see the archives for the time period of your original message. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page, and I'll respond to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 11:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I read the discussion you guys had, and would argue that since the embargo seems to be widely ignored [1] it becomes void, especially since we didn't receive a press resease in the first place. Turning the question around, what do we really have to gain by respecting it? -- Stereo (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Daniel Bryant got an email asking us to remove it. I will respect the embargo. I think we all should, for Wikipedia's sake. Vegasprof 21:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Gliese 581[edit]

Please only add comments to the article's talk page. -- Northgrove 21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That comment on Gliese 581 was a desperate attempt to stop editors from violating ESO's embargo on their announcement. Not every editor even looks at the talk page. For the last seven hours or so, editors have been inserting news about Gliese 581c at an every increasing pace, while I've been deleting them, as per the email that user:Daniel.Bryant received from OTRS. (See my talk page for a copy of his message.) But, I now hereby resign from this Sisyphian task. People are adding stuff faster than I can hit the delete button. Vegasprof 22:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your eager to maintain news embargos, however both sides need to follow the editing rules. -- Northgrove 23:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Planet hab[edit]

Why not get something together in user space and then others can look it over. I've previously considered a Habitability of Red dwarf systems given how long that section is. Your title might be simpler.

In general, Planetary habitability needs a going over to modernize the reference formatting. I'm glad people are looking at again after its In the News link. Marskell 09:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Flames[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I strongly oppose incivility in talk pages, or any other blogging situation. If someone gratuitously insults me (meaning, they go out of their way to say something insulting when it would be possible to make the same point in a non-insulting manner) they lower themselves in my opinion. My strategy in that situation is mixed, but eventually converges to totally ignoring the person, for one of two reasons: 1) If they cannot figure out how to say what they want to say without insults, their opinion is unlikely to be an informed one, and is hence unworthy of response, and 2) I don't like to be insulted. This message is not directed at anyone in particular, BTW, but at everyone out there who has done or might do that. I will do my very best to follow my policy myself. Happy Editing! Vegasprof 03:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

An invitation[edit]

Can we end the tug-of-war over material on the Six-Day War? You are invited to take part in a discussion. Please see Talk:Six-Day War, topic "Controversial changes". Hertz1888 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal[edit]

I suppose that it could have been an honest mistake, but it's a morally certainty that it was vandalism. I've given him a warning — though as it's an IP address he might not have been responsible for any of the other actions from that address, so I didn't want to block despite its long (but unrelated) history of disruption. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hirschberg's algorithm[edit]

You wrote the pseudocode on Hirschberg's algorithm - can you please explain the high level description, especially Pref[]? 89.53.120.154 15:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pref[x,i] is the prefix of length i of a string x, but that is stated in the article. Do you think there is an error? I have not gone over the article since my last edit, and I am not sure when I'll get back to it. If you can give me a specific place where there is a problem it could help. Vegasprof 10:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming[edit]

The wheels are coming off the bandwagon. My guess is that global warming alarmism's high point was when Al Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize.

There isn't, and never was, a consensus that man's activities are causing significant global warming and that we should take costly steps to stop it. Even as more and more (presumably well-meaning) political leaders (e.g., Geoge Bush) sign on to global warming alarmism, more and more scientists are speaking out against it. See, for example: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

In science, truth tends to win out in the end, and the data are not all in. We just have to be patient. Vegasprof (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Blasphemy! Heretic! Tparameter (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The hard part, of course, is convincing the true believers that anyone whos is not crazy or corrupt could disagree with them. When I have time, I'll write out the whole story at http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming_controversy

