User talk:Aldebaran66/Archive 1

HAT designations

Hello, and welcome to the project. I have noticed that you have changed the names of the articles on a number of HATnet exoplanet host stars from HAT-P designations to GSC designations. I don't believe there is any reason to avoid using these designations. Rather, we should use whichever designation is most commonly used in the literature, which in many cases will be the HAT-P designation. Spacepotato (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Thanks; very informative. — Aldaron • T/C 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

I'd like your opinion on the importance of the VB 10b article. — Aldaron • T/C 18:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for making anything within 20 light-years high importance, except for tiny non-threatening asteroids and outer planet moonlets. Aldebaran66 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of photography technology

Why would you remove the only referenced item in the article? Email me if you'd like a copy of the cited article. Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email requesting the citation article. Aldebaran66 (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied. Unfortunately, I don't find a scan, and I'm on the road, so won't be able to search up the paper right away. I sent you some other stuff instead. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sending me this and the other documents. I have posted the pdf version of Lally's Mosaic Guidance document here and added links to the reference note in the two photography articles containing his extraordinary claims. This lone obscure document does not appear to be of sufficient authority to backup Lally's bold first-person claims as stated. The document itself does not describe any technology of practical use to modern digital photography and is mostly (if not entirely) speculation. A conservative statement would be: "There is some evidence that JPL was starting to consider issues regarding two-dimensional monolithic photosensor arrays as early as 1961". Aldebaran66 (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Samuel Berman

Question: why do you suspect it in the first place? It is clear that I am not affiliated with the people in the article, and there are no reasons to think that. On the other hand, the persons who vandalize this article seem to be affiliated with the subject Marcelo Berman, since one of them is Albert Berman, a relative of Berman's. Albert Berman clearly has problems with his relative Marcelo Berman and has vandalized or attacked the article on Marcelo Berman.--Waren Beat (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aldebaran66. First of all my apologies for not following the proper protocol. I am only a Wiki user, not an editor. I am not here to engage in an edit war or to commit vandalism. But I could not just do nothing when I saw Mr. Berman's autobiography.

The crime committed by this man was over 40 years ago, before we even dreamed there would be the Internet. There is no on-line source for the case, but Mr. Berman himself admits "executing a nazi" in his personal blog. Since the victim was a physicist (Berman's boss) it is relevant that it is included in the biography. Please note that Mr. Berman tries to mask the crime by submitting a request to the government under the Amnesty Law, as if he had been persecuted due to political reasons. The reality is that he committed murder due to jealousy and shows no remorse for his actions. I would really appreciate if you could point me on the right direction for getting the information added, so that this man is not able to rewrite history and hide from his crime. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.92.41 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation of murder is a very serious charge. If you make such a charge on Wikipedia, even in the talk pages, a WP:RS must be provided. Sources may include neutral newspaper articles or public court records and do not have to be accessible online. But please do not add such accusations to any WP:BLP article without also including a specific and reliable source. Providing such a source may be difficult but it is your responsibility. Aldebaran66 (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer

dear aldebran66, as you added on septermber 20th 2009 the infobox about AMS I would like to kindly ask you if it is possible to change the official website link with this one http://www.ams02.org/ thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.146.15.163 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toonami (Asia)

Replying to your comment on the now-deleted talk page: Just FYI, topics that are potentially notable don't merit inclusion on Wikipedia. They must already be notable. That's why the article was deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toonami broadcast

What editing, exactly are you talking about? The only things I stated were already justified, such as the Astro Boy banned episode which is already on it's wikipedia article. If you say it is not notable, how is Outlaw Star's episode "Hot Springs of Planet Tenrei" any different? Speaking of Outlaw Star, it has even been confirmed that the reason I stated was the reason it went unaired, and that was on the article already until just yesterday. I also merely added "for content" behind the word "edited" as people may not understand what you are talking about, and if you have seen Toonami, you would know practically everything is edited, aside from the newer Toonami. The G-Force edit from before, was merely a statement made by another user, I only improved proper grammer, and this is actually true, if you look at list of schedules. It left the lineup quite quickly, actually. I also see quite a lot of original info you missed. I merely restored it, as I knew it was fact, and I will add references if you want me to. By the way, this page has left the revisions in for many months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.222.242 (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward Effect

Hi there! A major improvement was recently made to this page, but one paragraph accidentally got garbled. The "Conservation Of Momentum" paragraph is presently nonsensical. Please could you either tidy it up or simply delete it and refer instead to the existing Wikipedia article of that name (as you yourself suggest). What happened is that a physics professor was assigned the task, but unfortunately got blocked from Wikipedia before completing the edit. I assume from your handle that you know something about astronomy, so you can easily see for yourself that the paragrah is, indeed, garbled. I would do the edit personally, but am afraid I might myself be blocked! 69.168.205.22 (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest. I have looked at the article and you are correct about the Conservation of momentum section needing work. I am holding off as two other editors that seem to know and care more than me about the Woodward effect are presently making extensive changes to the article. Let's see what we have when they are done and see if cleanup is still necessary and, if so, make changes then. Aldebaran66 (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, an anonymous user has made edits without references and appears to be asserting an opinion. The section was deleted once. However, the unknown author has chosen to reinstate the revision. I will not delete it. Another reviewer should read the content and review the order of statements with respect to the article. Scie8 (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)scie8[reply]