User talk:Acom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Colours (Ixion/Orcus)
Hi, I’ve noticed you added a couple of images to plutinos' infoboxes. Such header images (compare with a few Main belt asteroids boxes) usually state clearly what they are (e.g. an actual picture for a lucky few, an artist’s vision, a computer plot generated with the given data set etc). Could you please add a short comment like this to 28978 Ixion & 90482 Orcus (and Sedna)? (on the image page).
The colours are an important differentiator among these objects. There’s more than one way to express them (including the albedo). In addition, the colour/albedo data for some of them are limited and a stream of new observations is making the images obsolete. (This happened to some of my images in just a couple of months!) I’ve been contributing for a while now to the physical characteristics, including colours (see the related articles or my page for a few examples). I’m concerned that unless we align among all contributors the data we’re using and the way we use them we are risking creating confusion by presenting the same objects with very different hues, much too dim or bright compared to others etc. I believe the images you’ve added are fine; such images add some identity to otherwise difficult to distinguish objects and add some 'life' to otherwise austere articles. I’d be interested to know what data do did you use (colour indices? Slope? Albedo?) and how did you render them. Thank you. Eurocommuter 08:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TNO satellite articles
Hello. I see you've been creating individual articles for some TNO satellites. Although it is true that every natural satellite should have an article, I wouldn't create articles for TNO satellites yet because we still know next to nothing about them. For example, the satellite of 2003 UB313 needs to be confirmed first.
PS. Please don't clear your talk page, see talk page guidelines.
--Jyril 07:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discuss...
Hi. Recently you created a separated article for 2003 UB313 when some while ago we'd decided that until much more was known about it there wasn't much point. All you'd done was removed one section from the main article and pasted it, so I put it back and restored the redirect. Now I see you reverted that, without using an edit summary, or mentioning it on the talk page. This is not very helpful, and I hope you'll discuss this on the talk page if you want to argue that there should be a moon article separate from the main article. If you don't discuss things when you disagree you'll find you generate far more friction than necessary. Also, as Jyril said, blanking your talk page is considered bad form. Worldtraveller 10:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging for Image:032906eclipse.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:032906eclipse.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Deletion
I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article [[{{PlutonianSystem Footer}}]], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at [[Talk:{{PlutonianSystem Footer}}]]. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
ThreeBlindMice 02:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Orbit_Nemsis.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Orbit_Nemsis.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Asteroid Renderings
Many of them are very nice convex hull renderings. Those that are good provide a nice sense of the object. Those that were of poor quality I removed, as they did not provide a sense of the object. Thank you for the additions. It's a great start to what appears to be an ambitious project. Abyssoft 07:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I just came from Image:11A.jpg and figured I should suggest that you add a bit more information about what this image is and where it's from. If I hadn't noticed its addition and removal from 11 Parthenope I'd have had no idea what to make of it. I notice that the rest of your recent uploads are also missing information on their respective description pages. And once they've been sourced and described, perhaps you might be interested uploading them to Wikimedia Commons as well so other languages can use them? Bryan Derksen 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Commons cannot accept copyrighted images.--JyriL talk 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Asteroid shape models
I notice you've added those nice asteroid shape models from the publications of Mikko Kaasalainen's group into the asteroid articles. They are a significant enhancement! However, I also notice that they have the GFDL-self made copyright tag on them, as in "I, the creator of this work, hereby blah blah blah ....". So, just in a friendly way, I'm wondering are you the creator of those images − as in, e.g. a member of M. Kaasalainen's research group? If not, the copyright tags should be changed. (At the least because those astronomers might be a bit upset to see their research described as someone else's work.) For example you can probably get their permission to upload them, etc.
Don't worry, I'm not going to go and tag them as copyright suspect, because I find the copyright "correctness" on Wikipedia a major annoyance more than anything else, but I also suspect that without a change, some stickler for correctness is going to find them soon and they'll get tagged for deletion. Deuar 14:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't care about correctness itself, but copyright issues can be damaging to Wikipedia, so the annoyance is justified. Using GNU template for images is not acceptable since you haven't created the images and the authors own the copyright. Maybe we could use these images under fair use. There was a database which included all these models, but I have been unable to locate it anymore. If we had the data, we could recreate new, better images and replace the current ones.--JyriL talk 20:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dalampasigan Beach Resort
A tag has been placed on Dalampasigan Beach Resort, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DMacks 04:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Beachwood Resort-Hotel
A tag has been placed on Beachwood Resort-Hotel, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DMacks 04:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Villia del Prado Resort
A tag has been placed on Villia del Prado Resort, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DMacks 04:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
