User talk:Aldaron/Archive

Non-free use disputed for Image:PCGinGamejpg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PCGinGamejpg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's really not a great illustration of the game anyway. I'll post a better one of my own soon. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 22:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Hello. Just create a page called User talk:Aldaron/Archive, and move whatever content you like there; it just works the same as any other wiki page. I found a nice archive template on some other article and copied it for mine, but you can just have a plaintext link to your archive, if you'd rather.

There seems to be actual, authoritative guidance at Help:Archiving a talk page, if that's any more useful. --McGeddon 15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thanks! &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 16:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0 continues to need improvement
Hi, Aldaron. I was disappointed in your dismissal of my attempt to improve the clarity and usability of the article Web 2.0. Please consider my criticism seriously. Additional discussion at the article's Talk page. -- 201.19.77.39 10:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See article's Talk page. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 14:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, I've made one of my own. Seems to me like we're a ways from any consensus on this, but that we're discussing it like civilized people. Have a good one. :-) -- 201.19.77.39 18:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:FluxxEN-DE-FU.jpg
It looks like you tried to add it as fair use, but it has the old description and licencing info from commons.-- Thinboy00 talk/contribs @15, i.e. 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 23:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it still does not have a fair use rationale. This does not refer to the copyright tag.-- Thinboy00 talk/contribs @180, i.e. 03:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried. See if you can fix the rational I've started. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 04:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

London Eye
Wouldn't you agree that the replacement photo shows the detail of the eye in better focus (yes, the other is in focus, but it's spinning, due to long exposure, so you can't see a damn thing), it's a higher resolution, it shows where it is, it shows the normal front view, it isn't as distracting as the blue-lit trees in the original which take up 2/3 of the shot? I'd say those are all true. --Evans1551 22:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See the article's talk page. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

BS8
God no, just the crudely added 'characters' section.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2012.Alternate.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:2012.Alternate.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI(talk) 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Corrected, I think. I'm not sure how to use all the fields in the FU template though, so please let me know if I've omitted something. &mdash;Aldaron &bull; T/C 21:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:2012.Alternate.jpg)
Thanks for uploadingImage:2012.Alternate.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Restored image. Notable as example of otherwise unobtainable (due to ownership issues) example of numerous alternate logos. &mdash;Aldaron &bull; T/C 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, concerning the alternative logo, I don't think there is any justification for providing and displaying that particular logo. Many hundreds were sent in to various polls and companies, and as far as I am aware, this one was not even seen by much of the public, and therefore has no reason for being specifically picked. This logo: (the first option) could, if at all, possibly be justified for selection as it won the public poll by the BBC as the best logo, and got relatively widespread news coverage.86.136.60.192 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Provide no example because there's no good reason to choose any particular one? I don't follow that logic. This example has clear licensing; most others either do not, or lack decent images. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 17:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: UCFD
SeeUser_categories_for_discussion.VegaDark (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is not at all what the category is about. I'm adding it back. How do I reopen the discussion? &mdash; Aldaron&bull; T/C 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also change the category page and the template to (I think) address what caused the confusion. &mdash; Aldaron&bull; T/C 21:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Take it to deletion review if you want the deletion overturned.VegaDark (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. Can you walk me through it. Or can you just have a look at my changes. I can see why the original objection about "masqurading" (paranoid much?) was made, but have changed things so that it should be clear that this is just a true "by interest" category. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 21:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The steps to list something on deletion review can be foundhere. As the notice at the top states, you should talk to the admin who closed the UCFD first. Simply changing the userbox around does not get around deletion debate results, there is no way the category will not be deleted at this point unless you get it overturned at deletion review. VegaDark (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who "administrator who deleted the page" is, since it hasn't been deleted yet. Where should I paste the second template? &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the person who closed the debate's talk page. In this case, User:Kbdank71.VegaDark (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent HiG Rule Release
Within the Carcassonne talk page, you mention a recent rule release invalidating your unofficial taxonomy. The comment was back from 2007, but I'm not certain which rule you're referring to. Could you clarify? -Fuzzy (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. it was pointed out to me my someone else, but I don't know what he was citing. I believe it's an exchange he had directly with the publisher and posted on BoardGameGeek. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

