User talk:Abyssoft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Abyssoft, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Storm Horizon 19:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NEO masses

Hi Abbysoft, I just noticed your comment in List of solar system objects by mass:

Masses for NEOs listed in the table come from the JPL Near Earth Object Program.

You wouldn't happen to have a weblink or reference for that, would you? It would go very well in the article, for e.g. tracking down future NEO discoveries of interest. See you. Deuar 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's the link to the NEO program homepage. Do they actually list masses somewhere in there? If as I suspect not, are they just calculated based on the size and an assumed density? Then it'd be good to a) know what is that assumed density, and b) indicate in the list that it's just a very rough estimate by using a tilde. Cheers, Deuar 17:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re your recent additions of asteroid mass estimates: most of these are only order-of-magnitude numbers, from approximate sizes and densities as Deuar said. The NEO database at JPL lists both those numbers and measured masses for all objects. In most cases, there is the order-of mass and the measured mass is flagged not available.Michaelbusch 19:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Many neo's have individual pages. Here are a few examples...

Name Mass in kg Page
2000 SG344 ~(7.1e+07 kg) http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2000sg344.html
2004 VD17 ~(2.6e+11 kg) http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2004vd17.html
1994 GK ~(1.5e+08 kg) http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/1994gk.html

Abyssoft 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback on Image:SSSB distribution.png

Hi, it's great you're tackling this diagram − I think a global overview of all the groups of bodies would be very very revealing to have. I feel a bit disingeneous making any comments, since it's obviously a fair bit of work to generate this kind of diagram, but if I could make one suggestion, since you ask? :-)

A logarithmic scale (rather than the staggered linear one) would be really great.

It has several advantages:

  • It avoids the staggered effect that occurs at the 1.0, 1.2, 2, 4, 30, 3000 labels; This effect is somewhat misleading at first glance because the scale is shifting around. For example, you get the impression that there is a big asteroid clump just beyond 2.0, while in fact the pile up of bodies there is just an illusion caused by changing the scale by a factor of 10. Also one might be forgiven for thinking that the asteroid belt is extremely broad, and Jupiter and the Trojans orbit just barely outside of it.
  • It shouldn't require such a great physical length in the horizontal direction to bring out all the details on a log scale.
  • The long whitespace in the far reaches of the scattered disc will be strongly reduced
  • It should be less tedious to generate since the whole plot can be done in one fell swoop. (or several, depending on how you obtained your data, I suppose)

A log scale would be grand!

Um, actually, if I could make a second smaller suggestion: many people will find the labeling according to period in days confusing. I know I did. I was almost convinced that the large blob around 1.0 had to be the NEOs, and was wondering why there were so many objects interior of them, until I finally realised with astonishment that this was actually the Hungaria group, and the Earth was nowhere near there. It might be better to use the semi-major axis in AU or period in years, which most will be familiar with. :-)

Anyway, good stuff! Deuar 14:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I see how this 60K points limit you have could be a real pain. Am I right that you had to manually paste parts of the diagram together at the end of the process, and hence the sections with different scale? Deuar 14:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great! You've probably thought about this: if you're planning on reducing the data points it might be nice to try to still keep a complete set of TNOs and Centaurs in there since the data is pretty sparse in that region otherwise. Good luck! Deuar 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Alert

An editor has nominated the article Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000) for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000). Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000) during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Urhixidur 18:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page vandalism

(This Section is marked for archiving, If anyone has reason why this should not be archived please leave a comment. Archiving will be done after March 1, 2007)Abyssoft 05:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Reverting or deleting material off of another editor's talk page is considered vandalism. Every editor gets to choose what to do with that his or her own talk page. It is not for public consensus or random reverts by non-participants. Please do not edit my talk page again. Thank you. - Donteatyellowsnow

[edit] Asteroid Models

I've clarified that the asteroid models you uploaded images of are convex hulls. This is important, because Mikko Kaasalianen realizes that he can't reliably model concavities from his lightcurve inversions. Michaelbusch 07:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Orcus

Hi Abbysoft,

It's true that the paper was published in the 1st quarter of 2007 but the images were probably obtained much earlier. So your statement "In the first quarter of 2007 it has been imaged ..." is wrong. Besides the word "detected" is more appropriate than "imaged" beacause they only measured FIR flux in the two wavelength bands (24 and 70 μm). Ruslik 13:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The last version is OK.Ruslik 07:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It means OK to make a change. Ruslik 09:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: vandalism

To be honest, I don't really see any evidence of deliberate misinformation or vandalism in either Linkman or Alberto's edits. So far, the only edit Linkman has made to an article has been the one he made to Pluto, and that could just as easily be a mistake as anything else. Give him time and we'll see if a pattern emerges. Alberto seems a bit strident in his criticism, but most of his edits seem fairly minor and not blatantly misinformative. His thinking that Eris was discovered in 2003 was an easy mistake to make, given that Eris's catalogue number is 2003 UB313. I dunno. Maybe I'm being too lenient, but I don't really see a problem. I would see a problem if he returned to the Pluto page and reinstated his edit, failing to listen to reason. If you do feel that vandalism is happening, you can report him to WP:AIV, but there doesn't seem to be much reason to do so right now. Serendipodous 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sssb_distibution_lg.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sssb_distibution_lg.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 11:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the "better image" that you mentioned at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 5#Image:Sssb_distibution_lg.png? Small Solar System body doesn't have any images. Thanks! -- Paddu 20:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Last time I had check (quite a while ago) another enterprising graphic artist created a similar disbuted display it was much better then the one I had created as the scale used was far more uniform. Abyssoft 04:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Found the one I was refering to Image:TheTransneptunians_73AU.svg Abyssoft 05:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This latter image doesn't show the distribution within 4 AUs of the Sun. Since Image:Sssb_distibution_lg.png is now deleted, can you create a graph for the distribution within 4 AUs of the Sun for Small Solar System body? Thanks! -- Paddu 04:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I had saved your graph at [1] but forgot all about it. Can that be of any help? -- Paddu 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pluto found marked.gif

You have derived Image:Pluto found marked.gif from Image:Discovery Pluto.png and claimed it to be PD. For this, Image:Discovery Pluto.png has to be PD. Are you sure about this? I doubt it since Image:Pluto discovery plates.png is tagged as non-free. -- Paddu 20:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize on this matter and the offending file may be speedy deleted. The file should have been posted as modified, this modification was made pure for better understanding of the topic at the time it was discussed, it is now both out dated and improperly taged, Please proceed with speedy delete Abyssoft 04:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • addendum - The file I used to create the alter was not from the one list rather from another science site. and as I said speedy delete is aok by me on this one. Abyssoft 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)