--Uncle Ed (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

People who promote an ideology which is in contradiction to known facts have already proved that truth is not as important to them as their ideology. Therefore, do not be surprised that rational arguments don't sway them. When they accuse those who oppose them of basing their thoughts on other than facts, that is an example of projection, because it is what they themselves do; just as all cheaters believe that others also cheat. Vegasprof (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
So, thieves always lock up their houses and cars, and murderers never travel without a bodyguard? Oh, well, with the trend so small (0.8 degrees per century), it will take decades before this gets settled. Maybe I should write about older controversies like continental drift or eugenics. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You're doing fine, Ed. Keep going. Based on the contributions on the talk pages, I conclude that a fairly good percentage of Wikipedians know that GWA (GW alarmism) is not justified by the evidence. There is no danger that the United States will ratify the Kyoto Protocol, even if Democrats win the White House and Congress in 2008; people who don't understand the United States may not realize that. After Kyoto is buried (it is already dead) we may or may not negotiate a sensible treaty, and if so, it may be ratified, in spite of the damage the GWA people have done to the credibility of the entire idea. Courage. Vegasprof (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Vegasprof, you're curious. I say this because you're using political sources, like Inhofe, to defend your position, which may be scientific in principle. Here on Wikipedia, partisan and political sources won't get you far--at least not if you're trying to talk about science. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, UBeR. You must mean Senator Inhofe, right? Why do you claim I'm using him as a source? My sources are the prominent scientists who have the courage to speak their minds, despite intense political pressure to go along with GWA. The Senate report was just a wrapper for me, a source of links to primary sources. (I already had a good-sized list, but this made it bigger.)
I hope you are joking about that "political" vs "science" comparison, since GW alarmists seem to be getting a lot of mileage from Al Gore, who is a politician, and definitely not a scientist. Vegasprof (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Then don't bother listening to Al Gore. That's my suggestion. Listen to the scientists publishing in peer-reviewed, scholarly journals. I don't mean cherry-pick the ones you want to read either. I think if you choose to read just a general and broad selection of academic research published on the topic, you might come to a different conclusion that Inhofe has come to. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, UBeR. Merry Xmas, and thanks for your response. I wrote a long repsonse to you, but I'm not sure where I should put it. In short, I read lots of sources on all sides of the issue, and I stick by my conclusion that experts in the area of climate research disagree for scientific reasons, and that therefore there is no consensus. How can you claim otherwise? Vegasprof (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I am just as certain as you that there are well-qualified and respected scientists who disagree. The question, of course, is how many? ~ UBeR (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
(I'm glad we have an agreement here) No, that is not the question. If you want to count, how would you weight opinions? Multiply each person's opinion by the number of peer-reviewed publications? Wikipedia editors couldn't do that. But more importantly, science is not democratic. No matter how many respected scientists believed the Earth was stationary, the consensus was shattered sometime between Copernicus and Kepler. In the cases of Earth moving, and evolution, there is now a scientific consensus, even though the latter topic is controversial. In the case of AGW, there has never been a scientific consensus, despite what Al Gore said in his movie, and that fact is becoming more and more openly known among the aware public. The question of whether humanity will be better off if we take drastic action to ameliorate AGW is an economic issue, and there is no consensus among economists that supports that claim. Vegasprof (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, perhaps counting scientists is not so fruitful for determining truth. But it is for determining whether there is a consensus or not. You're right though, relying on authority will not necessarily give you the correct answer. The answer, of course, comes from evidence. Evidence is something that is painfully lacking from Inhofe's side. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Open Message to Wikipedia Editors[edit]

This section is addressed to many people (you know who you are). I am not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist, and I can tell that there is substantial disagreement on the issue among those who know what they are talking about. Given this fact (the fact that there is no consensus that it's necessary) any talk of diverting trillions of dollars worth of resources to abate anthropogenic global warming are premature. Wikipedia editors who promote global warming alarmism, defending "their" articles against any attempt to bring balance, are damaging Wikipedia's reputation. Global warming alarmists, as a whole, by crying "Wolf," are making it more difficult to actually take sensible measures in the future, if and when it is determined that that is necessary, and are damaging the credibility of those trying to solve global environmental problems.