German-style gamer user box confusion
I think there's a big misunderstanding here that I've tried to clear up in therelevant discussion. I'm not "attempting to misrepresent Wikipedians" (as you say). Quite the opposite. I'm trying to represent them correctly, and repair a simple mistake that will in fact result in misrepresentation. As you correctly point out, repurposing a user box so that it re-categorizes a user is a bad idea. But that is not at all what is going on here. As I've pointed out already, even for users who thought they were expressing a website "affiliation" (something that doesnt' even really apply here in isolation from an interest in German-style games), the chance they lack an "interest in German-style games" is effectively zero. Moreover, as I've maintained, I think most people with the userbox had their interest in German-style games foremost in the first place, and were only incidentally concerned with the website. To the uninformed, the original characterization of the category ("For people who play German-style boardgames or frequent BoardGameGeek") is easily misinterpreted, since it hides the fact that the set of people who "frequent BoardGameGeek" is a strict subset of the people who "play German-style boardgames", so that the latter characterization (and the updated category) is correct for everyone in the old category. Because of this, the correct correct thing to do is to have the old userbox point to the new category. &mdash; Aldaron&bull; T/C 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with some points, and see the reverse on the others, but, fair enough, perhaps I'm missing something.
 * I've asked an admin to act as WP:3PO for this. (See User talk:J Greb)
 * Perhaps we can get this all cleared up. - jc37 21:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of User:AmbientArchitecture/BGG
Nice backhanded way of achieving your mission. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 02:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User:AmbientArchitecture/BGG
 * I explained what I did, and why, at the 3PO discussion. Everything was according to existing policy. That said, if you have further concerns (as apparently you do), I have no problem with taking this through Dispute resolution, or WP:MFD, for that matter. Btw: Note also that the DRV resulted in endorsing deletion. - jc37 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I surrender. From where I sit, you've made a complete mess of a simple thing by blindly applying rules without understanding what's actually going on. You've talked yourself into the rationale of this and I really don't have the time to talk you out of it. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 03:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel that way. While I disagree with that assessement, I have asked others to weigh in (the 3PO; a person who asked me about this; and the DRV closer). Anyway, whichever the case, I do hope you have a great day. - jc37 14:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Next time considerthis, in particular: "Approaches that don't usually convince: (1) Just quoting policy and guideline pages ... even when you're right. (2) Defending the process while ignoring the situation." &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 15:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion, and I hope that you might follow such advice as well. Have a good day : ) - jc37 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Angel timing template removed
It was during the big furor when a handful of people were trying to merge every Angel episode for being non-notable. Bignole thought the timing templates in particular were a clear indication of why all the Angel articles were poorly written fancruft, and while I was doing work on the articles I took them out because I didn't have strong feelings one way or another. Incidentally, the merge controversy (over Angel and other TV series) is why I've left Wikipedia; I don't want to deal with those who think every article has to be either flawless or deleted. If you want to add the templates back, feel free. -- Kweeket Talk 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, deletionists are ruining Wikipedia. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 20:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia - Koi-Koi Setup.jpg
Are these cards the Napoleon Hanafuda Card Deck, the Miyako No Hana Hanafuda Deck, or some other ones? Axecution (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Word Salad
No citation, no reference to another neutral source, just a partisan snipe. Putting in the Palin list on the Word Salad page violates the neutrality policy of Wikipedia.Rabidwolfe (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, wasn't sure how to add a citation. The source (among many) is Stephen Pinker's recent NYT piece. That in no way violates the neutrality policy. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 05:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even with a single citation, it still does, as the wording was snarky and partisan. It was clearly intended to attack Palin rather than provide information.  Let me put it this way:  if we added a disambiguation link to a politician every time someone criticized them, we'd triple the size of our disambiguation pages.  Should I add McCain to the disambig page for Censor(ship)because some have claimed the McCain-Feingold act is government sponsored censorship? Some claim that Barack Obama has palled around with terrorists, should I go add him to the disambiguation page for Terrorists?  Or should I add Biden to the disambig page forplagarism? This is a particularly slippery slope.  Try to score your political points elsewhere - don't use Wiki disambiguation pages for such, please.Rabidwolfe (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me add that I could see (if more neutrally worded and properly sourced) something like the passage in question in one of the articles on Sarah Palin - say, under "criticisms of" or "analysis of speaking style" or some such. Disambig pages aren't supposed to be used for links to every time the word or phrase appears.  Rabidwolfe (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will be adding it back (properly reworded) with a citation, soon. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 17:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? I looked at the Wikipedia guidelines for Disambig pages, and they clearly state: Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term.  Even if it does not violate neutrality guidelines, it violates Disambiguation page guidelines. Rabidwolfe (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Task bar
Stop trying to add inaccurate information to this article. Trying to argue that Raymond Chen, who worked on the Windows Shell team during Windows 95's development, and has published a book that covers the subject, is "misinformed", is really fucking daft, and you should be ashamed of yourself for continuing to assert it after several months, even though you've been TOLD that YOU ARE WRONG. Leave the issue alone -- you aren't going to win this argument.  Warren -talk- 14:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to relax. I'm sorry if, after all the effort you've put into asserting your views, the documentation weighs against you. Are you arguing that the patent that covers the taskbar, and which refers to it as the "tray", and which precedes Chen's blogs (are blogs authoritative?) and his books by many years, is irrelevant?  &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 17:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that the word "tray" and the phrase "system tray" are identical? Have you read Chen's blog post where it states the taskbar was originally going to be called the "tray"?AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I interest you in a deletion?
I see you created Category:Earth-sized Planets yesterday, to house Gliese 581 e. I think the category should be deleted, however, because "earth-sized" is a vague and unworkable classification. In the case of Gliese 581 e, it's not its size per se that astronomers have determined, but its mass, which is about 1.9 times the mass of earth. So even setting aside that size and mass measure two different things, how much larger or smaller can the planet be than earth to be "earth-sized"? I hope I can have your consent to delete this category; as you are the only author, if you consent I can speedy delete it. Otherwise I will proceed with a CFD. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was trying it on for size (or mass, I suppose) but it really doesn't work. Feel free to delete. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 21:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Super! Thanks for the quick reply—much to do! &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 23:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep; you can place uw-vandalism1 on their talk page (and subsequently uw-vandalism2 on the second instance of vandalism, uw-vandalism3 on the third, and so on). Be sure to substitute the templates, as well. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they do. When you revert vandalism with Twinkle, a new window with the vandal's talk page will open, at which point you click the "warn" tab. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is indeed odd. If I recall correctly, Twinkle only works properly on Firefox, Camino, and Safari, so perhaps that's the issue? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe there is, but I'm not sure exactly how to disable that feature. It should be listed on one of the documentation pages. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application
Dear Aldaron,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join #wikimedia-npw.

