User talk:Mozasaur/Archive1

Yes I'm different, its the difference that counts as far as i can see. My desire for this page is for edits to be top latest in reverse time order down the page, I know thats not preferred by many, but it makes sense to me, and its clearly better ergonomically. I mostly use my laptop and 800 pixels is not enough vertical space without scrolling, and I hate scrolling.

My astro websites exist to promote cool stuff in the sky, whether its day or night is completely unimportant to me; most of my value is in finding, seeing, imageing rare stuff, that other people simply cant see for one reason or another. My purpose is to create interest and give tools to share what i see, and perhaps to do what i do. My name could be Joe Blogs for all it matters, who cares. I have been exceedingly fortunate to have advice and help from an incredible set of people, both here in NZ and all over the world. I have been un-believably lucky to be in the right place at the right time, or so it seems. The truth is actually that LUCK translates to opportunity and peparedness. I put myself out there, in all kinds of extreme and uncomfortable situations, and I am prepared with the devices to find and capture the effects when they happen. I monitor a large number of information emails and web sites, so that i have some advance notion as to whether its likely or not, and then i simply take a lot more chances than most, to be available IF it does happen. That state of alert and preparedness for extreme periods is looked at as madness by some, tenacity by others, passion by a smaller number, and notable by an even smaller number. The key point is that I have delivered many almost impossible to get images to the entire planet, via many channels, and achieved my objectives. That simple joy of sharing is a very precious and valuable 'commodity' in an increasingly materialistic and superficial society, and can not be removed from my life. The important web pages and images live on, untouched by vandals, and growing in visitors daily. Here is a quick sample from 7 days ago. You can look for yourself at astro web site stats

the columns are: visitors  impressions   percentage for day

NEW Zealand 	202  	488  	48.79% Australia 	91 	145 	21.98% United States 	78 	152 	18.84% United Kingdom 	9 	11 	2.17% Uruguay 	5 	7 	1.21% Canada 	4 	5 	0.97% Japan 	3 	3 	0.72% Malaysia 	3 	3 	0.72% Romania 	3 	3 	0.72% Hungary 	2 	2 	0.48% India 	2 	2 	0.48% Norway 	1 	2 	0.24% Finlanda 	1 	1 	0.24% France 	1 	1 	0.24% Kuwait 	1 	1 	0.24% Namibia 	1 	1 0.24% Netherlands 	1 	1 	0.24% Rusia 	1 	1 	0.24% South Africa 	1 	1 	0.24% Spain 	1 	1 	0.24% Taiwan 	1 	1 	0.24% Turkey 	1 	1 	0.24% United Arab Emirates 	1 	1 	0.24%

its clearly not commercial, there is nothing for sale on any astro site, but it does indicate international notability, as it repeats every day, and has for 5+ years. There is meat in the sandwich. The list of referrers is especially important, but hard to get with this unpaid tracker, for more than 20. it certainly contains Universities and government from the entire planet. My sites are referenced at NASA, for instance..

moza 03:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

the new era begins ..began latest experiment in my self-taught self-administered web presence building degree course (yes i do have a certificate in adult training from the Australian Institute of Management, but who cares)

It is to place a J in the middle of my name in all major web sites trawled daily by the big search engines, to observe the alterations in rankings to such searches. I have never publicised the J before, so any changes are likely to be due to those edits. The other possible influence is an uprising of interest here on wiki.

I also wish to understand how how the reports of little or no web results comes about, my belief is that searching for Paul Moss will generally yield a high ranking, #1 in all my machines for 4 out of 5 years. That is checking both in NZ and Australia. Is it because the users here have closed there results to their country of residence? I have mine set to English only for most machines, but world-wide.

I also wish to understand why Google alternates between 6 or 7 million results without wiki pages, and 12 or 13 million results with wiki pages. either way i top out most of the top 10.. why are users reporting almost nil presence when i see such staggering results?

the proof of the pudding is the international domains and ip's of the visitors to my sites, there are many and varied, and I can see the promotion of astronomy via photos is working for the masses, whatever any wiki user thinks, it doesnt and cant change the facts. my server logs show clearly whats actually happening. moza 06:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

my web activity look we are all entitled to our opinion, its a free world and all that, we are quite priviledged to have this luxury though, and to be able to share. we all have our own personal reality, beliefs and values, I respect that.. but spam is an email thing mostly, there was very little on the web when i started out creating aurora australis stuff, and my pages brought in aurora reports as they happened, via phone and email. The text message i got back in November 2001 enabled the world to share some fantastic images, not otherwise available from the southern hemisphere. I kept the .govt and .edu etc web logs to remember the response. There is little auroral activity right now, and I'm just as interested in sky phenomena anyway.. my email list of permission granted aurora watchers and the phone list i participate in, in both NZ and Australia, make it all worthwhile. i dont, I wont, and I have never spammed emails and phone calls. What would be the point? if you upset people you cant convey any message at all. so in the end what does it matter whether that page is removed or not? its not going to make any differnece to the FACT that everything that is said there is TRUE and verifiable. if it upsets people then it can be deleted, thats fairly simple. There is more to this though, a rich mine of human behaviour that is quite facinating, and I believe accounts for the growth. My experiment continues with or without wiki, thats the wonderful thing about democracy, and paying for web space with out paid ads. nobody has ever given me any money for anything i ever did on th eweb, its just a huge experiential learning space, sharing space... NASA was quite happy to publish my many photos of astronomical phenomena, so whats all the fuss about, its a storm in a teacup because i dared to challenge the establishment, yeah the NEW establishment, wierd really, all that stuff we said would happen back in the 70's is about to smack us in the face. any way thanks for removing your emotive piece, i have done the same often, its funny how strongly we believe and feel about stuff, great really. its curious how wiki and astronomy seem to bring out the passionate ones, it seems born of fear as much as justice though, maybe there are other communities that are similiar, i will consider that more.. paul moss moza 08:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please Help Me. can someone archive all this from here down?

