User talk:Aldaron

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Photos of games[edit]

Hi, most often board games are under some sort of copyright which means you can't post a photo of the game board here. I've marked File:CaylusInPlayRoad.jpg with a copyvio-template according to Commons:Image_casebook#Board_games. Moberg (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polyphemus image[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you uploaded File:Exoplanet Comparison Polyphemus.png stating that the component images are already in the public domain, but you do not provide links to the images that you used, thus providing no evidence that they are in the public domain. I am especially concerned with the "Polyphemus" image, as it looks like Neptune but I couldn't find any similar images in our Commons database or elsewhere. Please provide a source for both images, or I'll have to nominate this for deletion in a week. Thanks. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Jupiter image upside down and shaded blue. Aldaron (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I apologise for not noticing the link to the Jupiter image. Second, you are saying that the "Polyphemus" image is the same Jupiter photo but flipped? Did you do some kind of photomanipulation to it, because nothing matches up. If another photo of Jupiter was used, then it needs to be attributed as well. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanet Charts[edit]

Hey there. I was wondering if you could update the Exoplanet charts? Theyre about 7 months out now, would be great if you could add the newly discovered ones.--87.113.42.65 18:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to. Unfortunately the latest update to Mathematica introduced some fatal bugs that (characteristically, I'm afraid) Wolfram refuses to address, so I will need to change tools, which may take some time. Aldaron (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be glad if you could still update those charts, especially with the newer Earth-sized Kepler planets. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's on my list, and I hope to get to it soon. Each Mathematica update completely ruins nearly everything done with a previous version, and introduces new bugs too. Wolfram's bug fix cycle is about 3 years, and they have no support to speak of (even the several hundred dollar a year "premium" support is worthless), so the task keeps slipping down my list. Aldaron (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As of April 2016, do you plan on making an updated version of these charts? That would be super helpful! 132.204.243.254

Revert of Copyvio-Template[edit]

Never remove a Copyvio template again. If you believe the copyvio claim is unfounded, you can raise an objection immediately under the template. I restored the templates and you will need to give a reavon, why the images are no copyvios. greetings. --h-stt !? 17:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC) PS: Please explain why you refer to the "fair use" doctrine. I can't see any connection between it an the issue at hand.[reply]

"Never remove a Copyvio template again." I guess I'm not sure what "and remove this tag" means then. Also: you may wish to review the relevant law before you get to invested in copyvio policing here or elsewhere. Aldaron (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


File:UR1830BC-Game-Board-Closeup.jpg[edit]

File:UR1830BC-Game-Board-Closeup.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-55 b[edit]

The mass isn't 4.45 earth masses. Its 0.445 earth masses. And its called kepler 70b now. Love your chart. There seems to be a pattern emerging. A line of planets extending from earth and venus toward neptune and uranos. Just granpa (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The figures are based on the Open Exoplanet Catalog, which has KOI-55 b as the name and 0.014 Jupiter masses (= 4.45 Earth masses) for the mass. Aldaron (talk)
I think that's the star.Just granpa (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/bgTools/nph-bgExec Just granpa (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dead link. In any case, KOI-55 b is certainly not a star name, and one has to go with sources to avoid original research. When the authors of the OEC change the name, the updates to the figures will track the change. — Aldaron (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/DisplayOverview/nph-DisplayOverview?objname=koi55b Just granpa (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the "default alias" there is 'KOI-55 b'. — Aldaron (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed look like there's an error in the data for the planet in the catalog on which the figures are based though. I will propose a fix (or at least ask the maintainers of the catalog). If the data does change, it will take a bit for the change to propagate to the figures, so be patient. Thanks! — Aldaron (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The catalog data has been updated. Figures (at least some) soon. — Aldaron (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Figure updated. — Aldaron (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanets and colours[edit]

