User talk:Huntster/Archive 33

Teahouse assistance given to Seangonzales
Greetings! You issued a warning to Seangonzales about adding spam to Wikipedia. In good faith, I'm attempting to help this editor understand what spamming really means and instead to encourage them to improve their writing and be careful of self-promotion and not having a neutral point of view. This user was quite alarmed by your message, and I have received a similar one sometime in my deep past of editing and understand the distress that it can cause. I know you're doing a good job, and I wanted to tell you that I'm doing my best as a teahouse to help this new editor.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , I hope you make some headway with him. His actions were textbook self-promotion and spam. The clincher was that the citations were added to material where there was absolutely no correlation save for the subject's name. That kind of thing tends to make my AGF meter flatline. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , friendliness at the Teahouse is a great thing, but I have to agree with Hunster here. This editor was inserting a link to his own speculative blog post about Mark Hamill's role in the upcoming Star Wars film to every mention of Hamill that he could find in the encyclopedia, pretty much all of which had nothing whatsoever to do with the new movie. Those references were worthless to our readers, and promotional for his website. Textbook spamming. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * These are excellent points and  and your experiences with dealing with spam exceed mine by many orders of magnitude. Very early in my own editing experience, I did the exact same thing that he has done only in a different area and subject-Actually thinking that I was adding to the encyclopedia. If an editor tells me that his intentions are good, I have a tendency to believe him. When I was engaging in intentionally spamming to promote myself, I was shocked to find that my intentions were being questioned. I stopped editing for about two years, and began reading up on all the rules and guidelines that make Wikipedia the great source of information is.  I am back, obviously-but ready to take someone's word when you don't understand what they're doing is wrong. The user in question did not even receive a welcome message, something that could have prevented him from thinking what he was doing was all right. Spam has no place in Wikipedia and I am not suggesting that we let anything slide like that. I am wondering if there may be a friendlier message about spam that a user could receive before getting threatened with being blocked?  Or maybe I'm just too soft!
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 19:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your point is well-taken,, and I am very glad you stayed with the encyclopedia. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Genesis II
Good call on the 'lychee' sentence. It added nothing substantive to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.57.208.126 (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

New Forest Coven
Thanks for addressing WHRex's edits to New Forest Coven. This looks very much like an editor with a major agenda, but I don't have the time or energy to try to run around trying to fix her/his edits alone. I also don't want to seem like a wikistalker, so I was glad to see your edit.

I'm inclined to AGF, but WHRex's Talk page and some of his/her edit summaries give a very strong impression of someone with an axe to grind. I'm not sure how best to proceed, or even if I should do anything at all. Given the tone of the Talk page and edit summaries, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to have a productive conversation. You've always struck me as a level-headed and competent editor, so if you have advice about this, I'd appreciate it.

Best regards,

* Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 23:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'll try to keep an eye on his contributions. I think he falls into the WP:NOTHERE category, but we'll see what his future contributions hold. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks; that's pretty much my plan. I've undone a couple of edits that didn't get re-done, so it's possible s/he has moved on.
 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 00:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for not being a wikistalker whoever you are.
 * I'm trying to only add facts. Next I think academic fraud will go nicely some where.   Fear not it will fit since the article is about a guy who claimed a degree from a University that didn't even exist. --WHRex (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , as has been said, you appear to have a distinct agenda judging by your edits, given additions such as "British fraudster" and "Pseudohistorian". These are opinions, which are especially inappropriate considering your edits so far have been completely unsourced. Just consider this a formal warning to not continue down this route. I'd suggest finding a place other than Wikipedia to express your opinions of these subjects. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

LBV G0.120-0.048
Hey Hunster. I just wanted to discuss some things about LBV G0.120-0.048. In the reference, on page 10, there is a table displaying LBV G0.120-0.048, the Pistol star, and qF362. The table displays the 2MASS Designations, the R.A. and Decl, the J, H, and Ks magnitudes, and some other information. At the bottom of the table it says; "— Positions and JHKs photometry were taken from the 2MASS catalog (Cutri et al. 2003). The date of JHKs measurements was JD2451825.4954. The narrowband F187N and F190N measurements are from H. Dong et al. (2010, in preparation)-". The reference also stated on page 7; "Figer et al. (1998) suggested that the Pistol Star has an initial mass in the range of 150–250 M⊙. Owing to their similarities in intrinsic brightness and spectral properties, it would be reasonable to assume that LBV G0.120−0.048 and the Pistol Star have comparable masses". But, as other studies have shown, the Pistol star's mass is 86-92. So the 86-92 mass could be put in on the page.