 So Why  06:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
Can you put down the bad secret right now please? Bob.--76.224.114.105 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks so much for the barnstar, Aldaron. Keep up the good work. Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar
Thanks a lot for your appreciation! Leave  Sleaves  13:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning
Watch your back. User:IverTHPS —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

About Solar flare article
I don't know the extend of your involvement in that article. I have left you a note in the image there that is up for deletion. For better I am pasting it here because it might be deleted. I have also made some minor clarification edits in the article.
 * about the photos
 * From the alternatives in [Wikimedia category, there is this one in particular that could as well be turned into an animation with some photo transition effect. [[User:Shadowmorph| Shadow mor ph ]] ^"^ 10:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are NASA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/ NGDC - animations here that are under a different license. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the license for those: "Information presented on these webpages is considered public information and may be distributed or copied" from here. Shadow mor ph  ^"^ 10:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and Thank you
I really appreciate the barn star. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Tricky subject
Thanks for dropping by and expressing some opinions at Singular they.

You may like to look at the article Referring expressions (a little below half way through). It's short!

That article notes several kinds of ways languages refer to things. Here's a summary:


 * 1a) singular
 * 1b) plural
 * 2a) specific
 * 2b) generic
 * 3a) definite
 * 3b) indefinite
 * 4 collective
 * 5 distributive

Absolutely all of these modes of reference are relevant to discussion of whether or when "singular" they can or should be used. Most of the debate about "singular" they is about a kind of reference—epicene—which the Referring expressions article doesn't mention, but the Oxford Dictionary and other sources do.

For the sake of simplicity and brevity, some of us, over the course of several months, from sources, boiled the key issues at singular they down to: genericity, epicenity and indefiniteness. These three things are explained by three more things: distribution, quantification and (linguistic) variables.