Welcome
Hello Mozasaur,

Welcome and enjoy Wikipedia. Your edits are much appreciated.

These links might help you with your contributions:
 * Tutorial
 * Manual of Style
 * Policies and Guidelines

For Wikipedia-wide involvement, visit the Community Portal and the Village Pump.

Be sure to check out Kiwi resources, like The New Zealand Wikiportal, New Zealand Wikipedians' Notice Board, New NZ Articles and NZ stub articles. You can list yourself at Kiwi Wikipedians.

Also, have you considered participating in WikiProject New Zealand? Help is always needed!

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Preferably, use four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.

Again, welcome.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again Mozasaur! I'm happy you're keen on sticking around: the Wiki can be quite addictive! I know I'm hooked - a Wikipediholic. If you ever need any help or advice, feel free to ask me and I'll do my best. Oh, and don't forget to sign (with ~ ) your postings. :)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Mozasaur! Just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I hope I will be able to live up to the confidence placed in me. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Article placeholders
Hi, Mozasaur! The article-placeholder Ruth Crisp was removed because Wikipedia discourages articles with no content. When you're ready to write the article, though, feel free to re-start it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Joyous (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: request for assistance
Deletion is an admin-only capability, so yes, you would need one to delete the page. However, I've redirected it to Ruth Crisp instead. Pages like that are eligible for speedy deletion. If you come across or create a page that meets the criteria for speedy deletion, add a delete or tag to the top.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Brisbane Coastal pages
The only relevant categories I can think of are and. There is also and. I'll leave it up to you to decide which are appropriate. Happy editing, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

--

Aurora (astronomy) Page Copy and Paste
The intent here is to attempt to preserve a quick reference copy of the article prior to the extensive re-write in mid december, 2005. --Mozasaur 15:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --




 * For other meanings, see Aurora.

In astronomy, an aurora is an optical phenomenon characterized by colourful displays of light in the night sky, caused by the interaction of charged particles from the solar wind with the upper atmosphere of a planet. The most powerful aurorae tend to occur after coronal mass ejections.

On Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, aurorae are caused by the interaction of solar wind particles with the planet's magnetic field, and are therefore most prominent in higher latitudes near the magnetic poles. For this reason, the aurora occurring in Earth's Northern Hemisphere is called the aurora borealis, or northern lights; and in the Southern Hemisphere the aurora australis. However, aurorae also occur on Venus and Mars, which lack planetary magnetic fields. On Venus, atmospheric molecules are energised directly by the solar wind; on Mars, aurorae occur near localised magnetic anomalies in the planetary crust which are remnants of a presumed former planetary magnetic field which is now long extinct.

On Earth, aurorae occur when the Van Allen radiation belts become "overloaded" with energetic particles, which then cascade down magnetic field lines and collide with Earth's upper atmosphere.

In Latin, aurora means "dawn".

Origin and appearance
The origin of the aurorae is 149 million km from Earth at the Sun. Energetic particles from the Sun are carried out into space along with the ever-present, hot solar wind. This wind sweeps supersonically toward Earth through interplanetary space at speeds ranging from 300 to over 1000 km per second, carrying with it the solar magnetic field. The solar wind distorts Earth's magnetic field to create the comet-shaped, plasma-filled magnetosphere. The terrestrial magnetic shield acts as a barrier, protecting Earth from energetic particles and radiation in the hot solar wind. Particle energy and momentum are transferred from the solar wind to the magnetosphere through a process known as "magnetic reconnection". In this process, interplanetary magnetic field lines (originating from the Sun) are coupled to Earth's magnetic field. Particles in the solar wind can enter this newly created magnetic field line. Auroral physicists call this an "open magnetic field line" (the field line is open into the solar wind). Due to the dynamic pressure of the solar wind, this newly opened magnetic field line will be convected over the polar cap, and into the tail of Earth's magnetosphere. Here, a new magnetic reconnection can occur, creating a new, closed magnetic field line. The convecting field line will contain solar wind particles. Some of these particles will be able to reach the ionosphere before the field line has reached the magnetospheric tail. These particles will create dayside aurorae. Nightside aurorae are created from particles accelerated from the magnetospheric tail towards Earth. These particles will be trapped on the closed field line.

Electrons trapped in Earth's magnetic field (the magnetic mirror effect) are accelerated along the magnetic field toward the polar regions and then strike the atmosphere to form the aurorae. Aurorae are most intense at times of intense magnetic storms caused by sunspot activity. The distribution of auroral intensity with altitude shows a pronounced maximum near 100 km above Earth.

