Jump to content

User talk:Curps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Desertsky (talk | contribs) at 15:54, 27 April 2004 (==). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

archive1 archive2

MFN/NTR

I figured MFN might be a generic term, but the article was clearly US-centric so I moved it to NTR, and the redirect got created automatically (it was the best available option at the time, really). You added the right stuff easily, so all is well. --Shallot 19:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Reverting

When you revert, can you please mark your revert by placing either "revert" or "rv" in the edit summary, ideally with a reason. Eg, against a common vandal, one might write "reverting blanking of page". That makes the page history easier to read at a later date. Martin 20:41, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Curps 00:46, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

SOHO: thanks for pointing that out. I made the title how it is in the other Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes pages. I've been wondering if we should include more info on the image used in the infobox, as you put in. If you've an opinion, post it to the talk page. --zandperl 21:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good point. What would you think if I moved the image of the sun down the page and put an image of the satellite/telescope itself in the infobox? I think that's how most of the other telescope pages with the infobox are so far. --zandperl 02:42, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution. Curps 02:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the author of the paragraph you commented on on Talk:Astronomy. Celestial Mechanics and Astrometry are taught less and less, that's the reason I wrote "during part of the 20th century". Before that, astrphysics didn't exist, right now, I'm not sure CM and Asm. are on equal footing with astrophysics. The user who put the paragraph for discussion, however, hasn't put it back, and actually replaced it with a much less useful one (in my opinion), and that is talked about later on the text.--AstroNomer 20:59, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about astrometry and celestial mechanics, but it's fairly different from what you originally wrote. Let me know what you think. Curps 01:58, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comets

Hi Curps! I see you joined in adding interesting comets at list of comets, great!! Maybe we can make up a "template comet" (something like XP/Template ;-) with some general headings and parameters? This might help the overall look-and-feel, but up to now I just did not have the energy to do it. What do you think? Awolf002 15:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comets aren't really my specialty, I was doing bios of the early asteroid hunters and some of them discovered comets too, so I added them.
I'm not sure that templates are as useful as for some of the other celestial bodies, because their orbital elements are constantly getting perturbed. So the information would often be out of date. But if you want to give it a shot, go ahead. Lots of good information on http://www.cometography.com/ Curps 20:48, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, let my try it and see what others think... Awolf002 15:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for "(disambig William Pickering)" - led me into some very interesting places :Robin Patterson 01:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the original disambig I ran into was William H. Pickering... two people by that name, both connected to space/astronomy. And William Pickering was even more ambig.
Just the day before I had to deal with Robert G. Harrington and Robert Sutton Harrington, both astronomers.
Glad you found some interesting stuff. -- Curps 03:13, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Asteroids

Thanks for your help with my asteroid updates and additions! Much appreciated...

Sorry, forgot to sign name... still getting the hang of this... as you can tell... The Singing Badger


Plutinos

On the Plutino page, you say "Some astronomers classify Pluto itself as a plutino." Are there any astronomers in particular that you have in mind? The only reference cited on the page, David Jewitt, does not count Pluto as a Plutino. (According to his web page and an e-mail from him). JoelWest 06:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What I wrote was Some astronomers classify Pluto itself as a plutino; others believe it should continue to be considered a full-fledged planet, which I tried to make a NPOV statement of the "is Pluto really a planet controversy".
As you know, there are some astronomers who consider that Pluto might be reclassified as a minor planet, and if so, what category of minor planet would it be? It could only be a plutino, since the definition of plutino is a minor planet in 3:2 resonance with Neptune.
If Pluto is a minor planet it would be a plutino in much the same way that 1992 QB1 is a cubewano. Curps 07:18, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like the new wording, which doesn't try to summarize who says what or attribute it to astronomers. I just cut it in two parts because the sentence seemed a bit run-on.

hello Curps, I have registered under DESERTSKY

in case I could be helpful with some information or hints, please write a note

to me under Dersertsky

I would not mind to give you my e-mail adress, but as all wiki is open to anybody I fear we would have a lot of spam,

regards


hello Curps, ref. La Silla and Paranal, the ESO observatories I have seen there are already good links finally to www.eso.org, there you will get a full information about all ESO activities and also the ESO history, you will find also (under La Silla Historical Picture Gallery a photo from me, it was my 50th birthday as far as I remember.

somebody interested in Radio Astronomy should also watch the ALMA project ESO with others is preparing in the Atacama desert, there should be information on the ESO pages or under ALMA ESO with google

H.-E.



H.-E. Schuster


hello Curps, That's me again (Desertsky,H.-E.): ref. the various minor planet lists in wiki: there exists a publication by Lutz Schmadel from ARI (Astronomisches Rechen Institut Heidelberg) called: "Dictionary of Minor Planet Names" already 4th edition ? permanently updated and now not anymore a hardcover but on a CD disk. As you know certainly this publiction gives full information about any Minor Planet yet detected (names, numbers, and also the dedication ect.) Maybe it is worthwhile to indicate a link to this publication, if legal and no copyright problems ? (just a link added to the listings mentioned above)

just for curiosity: where on this planet are you sitting, as you know I am in Hamburg,

rgds, Desertsky


right, I just found the link for the "Dictionary of Minor Planets" Montreal: I never made it to Canada, most northern point of the American Continent was Boston/Harvard, H.-E.

hello Curps I have done a small editing in my biography. Deleted after RED Survey the "IIIa-F" Maybe I am too meticulous but I think IIIa-F is a registered Trade Name from KODAK ? and if used credit should be given to KODAK ?? Both surveys mentioned (Blue and Red) have been executed on KODAK photographic material the Blue one on IIa-O and the Red one on IIIa-F behind corresponding glassfilters from SCHOTT/Germany shame enough I do not remember at this moment the exact names of the two filters used, information must be somewhere in the web;

by the way, if ever somebody writes an article about KODAK it should be mentioned with a strong appreciation what this Company has done for Astronomical Photography. (amongst the other fields of buisiness)

private remark: in what field you are busy? Astronomy as your hobby ?

H.-E.





H.-E.




shame enough I do not have

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curps&oldid=3361156"