Geoffrey Pullum, a language guru, is on public record noting that "singular" they is much easier to use than to explain. But many linguistic articles have both described and explained the features of "singular" they (which is not normally singular at all).

If you can offer a simpler description and a simpler explanation than what several of us and many sources have worked on, please feel free. If what we have offered is unclear to you, please specify whichever matters seem most hopelessly obscure. We'd love to clarify.

A lot can be done using lambda calculus and discourse representation theory in a fairly short space, but I suspect that would make it less accessible, not more so.

I'd also like to trim out a lot of unnecessary references from the bibliography and some of the unreliable or POV sources in the external links section. A good deal of the gender neutral language section neither describes nor explains much, or repeats things noted elsewhere. There's some other material that adds little but length to the article (imo), but exists because it was part of arriving at consensus. I can't personally remove that material without betraying a consensus I was party to.

It would be good if you could find the time to work through the article in more detail. No problem if you can't. Everyone has many competing priorities. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Biggifying (some) appendices?
the purpose of the refbegin, reflist, and similar tags is to reduce the size of reference sections that have become unwieldy. only more recently has it become customary to use the reduced font for almost all footnotes in that section. the practice has never been sanctioned for use by mos guidelines in other sections. --emerson7 18:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Space Colonization
Hi, thanks for joining the WikiProject, I hope you'll stick around and help us provide better coverage of this subject on Wikipedia. What about space colonization interests you the most? Would you like to write new articles, improve existing ones, or do something outside article space? Wronkiew (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Abce2 | Access  Denied  04:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Native Americans in the United States
Dear Aldaron,

Because of vandalism by an IP, I had to revert some edits. Some of your edits were also affected. Can you work on the article again?

Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the heads up. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 18:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lalande 21185
Hi and thanks for your many cleanups of my contributions. We might have collided on this article. Please look and see that I haven't messed something up. I am currently searching for better references for the spurious or confirmed reports of planets around this star which is known by many other names in the literature.Aldebaran66 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. It looks good. I've added some additional references on the history. The section may be a bit too long for this article, but is certainly informative and worth keeping, perhaps in the astrometry section of the article on detection methods. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can clean this section up a bit and add a small entry to Astrometry. Aldebaran66 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if you have a chance, would you take a look at the new VB 10 star article? Thanks! Aldebaran66 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Zama
17.<===Abhijeeth===> Hi Aaron please read the article. It has some problems. It does not make any sense. It says the "it is was the Romans who enjoyed superiority in the cavalry arm, unlike in most of his previous battles" in the top line then in the paragraph that i edited it says "At the outset of the battle, the superior Carthaginian cavalry swept aside their Roman counterparts and pursued them off the field— depriving Scipio of his entire body of cavalry." Finally in the last line it says "However, Scipio was able to rally his men and after driving off the Carthaginian cavalry with a surprise attack, returned in time to deliver a devastating blow to the rear of Hannibal's infantry line." Which as you can see does not make much sense. Please take a look. Abhijeeth (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Abhijeeth (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was just reverting to make the whole paragraph internally consistent (and to reflect my very limited knowledge of the subject). If you know more about the topic, feel free to restore, but do so throughout. 23:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Script problems?
I'm not sure how happened. Plastikspork (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's strange: I thought I deleted that, but the history shows me inserting it. Very odd! I don't see it reported among the bugs for the script, and don't see it repeated anywhere else in my edits, but I'll keep my eyes open. Very strange indeed. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 03:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you figure it out. I am one of the co-developers of WP:AutoEd, so I am curious to know if this was the result one of the changes to that code.  Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since upgrading to Safari 4.0 I've had a bunch of odd behavior in Wikipedia. Not just editing, but also rendering pages. I suspect a bug in some other script in my monobook.js. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that appears to be it. I had the same garbage inserted recently, and when I disable AutoEd my rendering issues (slow pageloads, blank pages, occasional code bits of markup showing up in random places) seem to go away.  &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 19:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, it may be some strange conflict between AutoEd and one of your other scripts, but it's clearly a problem with AutoEd and something. I know that Drilnoth recently made some changes to replace the 'importScript' commands with 'document.write' commands to improve compatibility with foreign-language wikipedia.  It seems as though this document.write command is writing stuff directly into the textbox, which is very odd.  I will report the bug, and see if we can work on fixing it for you.  Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Orbital diagrams?
Well I've only made that one animated and if I were to do it again I would definitely change a few things. Basic process: I definitely wouldn't want to do this for a multi-planet system, as the configurations do not repeat themselves, and having multiple changes occurring all over the place would increase the size of each frame layer and hence the resulting filesize.
 * 1) Used a Perl script to generate SVG files for each frame. The SVG is the same basic setup as for my non-animated orbital diagrams (File:GJ581orbits.svg, File:HD40307.svg), see the source code of those files for more detail.
 * 2) Used ImageMagick to convert the SVG to PNG frames. There are almost certainly better rasterizers available, in this case ImageMagick performed ok, but I've found it can be problematic handling SVG.
 * 3) Opened the first frame in GIMP - I have the GIMP Animation Package add-on, which treats numbered filename sequences as frames in an animation. One option puts all the frames into a single file with each frame on its own layer.
 * 4) Spend ages of time making each individual frame layer as small as possible to keep the output filesize down. Next time I would attempt to automate this, as it is repetitive and boring!!! As a result I dropped the finished file size from 1.5 MB to 40 KB, so it was definitely worth doing.
 * 5) Save the result as an animated GIF.