The particles, which stream down the magnetic field of Earth, reach the neutral atmosphere in a rough circle called the auroral oval. This circle, or annulus, is centred over the magnetic pole and is around 3000 km in diameter during quiet times. The annulus grows larger when the magnetosphere is disturbed. The location of the auroral oval is generally found between 60 and 70 degrees north and south latitude. During intense solar activity, the auroral oval expands, and aurorae have been seen from latitudes as low as 25-30 degrees north and south on extreme occasions. For example, on November 7, 2004, following a Coronal Mass Ejection, they were seen as far south as Arizona. At 45 degrees, aurorae are visible approximately five times per year, while above 55 they are visible almost nightly.

Auroral features come in many shapes and sizes. Tall arcs and rays start brightly 100 km above Earth's surface and extend upward along its magnetic field for hundreds of kilometres. These arcs or curtains can be as thin as 100 meters while extending from horizon to horizon. Auroral arcs can nearly stand still and then, as though a hand has been run along a tall curtain, begin to dance and turn. After magnetic midnight, aurorae can take on a patchy appearance and the patches often blink on and off once every 10 seconds or so until dawn. Most of the auroral features are greenish-yellow but sometimes the tall rays will turn red at their tops and along their lower edge. On rare occasions, sunlight will hit the top part of the auroral rays creating a faint blue color. On very rare occasions (once every 10 years or so) aurorae can be a deep blood red color from top to bottom. In addition to producing light, the energetic auroral particles deposit heat. The heat is dissipated by infrared radiation or transported away by strong winds in the upper atmosphere.

In recent years, the popularity of 'Aurora Travel' has brought growing numbers of tourists to many  traditionally inhospitable destinations during their polar winters. Thanks to the warming influence of the gulf stream, and their relative accessibility, Iceland and Northern Scandinavia are popular. In addition to auroral activity, optimal viewing requires cloud free skies and minimal unnatural light; it is therefore largely a matter of luck. Photography of the aurora requires cameras equipped to hold the shutter open in excess of 5 seconds. Digital camera batteries will likely expire very quickly in the cold environment, making spare batteries a good suggestion.

The physics of the aurora


Aurorae are caused by the interaction of high energy particles (usually electrons) with neutral atoms in Earth's upper atmosphere. These high energy particles can excite (by collisions) valence electrons that are bound to the neutral atom. The excited electrons can then return to their initial, lower energy state, and in the process release photons (light particles). This process is similar to the plasma discharge in a neon lamp.

Any particular colour of the aurora depends on a specific atmospheric gas and its electrical state, and on the energy of the particle that hits the atmospheric gas. Atomic oxygen is responsible for the two main colours of green (wavelength of 557.7 nm) and red (630.0 nm) from high altitudes. Nitrogen causes the colour blue to appear, e.g. at 427.8 nm (molecular ions) as well as the rapidly varying red from the lower borders of active auroral arcs.

One of the first scientists to model aurorae was Norwegian Kristian Birkeland. His magnetised terrella (simulating Earth), shows that energetic electrons directed toward the terrella are guided toward the magnetic poles and produce rings of light around the poles. He further suggested "currents there are imagined as having come into existence mainly as a secondary effect of the electric corpuscles from the sun drawn in out of space" (1908). Such currents were later supported in a paper by Hannes Alfvén, and in 1969 Milo Schield, Alex Dessler and John Freeman, used the name "Birkeland currents" for the first time, whose existence was finally confirmed in 1973 by the navy satellite Triad.

Variations on the Sun
The Sun is a star with some features that are highly variable on time scales of hours to hundreds of years. The interplanetary magnetic field direction and solar wind speed and density are driven by the activity on the Sun. They can change drastically and influence the geomagnetic activity. As geomagnetic activity increases, the lower edge of the auroral ovals usually move to lower latitudes. Similarly, solar mass ejections coincide with larger auroral ovals. If the interplanetary magnetic field is in the opposite direction of the Earth's magnetic field, there can be increased energy flow into the magnetosphere and thus, increased energy flow into the polar regions of the Earth. This will result in an intensification of the auroral displays.

Disturbances in the Earth's magnetosphere are called geomagnetic storms. These, in turn, can produce sudden changes in the brightness and motion of the aurorae called auroral substorms. The magnetic fluctuations of these storms and substorms may cause surges in electric power lines and occasional equipment failures in the power grid, resulting in widespread power outages. They can also impact the performance of satellite-to-ground radio communications and navigation systems. Magnetospheric storms can last several hours or even days, and auroral substorms can occur several times a day. Each substorm can deliver several hundred terajoules of energy, as much as the electrical energy consumed in the entire United States over 10 hours.



Measuring the geomagnetic field
The geomagnetic field can be measured with instruments called magnetometers. Data from many magnetometers allow observers to track the current state of the geomagnetic conditions. The magnetometer data are often given in the form of 3-hourly indices that give a quantitative measure of the level of geomagnetic activity. One such index is called the K-index. The K-index value ranges from 0 to 9 and is directly related to the amount of fluctuation (relative to a quiet day) in the geomagnetic field over a 3-hour interval. The higher the K-index value, the more likely it is that an aurora will occur. The K-index is also, necessarily, tied to a specific observatory location. For locations where there are no observatories, one can only estimate what the local K-index would be, by looking at data from the nearest observatory. A global average of auroral activity is converted to the Kp index.