The Kyoto Protocol, which is patently absurd, will never be ratified by the United States Senate. To identify environmental action with that protocol damages the cause of environmentalism. Al Gore is a polarizing figure in the United States, and his reputation is very low among a substantial fraction of voters. By choosing him as a poster boy, the movement lowers its credibility. By refusing to allow the word "controversial" to appear in the opening paragraph of the article An Inconvenient Truth, Wikipedia editors are supporting the film, which, like all documentaries, especially those shown to children, should be re-edited if it contains even one factual error.

But the worst possible damage is in the future. If it really does come to the point that we should do something expensive to correct global warming, the political opposition generated as a natural reaction to the current unwarranted alarmism could remain, and prevent us from taking necessary action at that time. In could even interfere with international efforts to abate massive atmospheric pollution, a problem whose existence is recognized by a true scientific consensus.

Here is my appeal, to William Connolley and many others. Stop deprecating the prominent scientists who refuse to join the bandwagon, and give fair play to their opinions in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has a responsibility, to the millions of people who come here to do research for their homework in school (or whatever) to show respect for all serious opinions on controversial topics.

As I said above, I have confidence that truth will prevail; it usually does. But the damage done before its final victory can be great. Vegasprof (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting global warming studies and such[edit]

I have compiled a list from some info I found on the internet. You may find it interesting. The list I created is here. Elhector (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment[edit]

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  \sim Justmeherenow (  ) 05:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Vegasprof (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Standing Offer/Request[edit]

Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.

If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally. --GoRight (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will probably do that. Vegasprof (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Kepler mission[edit]

Both http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html and http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/ list 2009 March 5 at 10:48:43 pm EST (15:48:43 UTC) as the launch time. I'm not sure I see the problem. --mikeu talk 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that 10:48 pm EST is 22:48 EST which is 03:48 March 6 UTC. I have read that the launch date is March 6 is Europe; that's on the German Wikipedia page, for example. If it's truly 15:48 UTC, then it's 10:48 am EST. Vegasprof (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
opps, I really "spaced out" on that edit. Fixed now. thanks --mikeu talk 14:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Neal J. Smatresk[edit]

I did a little cleanup. It really need inline citations using {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}. It is also past a stub. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming (Again)[edit]

Well, fellow Wikipedians, my predictions (in the section Global Warming I wrote in December, 2007, which you can still find on this page) are slowly coming true. Although there is substantial effort throughout the world, including here on Wikipedia, to marginalize those who don't go along with the so-called "consensus," more and more people are coming to the realization that there really isn't one.

Having a scientific consensus is not the same as the public being in full agreement. For example, I'm sure there was a scientific consensus that the Earth was round before the public at large mostly believed it; ditto with the Earth going around the Sun. Even in the beginning of this century, when there was a scientific consensus that there are germs that cause disease, most people refused to change their habits to take this into account. (I read an article lamenting this fact, and stating that they would simply have to concentrate on educating the young.) So, the opinion polls reported by Rasmussen etc. do not constitute evidence of a scientific consensus, or lack thereof. But the opinions of leading scientists, such as Freeman Dyson, do. (It is shameful the way the AGW people have tried to marginalize Dyson, whose intellect is one of the greatest in the world. You don't get to be a Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study by being dumb.)

The current political controversy is whether we should take drastic steps to curtail the supposed global warming effect of man's actions. I don't know whether the Earth will warm (or cool) in the future, but I know that no one else does, either. Forcing the bulk of humanity to pay a high cost to correct this problem, when we don't know whether these sacrifices will have any significant effect, or even whether the problem exists at all, is truly foolish. Vegasprof (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

While it doesn't often enter the public discourse on this topic, I have heard on many occasions global warming supporters acknowledge that all that matters to them is cleaning up the environment, not the truth of their claims. See, their minuscule statistical samples sizes, their overly-simplistic models of overly-complex systems, and their religious political rhetoric - these things are justified by the ends, a cleaner environment. I understand. I accept that. I guess the most puzzling thing for me is the question, why did they chose a harmless gas like Carbon Dioxide on which to focus? Why not Lead, or Carbon Monoxide, or Sulfer Dioxide, or any other host of harmful pollutants? Tparameter (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Because when people attack real pollutants, such as lead, the issue does not become controversial. Tetraethyl lead is no longer used in our gasoline, and industrial release of oxides of sulfur and nitrogen have been reduced. I am not sure that carbon monoxide (though poisonous) counts as a problem, since it oxidizes in the atmosphere.

