User talk:Chaos syndrome/Archive1

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chaos_syndrome/Archive1.

This is an archive of previous discussions. Please do not edit this page. My current talk page is located here.

Extrasolar Visions[edit]

Do you have this same name for the Forum of Extrasolar Vision ?

If so: I'm also on that site, i'm Vega — Hurricane Dev o n @ 23:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in your deductions, but I no longer participate under this username on that site. Chaos syndrome 17:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Your that banned Chaos Syndrome. Sorry about that. Have you still been checking out the site. Maybe i'll talk to John Whatmough & ask him to give you another chance (with a different username). — Hurricane Dev o n @ 23:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not the impersonator (who was rightly banned). I am the original one, but if you recall I got fed up and left. As for talking to John, you've rather missed your chance because of a recent tragic event which cost him his life. Chaos syndrome 08:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Sorry, didn't realized that you left. ... "JHON IS DEAD!!!????, WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN." — Hurricane Dev o n @ 17:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should check the forum announcements, it was announced a while back. Chaos syndrome 22:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarsky classification system[edit]

Hay. I noticed you made this artical. I've been looking for a planet classification scince May '05. I also noticed you deleted my thing on HD 128311. I was thinking that we could use Sudarsky's class. What do you think. I put it to the test on HD 128311.
— Hurricane Dev o n @ 20:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think we should state that planets are a member of whatever Sudarsky class at all, because we don't actually know these objects' temperatures - all we have is a bunch of assumptions, needing a whole load of properties that can only be inferred, such as the star's radius, which we calculate from absolute magnitude and temperature, but absolute magnitude depends on distance which is rather uncertain. Then the temperature calculations need to take into account albedo, which is unknown, and the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, which again is unknown. So you end up with a whole bunch of assumptions, some of which are rather shaky. Therefore assigning these classes is pure speculation. Chaos syndrome 21:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this classification system is rather obscure. There are only a few Google hits. If it hasn't appeared anywhere else than Sudarsky's paper or in Extrasolar Visions, it is clinging to non-notableness. However, the article appeared in a respectable scientific journal (The Astronphysical Journal), which means it is theoretically sound. But on the other hand, the classification system is extremely speculative. I'm not sure if this article deserves deletion, but I would remove all the planet examples in the article. As you wrote, we simply don't know how the planets look like; I wouldn't be surprised if there are many more factors affecting the planet's appearance in addition to its temperature, which would invalidate this system. I would not include a mention this system in the planet articles.--Jyril 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?[edit]

I'm an inclusionist, so if the article is otherwise OK, I don't see a reason why it should be deleted other than its non-notability and speculativeness. The classification system sounds very interesting, so I'd probably vote against deletion.--Jyril 10:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: OGLE-2005-BLG-169L infobox[edit]

Please leave the infobox in this artical. — Hurricane Dev o n @ 23:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the propor box. If we wern't gong to use it, why have made it. And this still leaves the room for whan the rest of the info comes. This is why they invented question marks. I don't ask for much. Just leave the box alone.
— Hurricane Dev o n @ 23:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Expanded starboxes[edit]

Tk, but please tell me. Where did you get all that information? — Hurricane Dev o n @ 15:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Greek letters in star designations[edit]

NO!!! To me they're redundant. Unless that's under wiki law, I stand by my grounds. — Hurricane Dev o n @ 18:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, is it a law under writing star articals, or is it an option. Unless it's under the rules of star articals, I stand by my opinion.
— Hurricane Dev o n @ 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I prefer that you don't call them "vandalisms." — Hurricane Dev o n @ 18:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MACHO-1997-BLG-41[edit]

You had no right to vandilise the artical MACHO-1997-BLG-41. You deleted the images, data, and put incorect info in the artical. I've spent hours working on it, and you destroyed it in 15 sec. I put the artical back, so don't change it again.
— Hurricane Dev o n @ 21:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't mind your edits. But don't change MACHO-1997-BLG-41c to Disproven planet again. F.Y.I. star a is a K, not an M.
— Hurricane Dev o n @ 22:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not changing the title of the planet back to c, but we should mention it in the artical. And unless you cane prove to me that they are both red dwarfs, then i'll leave it alone! — Hurricane Dev o n @ 13:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that link and it sais nothing about it being a red dwarf,
I don't give... I still think we should mention it in the artical, I put (if confirmed, it would be called MACHO-1997-BLG-41c), don't change it!!!!!
Don't move the picture of the stars and planet's orbits to the planet artical, it's the whole system, it should be on the top.
Stop vandilising my external links, you have no right to destroy hours of work.

I reverted the artical back. — Hurricane Dev o n @ 14:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I reread the artical and saw the majic words (M-dwarf binary system). Sorry for the mishap.
— Hurricane Dev o n @ 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Orbital elements in Extrasolar Planet template[edit]

Well, I'm sure I'm twice as confused as you are. Every article I've checked mentions only "omega" (or "ω") (except this one, which mentions longitude of perihelion at the bottom of the page). BTW, is it even possible to measure argument of perihelion without knowing the inclination?--Jyril 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Please stop treating me as a vandal[edit]

Do you know whats anoying, thats how I feel. I'm making edits here in good faith, I'm makeing sure I check my sources and I try to improve the accuracy of the WikiPedia in the areas I'm knowledgeable about. Yet it seems that every edit I make, I come back to my watchlist to find you've come along and reverted the article, seemingly without checking any of what I have written. If I am editing a point made on an article, or adding new sources, I generally add references to the end of the article so that anyone can check what I have written. Yet you seem to automatically assume the edit is stupid and revert immediately.