Auroral sounds
It is frequently claimed that sightings of aurorae are accompanied by humming and/or crackling sounds.

The propagation of these sounds through the air (like a speaker vibrating the air molecules) is unlikely. Aurorae occur around 100 km above the earth in extremely rarefied conditions which certainly could not transmit audible sounds well enough for them to reach ground level.

One possibility is that electromagnetic waves are transduced into sound waves by objects in the vicinity of the observer, or directly influence the auditory senses of the observer.

For the Inuit and Northern Canadian cultures, it is a well-known fact that the occurrence of a hum or song is simply a reality. Auditory experiences commonly occur when the observer is well removed from noise and light pollution - usually in the still of a cold and windless winter night. Bearing witness to the rare sound is likened to a spiritual event that is carried in memory with the individual for life.

These auroral sounds have been likened to the sounds of the dawn chorus.

Helsinki University of Technology has made examinations and recordings of these sounds and, according to the newspaper Kaleva, found that during bright high level polar aurorae, hums, rumbles and pops are registered.

Aurora in folklore
In Bullfinch's Mythology from 1855 by Thomas Bulfinch there is the claim that in Norse mythology:


 * The Valkyrior are warlike virgins, mounted upon horses and armed with helmets and spears. /.../ When they ride forth on their errand, their armour sheds a strange flickering light, which flashes up over the northern skies, making what men call the "Aurora Borealis," or "Northern Lights." 

While a striking notion, there is nothing in the Old Norse literature supporting this assertion. Although auroral activity is common over Scandinavia and Iceland today, it is possible that the Magnetic North Pole was considerably further away from this region during the centuries before the documentation of Norse mythology, thus explaining the absent references. 

The first Old Norse account of norðrljós is instead found in the Norwegian chronicle Konungs Skuggsjá from 1250 AD. The chronicler has heard about this phenomenon from compatriots returning from Greenland, and he gives three possible explanations: that the Ocean was surrounded by vast fires, that the sun flares could reach around the world to its night side, or that glaciers could store energy so that they eventually became fluorescent. 

An old Scandinavian name for northern lights translates as herring flash. It was believed that northern lights were the reflections cast by large swarms of herring onto the sky.

Another Scandinavian source refers to 'the fires that surround the North and South edges of the world'. This has been put forward as evidence that the Norse ventured as far as Antarctica, although this is pure conjecture.

The Finnish name for northern lights is revontulet, fox fires. According to legend, foxes made of fire lived in Lapland, and revontulet were the sparks they whisked up into the atmosphere with their tails.

The Sami people believed that one should be particularly careful and quiet when observed by the guovssahasat.

In Inuit folklore, northern lights were the spirits of the dead playing football with a walrus skull over the sky.

Hello, Moszasaur
Please, please do not screw up what has been carefully assembled! The image you used to replace what I placed on the site is NOT what auroral arcs look like (and that's the most common visible form). Unless you know better, PLEASE DON'T FIX WHAT AIN'T BROKE. or I will have to complain.

The purpose of Wikipedia is not fun but information. People want to know, and some of us, who know a bit about a few things, want to help them. Anything else muddies the water.

If you want to correspond with me and give me your reasoning, I will listen. Please go to my web page http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sstern.htm and take it from there. Meanwhile, I am restroring what you changed.

David P. Stern Greenbelt, Maryland, USA


 * yes you are asking for exactly what i am, "Please, please do not screw up what has been carefully assembled!" but to be honest i havent threatened complaint like you have, I have given my reasoning all over the place and I had my çarefully assembled example image on that page before you came along and removed it. Your tone and behaviour comes across to me as arrogant and elistist "and some of us, who know a bit about a few things,", ffs I have given more than 50 years to this society that we share and who are YOU to talk to me like that? thats exactly the new point, that you apparently dont care about the process and the actual basis of this environment as much as getting what you think should be there, in your view. Oh I guess an extra 20 years on the planet justifies that approach.


 * Now you dare to tell me what an aurora doesnt look like? umm how many original pics of an aurora can you deliver to substantiate that? My pics are ALL MY OWN WORK FROM REAL AURORA so they are truly representative of what is out there. How many of your pics got accepted on the NASA spaceweather.com? are you trying to tell me that they dont know what an aurora looks like also? They didnt try and tell me my pics were false, they posted them up for the world to see. For that matter how many aurora have you seen with your own eyes and exactly where were you when you saw them? The aurora looks different every time and is highly variable with geographic location, and changes throughout any particular event, I watched a few and I know what they look like.