Hello Aldaron,
Is it possible to make HD 189733 b's representation in this file blue as it was determined to be ? It would make the planet look a bit more realistic. Also, could you make something similar for en:GJ 504b with a "pink ball" for the exoplanet ?
Thank you in advance.
Best regards.
SenseiAC (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I try to avoid OR in these figures. The rubric is that they show only reported diameter or diameters calculated from masses using standard models. I avoid showing more, except in rare instances where a published and peer-reviews image from a cited source of some kind is available. The abundant "artists conceptions" are the pace to look for (I'm afraid mostly misleading) color. Aldaron (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you, but if I ask you to colour those planets it's because the color was determined astronomically -- not just artists' views. Source are not hard to find, scientific / science-related journals and websites dealt enough with it when it was announced ! Fore sure we know no detail on the planets' surfaces, anyway the colour is known so you could at least just colour them - or use the artists' views made according to the colours that were determined -- as I said, blue for HD 189733 b and pink for GJ 504 b. Thanks ! SenseiAC (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. It's not a bad suggestion and I've thought about it a bit more since you asked and it's something I might consider in a future update. The issue will be reliably identifying (in a practical way that doesn't require reading every paper about every exoplanet) whether that information is available. Temperature is clearly not enough. Aldaron (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NASA's link for GJ 504 b : [1]. The corresponding Wikimedia "pink ball" image is File:Astronomers Image Lowest-mass Exoplanet Around a Sun-like Star.jpg.
Here is a link for HD 189733 b : [2]. The corresponding picture : File:HD 189733 b deep blue dot.jpg.
I'm working in exoplanets, so I generally have this information. If I find other planets for which an "argumentedly realistic artist's view" can be used, I'll say you.
SenseiAC (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. These will need to be actual color values or wavelengths to be useful. Aldaron (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, I'll call you only for those that are really known. For the blue and pink planets mentioned above, I guess you can use the artists' views I linked you to since they're based on the actual color that were determined. Thanks. SenseiAC (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Are you planning to do the colored models of the blue and the pink planets I mentioned above ? You have both the links "proving" the colors and the images you can use as models for the comparison images. Please let me know when you do it. Best regards. SenseiAC (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black square around Polyphemus[edit]

Hello,
Could you remove the the square that is around Polyphemus here, such that the background would be the same for all the image ? Thank you in advance. Best regards. SenseiAC (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exoplanet_Period-Mass_Scatter.png description edit[edit]

The description for the above file ends "... for an exoplanet characterized using radial velocity is the minimum mass (so that the actual distrubiton of masses for non-transiting planets may be shifted and "smeared" significantly to the right)." (Emphasis mine.) I believe this should read "... significantly upward", or words to that effect.

Cannot be edited by me because it's a user page.

Looks like you're right. Fixed. Thx! Aldaron (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanet_Discovery_Methods_Bar.svg[edit]

Hi Aldaron, I've just seen your 3-year-old message on File_talk:Earth-Moon.svg#Fonts_in_SVG referencing File:Exoplanet_Discovery_Methods_Bar.svg. It looks fine with me now. Did you intend the numbers at the top to be just above the graphs? Post a message on my talk page if you'd like any help. cmglee (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanet Mass-Radius Scatter Super-Earth.[edit]

I'm extremely curious to know what the new Exoplanet Mass-Radius Scatter Super-Earth.png is going to look like with the new data. Just granpa (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theres lines for iron and water. Maybe add a line for hydrogen/helium. Just granpa (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://plus.google.com/100636757164161999940/posts/3twYMVxyAWf

Just granpa (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New size comparison(s)[edit]

Do you mind making size comparisons for the following?:

  • K2-3d (1.53 RE)

I would appreciate this, as they are part of my plans to upgrade some articles on certain exoplanets in the optimistic habitable zone in the future. Oh and if I need more size comparisons I'll just add them to this section. --MarioProtIV (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On my list of things to do shortly. Let me know if there are others you're interested in. Aldaron (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aldaron: mind making one for K2-72e? Radius is 0.82 RE. --MarioProtIV (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind made my own. --MarioProtIV (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update of exoplanet stats[edit]

File:Exoplanet Discovery Methods Bar.svg is a couple years out of date. Could you possibly update it to reflect the dramatic increase in exoplanet discovery of the past few years? Many thanks! Yinweichen (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7 earth like planets[edit]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2017/02/22/heres-how-astronomers-found-seven-earth-sized-planets-around-a-dwarf-star/#352fb245dc11

Just granpa (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Lord Belbury (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aldaron&oldid=686107706"