Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:36, 16 January 2010

Hello, J. Langton! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your wholesale slash and burning of articles without actually reading references

I don't care who you claim to be or what kind of expert people are supposed to think you are, none of that matters on Misplaced Pages, what matters is the referencing links that you provide, so you have no business deleting stuff you don't agree with and then admitting you didn't actually read the referencing. This brand spaking new profile and serious editing with archiving and all lends itself strongly to the idea that this user account is for the sockpuppetry of user: Cyclopia. -- GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: J. Langton is my only account. The reason I don't edit entirely like a newbie is because I try to pay attention to what other people are doing. WP isn't exactly rocket science. J. Langton (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment for GoRight RfC

I have finished revising my comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GoRight#Ouside View by Abd. I promised that I would notify those who endorsed my comment so they would have an opportunity to revise their comments. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Expectation mass of exoplanets

Just a query about your comment on the expectation value of the mass of an exoplanet being 1.3 times the minimum: I'm not sure I agree, could you say what's wrong with my analysis?

The expectation value of sin(i) is ${\displaystyle \textstyle E(\sin i)=\int _{0}^{\pi /2}\sin ^{2}i\,di={\frac {\pi }{4}}}$ which if you take the reciprocal (since ${\displaystyle \textstyle m_{\mathrm {true} }={\frac {m_{\mathrm {min} }}{\sin i}}}$) gives a mass approximately 1.3 times the minimum.

However, the expectation value of the mass is surely given by ${\displaystyle \textstyle E(m_{\mathrm {true} })=E(m_{\mathrm {min} }/\sin i)=\int _{0}^{\pi /2}m_{\mathrm {min} }\,di={\frac {\pi }{2}}m_{\mathrm {min} }}$ which is approximately 1.6 times the minimum mass.

Or is the 1.3 value caused by the breakdown of the approximation that the companion's mass is much less than the star's mass at low inclinations? 86.171.72.213 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly correct that the second way is the traditional way to calculate an expectation value, and is therefore the correct expectation value of the mass, in some sense. In the literature, though, the first way is, pretty much universally as near as I can tell, used to figure out a planet's expected mass. I suspect this has to do with the fact that for zero inclination (i.e. pole on) the mass would approach infinity, so the second figure is inflated by a very small number of very massive "planets." Thus, the first method is more likely to give you a good idea of the likely mass of the planet. In some non-mathematical sense, it's like a median rather than a mean.

Either way, my original terminology was imprecise and confusing, so thanks for bringing this up! J. Langton (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide an opinion?

Hi, Since you seem to have some academic expertise on the subject of exoplanets, I'd be happy if you can have a look at the page about TW Hydrae. In particular I would personally like an opinion to know if the status of the putative exoplanet in the scientific debate is better stated as "disputed" or definitely "disproved". I tried to have a look at papers, but my scientific expertise is on protein biophysics, not astronomy, so I can't reach any conclusion. Thanks! --Cyclopia (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard

Hello, J. Langton. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is regarding User:GabrielVelasquez's conduct, and as you are one of the editors he has accused of sockpuppetry I thought you'd be interested. Icalanise (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC on GabrielVelasquez

Hi. A request for comment regarding User:GabrielVelasquez has been filed here. You may be interested to join the discussion, since you have been one of the users affected by his behaviour. Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Standing Offer/Request

Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.

If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally. --GoRight (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Consistency (from Pachauri)

The way that consistency is discussed here (and elsewhere) is not consistency, but a different approach towards "equal time". The relative balance of references/sources for different people and topics will never be the same. Lets take a far out example, scientist X is called "an alarmist" in some references/sources, and scientist Y is called a "contrarian" in some references/sources. Now these two situations may on the surface look alike - but they aren't (and never will be). It turns out that X is called "alarmist" in many different articles, books and in fact also in some peer-reviewed sources - but Y is only called "contrarian" on various blogs and other opinion sources.... Now it seems even clearer, doesn't it? But No. It turns out that the significant prevalence of sources about X do not do so, and that X in fact has been covered in an abundance of references, while Y is only covered sporadic, and a significant amount of sources (relative to the whole) state it.... Hmmmm .... Picture gets murkier and murkier - and as you can see, there is rather little in common between the two despite the look at the surface.

To summarize: Weight is not something that can be determine in general, or over a plethora of articles covered under a common topic. It is something that is determined individually, by the references available, and the overall situation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering to justify a double standard. Sure, there is some nuance to weight determination, but accepting isolated claims sourced to ExxonSecrets.com on one hand, while simultaneously rejecting significant coverage in major newspapers on three continents on the other... well, this is orders of magnitude beyond what can be justified via weight. It is bias, nothing less, and those insisting on keeping it that way are pushing a POV, whether they know it or not.

This last phrase is important: whether they know it or not. I truly believe you don't recognize your own biases, Kim, and therefore I have not nor will not accuse you of bad faith. However, regardless of your intent, I firmly believe that your editing on this topic is not tendentious in the sense that you are pushing very hard to maintain a POV status quo. That's a problem, and that's what needs to be dealt with. ATren (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ATren, "significant cover" is determined by looking at what coverage a person generally receives when there is news involving that person. When we are talking about Pachauri, then he just about has to fart, and it will be covered in just about all major newspapers on all continents. This particular instance has had coverage on 3 continents, but it hasn't been significant. If you look at Google news, and compare the coverage of these COI charges, with his recent comment that "Copenhagen a good outcome" then the COI fades to just about nothing..... And not only that ... it was a short news-burst... The only major newspapers to cover the story (aside from the original Telegraph article) was The Australian and a few indian ones. And most coverage was in opinion articles. Not really very good weight. As i've said multiple times, if it turns out to be more than a stir in a glass of water, then we will cover it - but count me as far from convinced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) Part of my issue with consistency is that the stuff that goes into people's bios should be at least somewhat related to the reason for their notability. Using Lindzen again as an example -- he's notable as a scientist in his own right, and as a skeptic of AGW. His position on the relationship between lung cancer and smoking is not really notable, so it's not clear to me why it's worth including, even if it is reliably sourced. On the other hand, the COI charges against Pachauri are directly related to notability, and since they are reliably sourced, I think they should be included. If this story does turn out to be a flash in the pan, maybe we can revisit the issue later.

In any case, the standard seems to sometimes be that anything anyone ever said that has shown up in a reliable source should go into the article, and sometimes it needs to stay at the top of the news pile for weeks before its worth inclusion. I care less about which way we end up going with this, and more about making sure we apply the same standard across the board. That's my major concern here. J. Langton (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)