 * So who are you going to complain to? do you really think this wiki stuff counts? The web is growing faster than wiki is and even you must know that one page or another is meaningless taken on its own, its the inter-connectedness that counts. My name is Paul Moss. a google name search will give details  to you, (#1 on 6 million returns.) Paul Moss


 * oh and perhaps you could browse some aurora photo gallerys and LEARN that aurora often comes in all colours. NASA spaceweather.com Gallery

Mozasaur 19:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sense of Loss
 I'm actually more dismayed at the loss of a potential friendship and collaboration, we should be enjoying our mutual ability to educate those who want it. For most people 'telling aint selling', you have to treat them with respect and they must feel comfortable to learn from you. Humour is an essential component of a an effective learning environment, you should know that it isnt a cause of muddy water, but yet another tool to achieve your objective.

I have hundreds of aurora photographers that trust me with their images and reports, I get warm fuzzies and the planet gets the detailed knowledge of each event channelled to the scientists that want it.

So lets sit back and see how you handle the rest of the wikipedians coming in and roughly treading on your 'what has been carefully assembled' article. Can you keep fixing it forever? I think not. I think that we have a culture gap in place, its all about the youthful new way as opposed to the (now) elderly old way.

I play with my grandsons on a daily basis, educating them in ways that they dont even know, and we have fun. Any other approach would crash headlong into a brickwall.

To be as honest as I can, I am, myself, unsure of the success or failure of this wikipedia thing, but I am prepared to give hugely to see if it can be all it can be. I must exercise discipline and not waste any more time on trying to educate the educator, some of us are blocked to things we dont wanna know about, I know enough about myself to know that, after all I'm an educator too! (and married to one) I must move on and use my precious time as wisely as I can. Mozasaur 19:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Gidday Mate
Let's have a consensus on humour and goodwill.. FUN is valuable. A healthy life has good balance between art and science, and a raft of other human activity.

Wikipedian functionality
A true challenge to our modern life; to share knowledge in a respectful way. It is a highly curious set of behaviours that occur in this environment.

At best we can act in good faith and hope that our contribution is respected and valued. At worst we are faced with rising above the edit saga and acting in ways that may improve the function of this particular web space, eventually reaching 'consensus' or some mix of democracy and autocracy.

My personal challenge is to understand if such an environment can be truly NON POV, everything seems to be human and meaningful to me. I dont accept that an objective robot could build this encyclopedia, the existence comes from passion and tenacity, and failing to take that into account will invariably have the bully effect; fight or flight.

My experience is that most editors and admins have their very own POV about what NONPOV is and how its to be implemented, and that we are not machines. Heavy handed editing without regard for the feelings of the contributors must provoke response, or failure to gain consensus.

A good reference work on this subject is ' Irrationality ' Stuart Sutherland

My best friend tells me that he believes decisions made by learned or experienced people (professionals) are not really more objective than those made by others. We believe that most of what we decide is less than concious, and that we conciously construct the rationale AFTER we make the decision. We therefore conclude that completely rational behavior isn't always possible and may not even generate the most appropriate outcome, perhaps we could "..trust the force, Luke.." more often, listening to our 'reptilian' brains.

Reference
* Stuart Sutherland, N. S. Sutherland. Irrationality: Why We Don't Think Straight. ISBN 0813521505

-

Aurora (astronomy)
Hi, Mozasaur. I see that you're engaged in a dispute with another user regarding the inclusion of a particular image. I do agree with David that the most common forms should be at the top of the page, but I also think that when dealing with a phenomena that has so much variety, it can't hurt to have a few extra examples. To that end, I've added the image David has been removing further down the page. I hope this will help resolve the dispute, as revert wars are never very productive. Thanks! -- Vary | Talk 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I got around to checking and the current image ( Aurorab )that is being used to replace the earlier image that I gifted for the purpose is in fact unable to be verified as legitimate public domain content, and on that basis alone should be removed. Th esource is given in the Commons as Public-Domain :  The user who delivered that image is unknown and unable to be communicated with, as far as I can tell. It has been relabeled as Aurora Borealis and even that is now called into question; are they possibly Aurora Australis? David Stern asserts (incorrectly) that both North and South Polar aurora have identical characteristics. The other main image ( Polarlicht ) appears to have been delivered by a user  'Photo by Craig M. Groshek'  ( Cgros841 that has some small wiki history, but again, it is not possible to verify the authenticity of the image, and it should be considered for deletion. I can supply a GREEN aurora image that I can verify as 100% my own work and as the two polar aurorae are identical, it should be acceptable to David. The assertion of "..carefully assembled.." is now clearly wrong at best and outrageous to those contributors who have been trampled on. On another point, the Astromical Almanac for Australia 2006 (Quasar publishing ISBN 0-9756070-1-4 Glenn Dawes Peter Northfield Ken Wallace)  has a two page aurora article by Peter Skilton, (Director, Southern Australasia Aurora Alert Network) with 7 aurora images, 4 of which are reddish and 3 green. Hardly a statistically valid sample, but check  NASA Spaceweather for thousands of worldwide aurora images. Mozasaur 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also got around to gifting a GREEN aurora image so that no dispute is possible using colour as the 'false objection'. Human nature is likely to deliver more 'reasons' to remove them before we get to the end of this saga.