In an ideal world I'd use the animation capabilities in SVG and save myself most of this hassle. Unfortunately in the real world this isn't particularly well supported. :-(

Hope that helps! Icalanise (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, very; thanks! Keep them coming! — Aldaron • T/C 17:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Exoplanet numbers?
The counts should be the number of entries in the table. Note Wikipedia uses different criteria for determining whether an object should be included than the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, which is more liberal about the upper mass boundary. Wikipedia rules out objects more than 13 Jupiter masses, while EPE lists several such objects, so the tallies should not be the same. Whether the Wikipedia approach is the right one to take is another question. Icalanise (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I'm glad it wasn't my inability to do the math. Is the rationale for the difference discussed anywhere? Wikipedia's upper limit strikes me as wrong—error bars around many (most?) companions with masses up to even 20 Jupiter masses must have a pretty high probability of actually being 13, or less—and inconvenient—since it makes syncing with a widely used source that much more tedious. — Aldaron • T/C 20:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Wikipedia follows a preliminary definition from the IAU (now seemingly disappeared from the internet) that defines planets to be below 13 Jupiter masses, which is roughly the dividing line between objects that can and cannot have deuterium fusion taking place in their cores. As you say there are problems with the inclination degeneracy. There's also the problem that this may not be a particularly meaningful dividing line, depending on what context you are considering the objects. I don't buy the idea that we should synchronise the list to the EPE though. If we do that we might as well replace the page with a link to the EPE and be done with it, certainly be easier from a maintenance point of view... Icalanise (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Kids of Carcassonne
I fail to see the argument for changing the name of this article, as I have an English-language version of this game, and this is the name as stated on the box, and the name as stated on Rio Grande's website. Please tell me the rationale for changing it. kelvSYC (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * None: you now have you're reference (the cited reference was contradictory, that's all). — Aldaron • T/C 00:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: GabrielVelasquez
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)
 * Understood. I see now that you have a previous history, which I didn't notice before. — Aldaron • T/C 21:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Usurpation of de:User:Aldaron
Hello, I confirm that I'd like to usurp de:User:Aldaron using de:User:AldaronToBe. — Aldaron • T/C 01:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Usurpation of wikt:de:User:Aldaron
Hello, I confirm that I'd like to usurp wikt:de:User:Aldaron using wikt:de:User:AldaronToBe. — Aldaron • T/C 02:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Usurpation of fr:User:Aldaron
Hello, I confirm that I'd like to usurp fr:User:Aldaron using fr:User:AldaronToBe. — Aldaron • T/C 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Popo le Chien throw a bone 06:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Usurpation of pt:User:Aldaron
Hello, I confirm that I'd like to usurp pt:User:Aldaron using pt:User:AldaronToBe. — Aldaron • T/C 03:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Orbital elements
For a RV-discovered planet, the orbital elements that can be determined are period, eccentricity, argument of periapsis, time of periapsis. (Plus the mass function). You can then derive semimajor axis and minimum mass from those. Usual convention for binary star orbits (and exoplanets) is a plane-of-sky convention: x-axis points North, y-axis points East and completing the right-handed coordinate system the z-axis points from the star towards Earth, though for some astrometric detections I have seen elements given with x-axis pointing West and y-axis pointing North. The orbital elements work as follows: Start with orbit in the x-y plane with periastron at positive x, rotate anticlockwise around z by the argument of periapsis, then rotate anticlockwise around x by the inclination, finally rotate anticlockwise around z by the longitude of the node. Longitude of the node is therefore the same as position angle of line of apsides. Icalanise (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing exoplanet names from articles
I see you that you're removing exoplanet names from alot of those exoplanet articles that Tyrogthekreeper and I added it. But exoplanet names came with citation from Wladimir Lyra's homepage Naming Exoplanets that was created on October 21, 2009, but it is not original research. The reason why you're removing exoplanet names from articles is that's because you're think that having exoplanet names in articles is not encyclopedic. What does the phrase nothing encyclopedic means? BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Names are crucial to an encyclopedia. Using names that are not widely recognized is inappropriate, confusing, and misleading. The reference you cite as your authority on the names is an "opinion essay, not submitted to any journal or bulletin". One person's opinion about how to name planets carries very little weight, especially when one considers the potential cost in confusion to readers of the encyclopedia. Adding these names to such a large number of articles borders on spamming, especially rediculous additions like the one to HD 215497 b: "Unlike most exoplanets known, astronomer Wladimir Lyra (2009) hasn’t name this planet yet." It's fine to discuss the names in the talk pages if you want to promote them, but the content pages are not the place to advocate for new names for things. — Aldaron • T/C 22:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