As for the ejection, the reference comments; "LBV G0.120−0.048 lies ≈2.′8 from the Quintuplet cluster, which also contains qF362and the Pistol Star. Assuming a distance of 8 kpc to the Galactic center (Reid 1993), this angular separation implies a projected physical separation of ≈7 pc from the Quintuplet. The presence of three LBVs within such a small projected volume makes this region the largest known concentration of LBVs. Such a concentration is remarkable, given the very short period of time massive stars spend in the LBV phase (∼ 105 yr, Langer et al. 1994). Therefore, we suggest that LBV G0.120−0.048 is coeval with the Quintuplet cluster, and either formed outside the main cluster, but during the same burst of star formation, or formed within the cluster and was subsequently ejected from it somehow. Figer et al. (1998) suggested that the Pistol Star has an initial mass in the range of 150–250 M⊙. Owing to their similarities in intrinsic brightness and spectral properties, it would be reasonable to assume that LBV G0.120−0.048 and the Pistol Star have comparable masses. If LBV G0.120−0.048 did originate within the Quintuplet, it is hard to explain how such a massive star could be so far removed from the cluster, rather than residing near its center as a consequence of dynamical mass segregation. However, it has been suggested that LBVs might result from the merger of a close binary (Pasquali et al. 2000). Close binaries are expected to form in the dense environs of starburst clusters, while the same multi-body interactions that harden close binaries and induce mergers, also impart a systemic velocity to the hardened binary or merger byproduct that is on the order of 10 km s−1 (Gaburov et al. 2010). Since the internal velocity dispersion of the Quintuplet is also ∼10 km s−1 (Figer et al. 1999a), an additional velocity of 10 km s−1 imparted to a star or binary could allow it to escape the cluster. The stellar merger origin has been proposed for the Pistol Star (Figer & Kim 2002; Gaburov et al. 2008), while the dynamical ejection of hardened binaries produced within the Quintuplet was proposed to explain several colliding-wind binaries found near the Quintuplet (Mauerhan et al. 2007; Mauerhan et al. 2010). Although the merger-byproduct hypothesis is currently a very speculative suggestion, it could be given credence if one or all of the Quintuplet LBVs were shown to be moving away from the cluster. Alternatively, LBV G0.120−0.048 may have formed during the same burst of star formation that created the Quintuplet, originating from the same molecular cloud, but never becoming a bound member of the cluster. A proper motion measurement, enabled by adaptive optics, could provide evidence for or against a Quintuplet cluster origin within a few years".

LBV G0.120-0.048's 1994-1997 outburst was mentioned in the ref. It says;"LBV G0.120−0.048 is a variable star, identified as such by Glass et al. (2001, 2002), who monitored the central 24′ × 24′ of the Galaxy in a K-band photometric campaign between 1994 and 1997, with about four individual observations per year. LBV G0.120−0.048, the Pistol Star, and qF362 were all detected as large-amplitude variables in this survey, cataloged with the respective designations 10-1, 13-4, and 13-6. The light curves of these three stars are presented in Figure 3; the data for the Pistol Star and qF362 were first presented in Glass et al. (1999). LBV G0.120−0.048 appears to have undergone an overall decrease in brightness by ≈1 mag between 1994 and 1997, but also showed signs of significant intra-month variability (≈0.35 mag) during 1994. During the same 4 year time span, the Pistol Star’s variations were also significant (±0.5 mag or so) but less extreme than LBV G0.120−0.048, while the magnitude of qF362’s variations are similar to those of LBV G0.120−0.048. The time-averaged brightness and the variability amplitude of LBV G0.120−0.048 exceed that of the Pistol Star and qF362, which have K-band magnitudes and standard deviations of 6.86 (0.41), 7.38 (0.15), and 7.43 (0.26) mag, respectively. The fact that LBV G0.120−0.048 has a larger average brightness than the Pistol Star, while suffering more extinction (see Section 3.2), implies that it was more intrinsically more luminous in the infrared than the Pistol star throughout the duration of the Glass et al. (2001, 2002) survey. However, during the later 2MASS observation, which occurred on JD2451825.4954 (2000 October 17), the infrared luminosity of LBV G0.120−0.048 and the Pistol Star were more-or-less equivalent, while that of LBV qF362 exceeded both of them, as indicated by the analysis in Section 3.2. Without color or spectroscopic information to accompany the flux changes in Figure 3 it is not possible to determine whether the variations reflect a change in the total bolometric luminosity of these stars, as appears to be the case for the LBV AG Car, or changes in spectral morphology at constant bolometric luminosity (e.g., see Groh et al. 2009 and references therein). Alternatively, infrared photometric variability may occur as a result of the variable free-free component induced by a changing mass-loss rate. Again, we are in need of simultaneous photometric and spectroscopic monitoring to discriminate between potential causes for the brightness variations observed from these stars."

I already wrote a section describing the outburst on microsoft word and I could put it on the LBV G0.120-0.048 page. If you want me to send the draft to you I can send it to you on your talk page or through wiki email and you can make any necessary changes. I also did expand "Observations" and I can send the draft to you too. The reference also said that LBVs turn into Wolf-Rayet stars and Lithopsian provided a ref on some page which stated that massive Wolf-Rayet stars in LBV G0.120-0.048's mass range explode as type Ic supernovae. So "future" could be put back as it was. --hi (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)i am.furhan.