Mozasaur 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: images to be checked for legal status
Hi Mozasaur. I cannot sure of the validity of those images either, but I assume they are valid. That both are found on Commons suggests they are legal (as Commons does not allow fair use), however they might be falsely tagged. The first, although I couldn't find it on Air Force Link, apparently comes from there, and if so, would be coverable under PD-USGov. The second's quality indicates it was taken by an amateur and probably does belong to the person who uploaded it. But this is just conjecture on my part – I'm probably not the best person to be asked this; if you have further questions, you might like to ask Petaholmes instead, as she's more involved with ensuring image legality. Happy editing, --cj | talk 00:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mozasaur, the image which you refer to in my talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AuroraBuryatia.jpg) was quite clearly taken by myself, as the credits state. My name is Craig Groshek, and my username is Cgros841. I believe this should have beeb obvious. The photo was taken by me with a 5 MP Kodak camera. Cgros841 16:02, 26 January 2006 (CST)
 * Craig, I love the image and I respect the ability to take it. I do actually want to believe that it is yours. I understand its sad and somewhat bizarre, but if someone starts an argument about your image, then the validity of the image comes under scrutiny. Your identity, presence and the image integrity is exceedingly difficult to substantiate here in the wiki, or external on the web. You have placed a claim that it is yours, but no other references to its origin or original ownership. Anyone can do that. I apologise for any pain that I may have initiated on this matter, but the reality is that another editor used your image as a bat and ball, and I thought it prudent to qualify his action. In this environment what does obvious mean? The latest vandalism to the aurora page could be in that category. Like most other participants, I am learning new ways of behaving here in order to achieve consensus... I thank you for responding, but the issue remains unresolved. I just dont understand why. I respect your right, but I dont understand the need for such a degree of anonymity, if you want your pics out here in the real world, I would like to understand why you appear unwilling to stand beside them. Mozasaur 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly, sir, your tone is the most bizarre I have ever heard, spoken or otherwise. You are babbling on and on about a photograph that I took myself with my Kodak camera, and which I uploaded to Wiki because of 1) my interest in the aurora (loved it ever since I saw it for the first time), and 2) because I appreciate Wikipedia and wish to contribute in any way possible.  In a simialar fashion, I have contributed photos of my own design to other topics that I find intriguing.  As far as copyrights are concerned, there are none attached to the image.  It was taken by me, and released to the public domain at my own discretion.  You are an asshole, quite frankly, for speaking to me so condescendingly, as if you've already assumed I have some grandiose, negative plans to inflict harm on Wiki.  And yes, you're right - it's difficult if not impossible to prove whether or not a said user actually took a photograph.  With that said, however, it's also impossible to prove that I didn't, and considering that I did take it, you will never find proof to the contrary.  You mentioned that another editor used the image "as a bat and ball," and this analogy, if that's what it is, makes absolutely no sense to me, and it seems to me you are trying to assert some sort of dominance of me, in defiance of Wiki's true purpose, which is to allow any and everyone to contribute to the site as they wish.  I am innocent until proven guilty, sir, and you have assumed my guilt, but not proven it.  The photo is mine, it is public domain and under no copyrights (as I have not sold it to anyone yet), and you, sir, will never reach consensus on any matter, despite what you may think or say, if you run around in cyberspace treating everyone else as if they're your subordinate bitch.  As for "anonymity," you've got be kidding me.  I use my real name on Wikipedia all the time, and it is listed as the source for the photo in question.  For the life of me, I cannot understand how that could be considered "anonymous," or what you expect of me.  If you insist on being a dick and on pretending to be omnipotent, then by all means remove my image, shut the hell up, and leave me alone.  You are obviously more interested in pursuing a personal agenda here on Wiki, and on trying to intimiate others with your psuedo-scientific speak, and I have no interest in either quarreling with you or arguing semantics.  Remove the picture, shut up, and go away.  I'm offended that I even had to take the time to respond to you.  Cgros841


