User talk:Aldebarium

Quasar
Hi, I only just saw the note you left (very nicely and sociably!) about this article and the redshift controversy, back in May. I've commented on the talk page, can you take a look and see what you think? Thanks! FT2 (Talk 13:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hypervelocity stars
Aldebarium is confusing me when he says the following: "The neutron star RX J0822-4300, which was measured to move at a record speed of over 1,500 km/s (0.5% of the speed of light) in 2007 by the Chandra X-ray Observatory, is thought to have been produced the first way.[29]    1500 km/s is NOT 0.5% the speed of light, the true percentage is: 0.005%.    I've edited it but he keeps reverting my edit. This is his explanation:      It just comes down to an understanding of what the percent sign means- this is not just related to the article in question, but it's what "percent " means in general (it's the same for interest rates or any other situation where you're using percentages). Essentially, the way to think about it is that the % sign means "divided by 100" (i.e. "per cent"). For example,  1% of $1 means 1/100 * $1, or o.01 * $1, which is equal to 1 cent.  But, 0.01% of $1 is equal to 0.01 * 0.01 * $1 which is equal to 1/100th of 1 cent. Or, for another example: 25% of the speed of light doesn't mean 25*c, it means (25/100)*c=0.25c. For the star in question in the article you were looking at, if the star's measured speed is v=1500 km/s, and c=300,000 km/s, then v/c=0.005. Or you could write v=0.005c. This is the same as writing that v=0.5% of thur speed of light, since v=0.5*0.01*c. In the same way that 25% of c means 0.25c, it's also the case that 0.5% of c means 0.005c. So, the correct statement is either that the star's speed is 0.5% of the speed of light, or that the star's speed is 0.005*c. If you write "0.005% the speed of light, that means 0.005*0.01c, which is 0.00005c, which is equal to 15 km/s." Ok, that's his explanation, but 0.5% the speed of light is half the speed of light! Basic division says 1500/300,000=0.005. I apologize if I can't follow you, but 0.5 is half, anyway you read it. Duckster214 (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Duckster214. Sorry that we keep coming back to this, but you are misunderstanding the meaning of the % (percent) symbol. "0.5" and "0.5%" do not mean the same thing mathematically. The percent symbol has a very specific mathematical meaning which you have to take into account. I'll try to briefly explain again what I wrote on your talk page last year. You are correct that 0.5 means "half", but "0.5%" does not mean "half", it means "half of one percent".  Think about it this way. "1% of c" does not mean "1c", which would be the same as c. "1% of c" means "one percent of the speed of light" or "1/100th of c", which is equal to c/100=3000 km/s. (1% just means the same thing as "one one-hundredth" or 1/100.) The quantity "0.5% of c" means "half of 1% of c", which is 1500 km/s. In other words, "0.5% of c" means the same thing mathematically as "(0.5/100)*c" which is equal to 0.005c or 1500 km/s. I recommend that you read the percentage article carefully, all of this is explained there.  Aldebarium (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Spectrophotometry
Hi Alderbarium,

I noticed that a very informative video about spectrophotometry had been removed from the spectrophotometry page. It gave a nice picture of photons being absorbed and electrons being pushed up as well as proper lab practices. I also noticed that your explanation of percents is not 100% clear.

I appreciate your time and commitment keeping wikipedia relevant.

Kevyn Lensky (SSN: 345-23-1237) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.107.254 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello- I'm not 100% sure that we are talking about the same video. The one that I removed from the spectrophotometry article was a youtube video of 2 students rapping (or maybe attempting to rap) about electronic spectroscopy. I'm all in favor of science outreach and communicating science to the public, but this video wasn't suitable material to be used as a reference for scientific information in a WP article. See WP:RS for guidelines non what constitutes a reliable source suitable for citing in an article. If there was a youtube video that was relevant to the topic of an article and suitably informative, it could potentially be linked under the "external links" section at the end of a WP article. That would be better than citing it as a reference in the article body. But in this case, my opinion is that the video in question isn't either informative or relevant enough to be worth linking to at all in the WP article. Aldebarium (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Howdy Aldebarium! I am 100000% sure that we may not be on the same page as to what constitutes rap. These students are giving a powerful and dramatic representation of an art-form that is critically recognized (I would know best as I took an art class in my liberal arts undergraduate education). I understand your argument as the educational quality of the video is lacking, but the TAs in the video did win an award from their respective institution for the insightful art. At least 0.5% of the award (in other words, at least half) came from this beautiful video. I respect your decision to keep this citation from the page. I apologize if I can't follow you, but art is art, anyway you read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.107.254 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

KH 15D
hi!