About your signature...
I know this may seem kinda trivial, but I'm just curious about how you managed to modify your signature to its current state. If it's too hard to explain, then just tell me and leave it at that. But if you can explain, feel free to post it to my talk page. Thank you for your time! --Mast 3 r l i n k x (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. I forgot that I could do the same thing as when I learned to make the link to my talk page colorful. All I did was look at a post on your talk page where you replied to someone else's post on the edit page and see what you typed for what is shown in the section of the signature that is a link to your user page. If that didn't make any sense to you (which it most likely did, because I confused myself when I reread it), then in layman's terms, I looked at your signature in an "edit User talk:Aldaron (section)" page. Thanks anyway! -- M a s t 3 r l i n k x (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you figured it out, because I honestly don't recall how I did it! — Aldaron • T/C 22:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-SI density units in Planetbox character template?
Perhaps I should have waited for more discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. However, why is using non-SI density units a bigger problem than using units that many readers (as well as editors) can't grasp, and having a lot of values (as I have just found) that are off by a factor of 1000? WolfmanSF (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why the correct approach is to add a new parameter with the new units and a name that indicates units (e.g. ), leaving the old parameter intact. Doing that would tip off editors that they should pay attention to the units when they enter values. The errors you cite happen for the simple reason that the parameter doesn't specify units and editors probably just assume some, without double-checking what gets displayed—not because they're thinking in g cm-3.  — Aldaron • T/C 05:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * RJH has already admitted he was thrown off because he was thinking in g cm-3. I can guarantee you other editors will be also. And that many if not most nonspecialist readers will draw a blank when they see values in kg m-3. At any rate, is this an issue you're interested in dealing with in the near future? WolfmanSF (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All right, I'll revert the changes and continue discussing this subject for a while, and see where that leads. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I could be completely wrong, but I'd like to see what others say. Especially others who are big exoplanet contributors or in the field. — Aldaron • T/C 05:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted. Happy holidays. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Spacefilght template
Sorry, I just found your post above another on my talk page. I think that it would be good to use the template on things like the shuttle and Soyuz because they involve people traveling. I think if we were to use it on every one, we could be using it on everything from the Voyager missions to those of today. I'm all for using it, but I don't think that hundreds of things categorized as a current spaceflight would be a good idea. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about the concern, but isn't the deciding factor whether not the mission is generating significant current news. Certainly Voyager and most other missions at any given moment don't do that. Kepler, on the other hand, is about to make significant announcements. — Aldaron • T/C 19:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)