 * Craig, I am a little stunned at your response but i will digest it at least, I dont think that you can realistically read most of what you did into my query, but whatever, i'll consider it all. In the mean time, we all face the same issue, verification of the authourship of an image. I have no intent for dominance or any of that stuff, its clearly impossible and only a fool would go down that path, and I fail to see why that is raised. I have no intent to prove or disprove anything for the same reasons. I am intrigued at how anything on wiki can ever be validated actually. Responding to me is your choice and nobody has to do anything they dont want to in this space. I never assumed true or false, just a bit of fair play. I'm as surprised at your response as you are at mine.. so much for communication, neither of us did very well, the objective remains unaltered, and less understood than ever with such smoke screens in the wind. Its this kind of over-reaction that will kill the wiki, as opposed to genuine effort to clarify the status of its content. There is plenty of space for images and there are plenty of images, so why would other editors run around removing them with various reasons? I was merely suggesting that if some were removed that maybe all should be, if they are in the same category. The reality is that anyone can click the boxes and make any image any status, and most are happy with that. I'm not interested in emotional interchanges at all, they are just as damaging as vandalism, so I hope you re-consider all the relevant events and reach a balanced view. EQ is the new name given to checking the data before deciding on a position, however I do kind of understand that this is a special environment of relative anonymity.. named or not. The main point I get from your response is that there is something, maybe a kind of culture-gap, preventing a resolution, Are you saying that everything here is to be believed until proven otherwise? and if i try to validate anything that I will be called all sorts of stuff and fail anyway? as in how dare I? Mozasaur 03:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * further thoughts, I re-read it all a few times and simply can-not understand why you dont give the same consideration as you expect of me, ie innocent until proven guilty, I genuinely told you how i felt, and you abused me for it. This is a microcosm of modern life, where anything you see or hear is only as valid as the level of confidence the hear-er/see-er is prepared to assign to it. That index of confidence is raised or lowered according to the interconnections between the subject and related subjects. In the end it is about degree of trust in an un-trustworthy medium. I will leave it at that for now. Mozasaur 08:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I decided that it was in fact gross over-reaction and a wasted emotional barrage, and it will be removed from here shortly, as it serves little positive and constructive purpose in achieving the objectives here. Its remarkable that when I attempted to tell you that i was on your side, you manipulated that in your own mind as bad, and you abused me for assuming some ridiculous stuff that you apparently assumed i had. I'm disapointed but clear in my mind about what is going on here. There is simply no point in apologising for any pain caused if the apology is un-accepted and translated into abuse, THAT is truly bizarre. and truly sad.Mozasaur 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DugongAreaMoretonBay.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DugongAreaMoretonBay.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Longhair 04:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * done.. thanks for the memo Mozasaur 13:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:DSC00038.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:DSC00038.JPG. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 07:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Maori sun god Ra
Sorry about that revert, was a good faith mistake (too much vandalism has lowered my standards unfortunately). Thanks for adding relevant information too. Mostlyharmless 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks for your edits anyway.. too much knee jerking on wiki so its good to have a note from time to time, although i dont care much for formalities.. I just thought it was a good excuse to find out all about Ra and think about it from differnet angles; it occurred to me that I was assuming as well, what if Ben really did worship the 'Egyptian' sun god ? then i thought that maybe I would go and ask him!! i havent spoken to him actually, but i thought i might take my laptop down there and show him the page, and do a live interview direct to wiki!! cafenet enables me to do that, at ~$1 per mb. my nephew told me that he set him up a site a few years back, when they were at the other park, which is next door to where my nephew worked at the time. cheers. moza 01:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A Western Sahara-related vote
===>Here Make your voice heard. Vote or die. And all that. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories
Hi! I don't know where it is on this page, but this talk page seems to be added to the mainspace categories Category:Optical phenomena, Category:Space plasmas, and Category:Plasma physics. Seeing as "Categories relating to the User namespace should be added only to Wikipedia-specific categories" (WP:CG) you may want to 'deactivate' these categories by putting a colon before the word 'Category' in the links. Cheers, Ziggurat 00:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply - it was the cut and pasted article that was causing the problem. I have deactivated the categories - they're still there, but your talk page won't show up under that category now until they are reactivated. Concerning your other comments, I would suggest you note that Wikipedia is not a democracy - it aims for consensus rather than representation. Ziggurat 20:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comments on Wikipedia, I have a few observations. 1. Jimbo Wales can indeed dictate policy, but not everything that he does is automatically policy. More often, he suggests and aims for community consensus, and (as you pointed out) sometimes makes mistakes himself. He does not have complete fiat over the contributions others make to the site, as these are legally bound by the GFDL. 2. The point of the AfD is to have a discussion - as part of contributing to Wikipedia you are agreeing to release your information under the GFDL, at which point just requesting that it be removed is not appropriate - you no longer 'own' the writing. 3. 'Vanity' usually refers to the fact that there is a threshold for entering a biography into Wikipedia, and that is whether the information in it can be verified by independent sources. If a person hasn't had significant press in prominent news media, peer-reviewed publications, or something similar (see Verifiability for more on this) then there's no reliable way to fact-check the information, so there shouldn't be an article on that subject. To do otherwise would be inviting heresay and rumour into every article, and that should be avoided at all costs. 