December 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There are appropriate venues for such claims, but none of them are on the talk pages of articles, please see WP:TPG for appropriate use. Soapboxing is not one of these. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Reputation of Wikipedia is at Stake[edit]

I have noted that evidence of any flaws in the theory underlying the current AGW movement quickly gets deleted from Wikipedia pages, such as in the recent edit war at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I am not the only one who has confronted this issue; I'm sure, with some effort, I could compile quite a list of Wikipedians frustrated by this constant POV pushing. Unfortunately for Wikipedia's reputation, this has also been noticed by some outside Wikipedia. The long-run effect of this will be to damage Wikipedia's reputation, since people will figure that if the "climate-warming" related pages are blatantly biased, they should doubt the objectivity of the entire Wikipedia system. A very recent article reporting a detailed investigation of the actions of certain Wikipedia editors is found here. The question I pose to the entire Wikipedia community is this, "Should Wikipedia continue to tolerate this?" I welcome any suggestions. Vegasprof (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vegasprof. If you feel relevant information is missing from a Wikipedia article, you'll need to cite verifiable, authoritative sources, and write the addition in a neutral tone. I don't know anything about your particular situation, but I've noticed many cases where the way someone has presented information has been used to keep it out of the article. Had the information been presented more neutrally, it might have been retained.
If a conflict arises, work out details on the talk page, and if that doesn't work, follow the dispute resolution process. My sense is that it works pretty well when it's used. If someone is being uncivil, abusively blocking legitimate edits, or otherwise violating Wikipedia policy, it should be addressed.
--DGaw (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I am noticing a different kind of flaw, one that demonstrates that real-time information cannot get coverage here because of the painstakingly long process of scientific research and the type of sources that Wikipedia needs, which is the same case with the IPCC. I think that global warming is currently accelerating but I need written citations to prove it when what I have now is just raw data. ~AH1(TCU) 00:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

IPPC[edit]

Hi you recently showed interest in the following article [[2]] and the inclusion of new text, one of the editors has asked comments [[3]] and i was wondering if you had any further thoughts on this. Thank you.mark nutley (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark, where do I write comments? There must be a page for it, no? Vegasprof (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry vega, comments go in the talk page here [[4]]

--mark nutley (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Rose Franken[edit]

Not that I doubt you, but we need a verification for the fact that Rose was Peter's mother. The source at the end of the paragraph does not say so. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi George, I knew Peter personally; he lived in our home for a year (1952-1953), while he was a postdoc (I think: maybe assistant professor) at Stanford. I will try to find some documentation. Vegasprof (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that would be necessary. Thanks for assisting. I found this family to be really interesting when I was writing the articles. Do you know anything about "She was one of the artists and writers to visit Melrose Plantation on the Cane River in Louisiana.[2][when?][clarification needed]" Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I found the information in her obituary in the LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-06-25/news/mn-4706_1_rose-franken Is that good enough? There is also an article by Glenda Frank http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/franken-rose that states that she had a son named Peter born in 1928. Peter's obituary http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jenszorn/1JZArt/1_Art_Sculpt__EAZ%20/FrankenObitUM.html at the University of Michigan also contains the information that Rose was his mother. Unfortunately, I know very little about Rose, except that she used to whack their dog Schultz when he stole food off the table, but had to stop when he growled. Peter also told me about the day that he (Schultz, that is) got beaten up by a goose, and the whole family enjoyed watching it, because they really felt he deserved it. Vegasprof (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Geese are tougher than dogs, that's for sure. The sources you mention look good. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)