I get so mad @ you, I really want to get any admins involved, but I don't. And you threatening and blackmailing me is why I think of you as a vandal and a mean person.

I don't mind you doing reverting my edits, but when you destroy something I have works on for hours, getting info, and making it look nice for wikipedia, you just redo it because one thing on it isn't to your liking. i.e. Delta Trianguli, today you just went and reverted all of my edits i've been working on through0out the morning, and in five seconds, you destroy it. I don't mind your edits on δ Tri, but you destroyed something that didn't need to be, the box was ok, and you just took it out without looking and seeing it wasn't (c) info. Maybe if you just look @ the artical more carfully, and just take out the stuff that is it, not just the whole artical.

I can't make a new artical without you re-editing it. i.e. MACHO-1997-BLG-41, I can understand that they didn't call it c, but it would be of good nature if it was mentioned, even if it sais it's not called c. And you took out the images, just what I said about you just reverting and not checking.

And the radius and temp. thing, it should still be mentioned in the artical. I have to be in fear if i want to put the radius in the planet articals, with the worry that you'll delete it again.

And look hows talking, you called me a vandal too (quote: Please stop vandalising articles :unquote). With those greek letter things. If it's an option on the artical, that I'll take my option and not put it in because its redundant.

These are my feeling, think about that. — Hurricane Dev o n @ 03:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Devon[edit]

I've had my disagreements with him as well, many months ago he was adding copyright images: for instance, at Iota Horologii he was adding an "artist's conception" image lifted straight from the artist's website (and it turned out to be an image of Gamma Cephei to boot, rather than Iota Horologii). It does indeed seem that he was copying text from solstation.com at Delta Trianguli and Delta Pavonis. If he persists, we may have to consider dispute resolution mechanisms such as Wikipedia:Request for comments. He does seem to have some enthusiasm for contributing though, despite stubbornness in some misguided approaches, so I hope we can resolve the situation without too much ill will. -- Curps 05:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut me some slack. I didn't understand the copyrighted rules back then. — Hurricane Dev o n @ 11:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetbox[edit]

I thought it would be a good idea, I made this. Hope you like the idea. — Hurricane Dev o n @ 21:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was me. Also, I known that the class is possibly not true, that's why I put estimated on it!
— Hurricane Dev o n @ 23:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Clear" HTMLs[edit]

Hey, I have a question. I'm in an argument with Worldtraveller and have to get your support. Is putting the {{clear}} on between exoplanet articals (i.e. HD 217107) a right idea. Or is it a bad idea. In my opinion, it's a good idea because you won't get confused with other planet or sections in the artical. Please respond. — Hurricane Dev o n @ 23:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New look for box headers[edit]

There's a discussion on the WikiProject Astronomical objects page regarding a new look for box headers. I was hoping you could drop by and comment. Thank you. — RJH 14:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD[edit]

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DON'T ERASE MY {{Star-planetbox primary}} THING. IF YOU DON'T LIKE A FEATURE ON IT, FIX IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
— Hurricane Dev o n @ 19:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using all-caps and multiple exclamation marks is rude and childish. Such comments on this talk page will be ignored. Thank you. Chaos syndrome 20:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Copyright violations[edit]

Why do you always vandalise hours of work? — Hurricane Dev o n @ 19:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you just take out the copy and not vandalise hours of work? — Hurricane Dev o n @ 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

55 Cancri Ae[edit]

I removed the section on speculation, and looking over the rest of the article I couldn't find anything that had any of the same language as the other page. It seemed to be entirely rewritten in original words, which keeps us safe. If we get a DMCA notice, we can just delete the offending revisions from the version history later, but as long as there's no violation in the current version, we're ok for now. Night Gyr 21:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HO Librae[edit]

Leave the title alone pr else. I'm getting POed at your changes. I don't care if you get more hits for it by the other name. This is the higher and more used name for the star. — Hurricane Dev o n @ 23:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I'd like to thank you for the contributions you've done to Wikipedia. I'm sorry to see you to leave, but I'm not a bit surprised seeing Devon's behaviour lately. No one Wikipedia contributor should be treated like this.--Jyril 09:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw you left Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects, so thanks for working on this project with me. --JamesHoadley 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you will come back after a much deserved break. I've just finished a request for comment that you might be interested in. Worldtraveller 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave![edit]

WAIT don't leave yet. I am working with Hurricane Devon; I am confident that I will be able to make some progress with him. This type of thing happened once before but with some discussion and some blocking I was able to redirect his energies into more productive venues. Please reconsider your decision to leave, or make it a temporary break. I will work with Devon to help him find a way to contribute without harrassing other users or ignoring Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Devon just thinks about things differently than most other people do. Wikipedia is not therapy, but I was able to get through to him once before and feel I can again; I was remiss in not keeping a closer eye on him. I suppose this is his third chance now, but my personal Wikipedia philosophy is to be inclusive, to try to redirect users rather than drive them off or block them. Every vandal is a potential contributor. Of course, I don't wish to lose quality editors like you, either. I will do my best to de-escalate the situation. Please return when your other obligations are complete. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Devon[edit]

Sorry for the late reply. I haven't had the time lately to devote to this particular issue or astronomical editing in general. Hurricane Devon does indeed have a copyvio problem with some of his contributions. He's now taken a wikibreak and hopefully will have a more constructive attitude when he returns. I'm sorry to hear that you yourself are thinking of taking a permanent wikibreak, and hope you'll reconsider. -- Curps 07:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]