I saw that you added KH 15D on the wiki page for EPIC 204376071‬ with the description: "star with unusual variations in brightness". However, KH 15D isn't a single star with strange variability; it's a binary system surrounded by a circumbinary disk. The disk is what's causing the "winking" phenomenon, not an internal stellar process. So maybe you could be a little more specific in the description? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agarciasoto18 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I added one word that I think will clarify sufficiently, and the link to the full article will give the reader full information. Aldebarium (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Redshift_quantization needs help
An editor is revisiting an old "debate" at Redshift_quantization: could use some help. Honestly, that whole page needs to be gutted and redone from the ground up to emphasize the science and de-emphasize the silly papers. - Parejkoj (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look when I have a chance and see if I can contribute anything useful. Meanwhile, if you have a chance, take a look at Photometry (astronomy), there are some recent changes there that have added confusion and some errors to the article, and I haven't had time to try to do any substantial fixes yet, but that article is in need of some help too. Aldebarium (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being WP:BOLD: that's a good start. I want to do something similar for most of the body, and the intro, too, just haven't had the time or inclination yet... - Parejkoj (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

absolute magnitude
Absolute magnitude should make it very clear that the absolute magnitude (H) of an asteroid is not defined at a distance of 32 light-years! -- Kheider (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your updated edit - it looks like you've found the best overall solution. Aldebarium (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did a quick look for that fact and missed it at the very end of the lead. Moving where it is more visible should benefit casual readers. -- Kheider (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Concerns relating to my articles
Hi Aldebarium,

I'm not sure whether the articles I created are either in my own words or taken from articles. I know I like creating new articles for people to see but sometimes I see articles undone because of copying concerns. I'm sorry for any disruptive editing I caused. Is it ok if you can contribute anything useful for these articles and see what needs to be improved? Thanks. Galaxybeing (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I will reply later today in the thread on your talk page. Aldebarium (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits
Hi Aldebarium,

I notice you removed information from some of my articles thinking they are not good. I tried reverting them or paraphrase them but they were deleted in the end. I advise you to stop since I consider as a bad faith and sign of progress disruption. Instead take the initiative to open a discussion on the article's talk page on how we can fix such issues like adding reliable citations, a note to rewrite any edits as well as a positive thank you and welcome message if such contribution is done. Thank you. Galaxybeing (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have tried explaining this before on your talk page. Most of the content that you are writing in these long and detailed articles does not meet even the most minimal standards for inclusion in wikipedia articles. That is why I have been deleting so much of the text that you have written. This is not a problem that you can solve by adding more reliable citations or by rewriting the text to improve it. A lot of the text you have been writing in your long and detailed articles is just meaningless gibberish that you've tried to copy or paraphrase from journal articles without understanding the meaning, or details that are so irrelevant that they don't belong in a wikipedia article, and most of this material can not be improved in any way that would somehow make it suitable for wikipedia articles. That's why I have been deleting this material. I'm sorry if that comes across as harsh. Once again, my recommendation is to stick with very basic information and not try to include a lot of very detailed or technical astrophysical information that you don't really understand. I will continue to delete material that is incorrect, irrelevant, or meaningless. Aldebarium (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks once again man. Hope this message helps me. I acknowledge learning from the basics is a good step to creating good WP articles. I made some mistakes in making some of these articles technical and adding long paragraphs that I know it is not a workable solution. Right now, it is good for me to follow your guidelines of sticking with simple information without including much detailed information for any new articles. When I can understand more astrophysical information, then you can consider allowing me to included a lot more information in these articles without the possibility of reverting them. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)