4. Additionally, I imagine that a few people are upset that you seem to be using this Wikipedia article (and adding different middle initials?) as some kind of experiment, to see how it changes search engine results. You can understand how deliberately adding inaccurate information is considered very bad form (see Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Hoaxes). Ziggurat 01:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * yes and I agree about POV re adding inaccurate information except that the information on the added pages was exact and accurate, a reproduction of existing information, and although available to be altered, it was unlikely at the time. It may appear as something else but thats al it is, appearance, and as long as no-one claims notability, they can be deleted by an admin, and I am about to request that right now. People make errors on wiki, and I make errors all over the place, often, especially when using my laptop with pad, as i do for 90+% of my wiki edits. so i am constantly fixing even my own stuff, the problem is those added articles can not be deleted by me, i didnt know the difference between an article and a page before this blew up, i intended to use them and bin them. I have zero interest in web presence of those articles. But i did just expect the original article to be deleted like everything else here, subject to the knife. I learnt that its different, and I have read most of the applicable policies and discussions. Vanity is not a reason for deletion for instance. I never wanted the article with a J in the middle, I have never used that on the web until 3 days ago. The lack of Google presence was used as evidence of non-notabilty. How ironic as its my original real name, but never used in publicity. On the other hand, without the J, my name creams the top of the planets search engines, and has for 5 years or more. People were seeing what they wanted to see, and believing what they wanted to believe, looking in the wrong place, without much fuzzy logic. I really have been published all over the place by many notable institutions, but the slash and burn mental set was fuelled by my older, outmoded techniques... (residual stuff on old web sites).  I have since realised that I could correct the apparent lack of page response on google by giving google what it needed to catalogue me both ways. IT ONLY TOOK 3 DAYS!!!! look here: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=Paul+J+Moss&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en result: #4 out of 3 Million results. none of you can ever take that away, it's a direct result of years of hard work, recognized by a secret and highly successful algorythm, that has made google the worlds most awesome search company. It wouldnt have happened if i didnt have the notabilty to build on. Google has at least 500 Million pages and to be #1 on 3, 6 and often 12 million is, (using my public name) IN ITSELF, A NOTABLE accomplishment. I challenge any one here, without notability, to achieve such a result, with such a popular name as Paul and Moss. Paul brings up 416 Million, Moss brings up 26 Million, and thats English only results. It simply doesnt matter what wiki thinks, i watch my logs, the wiki traffic is from a few select visitors, while my traffic from world wide educational institutions, government, science, NASA, the Military, are a thousand time higher. It's simple true and provable that my achievements are reported and cross linked back to me by a range of ever growing organisations. I never paid anyone to ever build a website or promote my site. I did it all myself. They are not very good, but they perform the function intended, to share. In the end none of that matters, what ACTUALLY MATTERS is that people enjoy the images, and are stimulated to think more, and perhaps give it a go themselves. It is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to photograph a comet and have it reported on NASA SPACEWEATHER DOT COM. Another KIWI did it yesterday. I have done it twice before. I have no knowledge of anyone else from NZ ever having achieved that. We have population 4 million. That is because its a notable feat, and almost impossible, for a long list of reasons. The NASA articles still exist, and are available, but thats not the point anymore, the point for me is that wikipedians are often too convoluted in their thinking and application of their POV of the rules, to bother to discuss first and reach consensus as a result. Slash and burn is rife, and i see that that is a natural response to all the vandalism and mess cleaning needed. It's actually EXPECTED, and assumed when the indications create an APPEARANCE of non conformance to the rules, but the rules are mostly INSIDE peoples heads, thats the point of wiki, as i see it, to SHARE the concepts of what the rules could or should be. There are many up sides to this, and some less apparent than others, for instance the vandalism of KIWI articles is now under careful scrutiny and watch by a lot more editors. Another is that I have been drawn into bothering to find out more about this place ticks, yeah 'some kind of experiment is right' but only now, AFTER the fact, having been forced to consider whether i would object to the afd/vfd thingy, and deciding that it was better to have the page deleted in due process. But the people who will decide whether or not that happens are charged with due diligence, and its truly ironic that there can be other more positive outcomes, beyond my control. I believe that the voting should have some kind of diligence as well, but I simply dont know how that can be done. Some of the worlds best brains are on that issue right now.. Finally, for this round, the NEGATIVE cut and trash approach is very prevalent, but flies in the face of the published policies, which is simplistically stated as building by discussion and consensus. Building is a POSITIVE activity, with consultation between designer and end users along the way. My dad was a builder, and his buildings still stand, many hundreds of them and between 40 and 70 years old. That is notable in my opinion. Funny, you will be hard pressed to actually find my POV on my websites... its is a wierd and wonderful world, especially when you live upside down like us down under here, otherwise the bulk of civilisation does, we cant both be walking upright now can we? Most of what happens is a web of relativity, connected and in relation to everything else that happens. It's true of POV here. I dont expect anyone to care much, but i have lots more to say...  moza 08:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedying those Paul Moss pages
Hi Moza (presumably Paul :) - I've speedied Paul x Moss - since the only edit not by you was turning it into a redirect, it's close enough to saying you're the only editor of it. Paul C C Moss I've left - it will have to go through the full process, since someone else created it (unless you and Perstwhile are one and the same). I've left a note at the top of Paul C C Moss explaining the situation. Grutness...wha?  22:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Waikouaiti
Hi Moza - here's a wee peace offering after me completely misunderstanding you on the Waikouaiti Airport AFD. This was taken about three years ago from St. Clair in Dunedin (just a little way further up the hill from where I live). I was very pleased to get both the aurora and the Southern Cross in the picture - and considering itthe camera was hand-held for about 30 seconds, it's remarkably un-shaky! :) Grutness...wha?  01:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Years in New Zealand
Hi Paul. Thanks for your offer to help with the XXXX in New Zealand pages. There is a lot of work ahead to get them cleaned up. If you are not sure where to start then here are a couple of places: The above should keep you going for a while, give me a yell if you get stuck etc. Thanks again. - SimonLyall 17:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Go through 1900-1948 and update the Incumbents, in most cases the position (eg Speaker of the House ) has a list of the office holders.
 * For the Government section update the summary to reflect reality. Link to Elections that happened that year and do a little bit about any other shuffles.
 * Have a look though Timeline of New Zealand history and copy of any dates their to the year you are working on. Same with the current timelines.
 * Same with the other sections. For the sports bit I'd like to list all tours and if possible games by major sports teams such as the All blacks. The all blacks website lists data for every game and you should be able to do the same for cricket.
 * The very top of the article has a Summary section, This needs to contain a paragraph or two giving a quick overview of the year.