 * , I'm working today, so give me a while to work up a reply. Also pinging as they are far more familiar with these things than I am. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, so that's a heck of a wall of text. I'll respond point by point, hopefully not missing anything.
 * 1) Regarding the mass, it just doesn't work that way. You cannot use a statement about one entity to make such specific determinations about another entity. Plainly speaking, do not say that specific range applies to this star. Perhaps a mention in the prose that researchers believe their masses are similar, which is actually already stated.
 * 2) Regarding the ejection, the paper doesn't suggest one determination over the other, so why mention it? The paper even says it's all speculative and not supported by evidence at this point, but may be in the future once technology improves.
 * 3) It is an intrinsic variable. Even significant variations are expected. I don't see anything in the section which suggests these are notable in any way, so why include it?
 * 4) The whole "Future" thing is completely pointless. It may be useful in the generic luminous blue variable article, since it does only apply in a general sense. Suggesting the exact future of a particular star is not very appropriate.
 * I would strongly suggest that if you want to make improvements to star articles at this point, that you make suggestions on the article's talk page and try to find some more expert editors to assist you. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So many words. Have you read WP:NOR?  You don't need to argue the case for how you derived your statements and data.  You only need to point to a (preferably peer-reviewed) reference where someone else writes those statements or data.  There is some skill to picking the most appropriate references rather than something obsolete, obscure, or an outlier, but even those can form part of the narrative.  An example of what you *shouldn't* do is to read that a star had an initial mass comparable to another star and then decide for yourself that you will quote an exact mass for that star today even though nobody in the scientific community has derived such a mass.  It doesn't matter if your argument is cogent, complete, even accurate, if it is your argument then it doesn't form part of Wikipedia.  Just state that the initial mass is expected to be comparable to that other star, possibly even that the current mass might be comparable if that is implied by the journal.  Then your grasp of facts is tenuous at best (eg. this star is NOT 8kpc from the galactic centre, it was not discovered in the 2MASS survey, etc, etc.).  If you don't understand it, don't write it.  One last piece of advice: play in your sandbox. Lithopsian (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Question on citing brochures
I have been working on the Jonesborough Historic District page, and have a question regarding brochures. There is not, at least as far as I can tell, a "walking tour" guide on the web. However, there is an "official walking tour" brochure, as can be found in Visitor's Centers. I'd like to cite this as one of my references, but I'm not sure how to do that nor do I know if such brochures are considered appropriate for Wikipedia. Please advise! ThanksSteven C. Price 22:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven C. Price (talk • contribs)


 * Interesting question. While a third party source would be preferred, the brochure should be okay. I would say to use cite book. There should be a title, a publisher (even if it's just "Jonesborough Chamber of Commerce" or something similar), and probably a year of publication or copyright printed somewhere in the brochure. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Meteoroid track in aerogel
Hi Hunster, I appreciate your effort to clarify the proper name of "File:Meteor track through aerogel from EURECA mission.jpg." Shouldn't the file have been renamed, "File:Meteoroid track through aerogel from EURECA mission.jpg, since the captured object hadn't passed through the atmosphere—thus emitting the light characteristic of a meteor?" In my mind, meteors are tracks; they are not the objects making the tracks, which objects metamorphose from meteoroids to meteorites during atmospheric transit and subsequent impact. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , you are of course correct, it should be "Meteoroid". I have corrected the file name on Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Lime Street
Is this person's edit legit? even for a show that has historical significance because of its connection with Samantha Smith and even though it didn't even last a season, are we really allowed to link to full episodes on YouTube? Paul Austin (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've reverted that edit. Links to copyright violations such as that one are never allowed in articles. If you see anything else like that, feel free to revert, or leave me a message. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 16:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Mars Orbiter MIssion
Sorry about that revert; I pushed the wrong button on my watchlist. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , I figured that was the case, no worries! — Huntster (t @ c) 17:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * -) BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

hey
Always good to see you buddy. Hey, I'm working on a "personal info" file - an update to information I sent you long ago. You have any objections to me sending it to you? — Ched : ?  21:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , my inbox is always open to you :D — Huntster (t @ c) 23:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox
Hello Hunster; I am having a problem with my sandbox. When I edit the page, all the content goes into the starbox and the references are also mucked up! I don't know what happened and I don't know how to fix it so can you tell me what to do?--I am. furhan. (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.


 * That's because your citation formatting was mucked up. See my fixes here. You're also missing several citations, even though you included the ref names for them. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. There were a few other errors with the refs but I only fixed some. There still is a error with the NHS93 22 ref. Check it out here. Can you find the error and fix it?--I am. furhan. (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)I am. furhan.


 * The problem is that it doesn't exist...there is no citation that goes along with ref tag. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)