User talk:Careless Torque

Hello, Careless Torque, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SeyfertTypeII.gif. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Careless Torque. These two images are being deleted today. If you have the permission of the copyright holder to post these images here, please ask them to send an email to the OTRS team using the instructions found at WP:Consent. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SeyfertTypeI.gif. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Careless Torque,
I took a look at your work on the Seyfert Galaxy article, and its shaping up nicely. Just thought I'd mention that there are some links you can make in your introduction to other articles, these are pretty self explanatory so I'm sure you'll get around to it. Also, the second sentence of the introduction "They have, in fact, a quasar-like nucleus, but, unlike quasars, the host galaxy is clearly detectable.", I think would be fair to say needs rewritten.
At a glance that is all I have noticed, otherwise, great effort so far. Keep up the good work!

IndianFace (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I am also working on an article, Electron scattering, and if you could keep an eye out over the next few days as I start getting my introduction and layout up your feedback would be appreciated.

Hi Careless Torque, just a quick reminder: please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Otherwise comments can become very hard to follow in talk pages. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 21:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cheers I've not realised I forgot to sign my comments. Careless Torque (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! I've got the article on my watch list, so I'll check out any changes made to it. Good luck! — Huntster (t @ c) 04:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your newest edit, you state "NGC 1068, has emission lines arising over a region of 8 inches in diameter." I couldn't find the line in the citation...what page is it on? Further, it is highly ambiguous: is this 8 inches on the photographic plate, or could it be 8 minutes (aka 8") in size in the astronomical sky? In other words, what exactly is being measured here, and why does this need to be included in the article? As it is, it would only serve to confuse readers (who would ask "Why is this relevant?"), unless it can be rewritten in non-technical terms. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huntster,

Yeah, I realised it's not worded very well as soon as I wrote it, but had no time to change it. I will have a look at it this evening.

Careless Torque (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another concern. In your last edit, you cited a 1968 study stating that Seyferts made up 1% of all spiral galaxies, but in the lead, it is stated that 10% of all galaxies are Seyferts (from a 1995 paper). Since there are roughly an equal number of spirals and irregulars in the universe (averaging out the disparate figures from the nearby galatic neighborhood and the more distant parts of the universe), this is obviously impossible. I'm going to assume, without having read much about it, that the 1968 study simply didn't detect as many potential Seyferts as the 1995 study did.

Also, the 1995 source reads, to me at least, that the researchers set a lower bound of 5% for Seyferts and an upper bound of 21% (with the average suggesting 16±5%). I wonder if Reatlas, when adding that figure, just used an average of the 5% and 16%. Either way, I'm going to have to think about how to word all of this to keep reader comprehension intact. You're thoughts on this would be valuable. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add that 10% figure, Torque did, and I only moved it. — Reatlas (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both figures are OK in the context, the 10% is the correct figure now, in 1968 it was believed the figure is 1%. As the comment on my update says, I am still working on the section and it is not completed yet. I will add further details and explanations later as I write the article. Careless Torque (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry Reatlas! My eyes must have been malfunctioning. Torque, I do understand you're working on the article, but remember this is a live article, seen by everyone, so it would be best to avoid piecemeal additions, if that makes sense. Also, I saw no mention of the 10% figure in the paper, what page was it on? — Huntster (t @ c) 04:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a watch on Seyfert galaxy, and I'll give what help I can. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that, since galaxies with active nuclei were more common in the early universe, an unqualified declaration that "X percent of all Y-type galaxies are Seyferts" is necessarily misleading? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will reword the statements about what percentage of galaxies are/ where thought to be Seyferts, as they seem to cause a lot of concern. Careless Torque (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Run-on sentence: The first hints of the existence of Seyfert galaxies were first detected in 1908 by Edward A. Fath and Vesto Slipher, who were using the Lick Observatory to look at the spectra of astronomical objects that were thought to be "spiral nebulae".
• Number agreement issue (lines was?): They noticed that NGC 1068 showed six bright emission lines, which was considered unusual as most objects observed showed an absorption spectrum corresponding to stars.
• What does "unresolved" mean?: In the next few years, other radio sources, like remnants of supernovae, were discovered. By the end of the 1950s, more characteristics of Seyfert galaxies were discovered, such as the fact that their nuclei are unresolved.
• Misleading statement. Are you implying that prior to this period, research was not carried out?: In the 1960-1970s, research to further understand the properties of Seyfert galaxies was carried out.
• Verbose. "due to the way that" => "since": Accurate measurements of the distance to Seyfert galaxies and their age were limited due to the way their nuclei vary in brightness over a time scale of a few years, so light-travel-time arguments cannot always be used.
• Misleading statement. Hubble published a classification scheme in 1926: During the 1960s and 1970s, research has been undertaken in order to survey, identify and catalogue galaxies, including Seyferts.
• Non-encyclopedic "they've": It became obvious that not all spectra from Seyfert galaxies look the same, so they've been subclassified solely on the properties shown by the emission lines on their spectra.
• Ungrammatical "hence why": It has been later noticed that some Seyfert nuclei show intermediate properties, hence why they have been further subclassified into types 1.2, 1.5, 1.8 and 1.9.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stigmatella aurantiaca, I usually try to reference all my statements as I go along, so they don't seem like unqualified declarations. I might have forgot to add one there, but I certainly have a reference for that statement now. I tried to correct some of the other things you pointed out, others will be corrected soon. Careless Torque (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seyfert galaxy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reflection, Polarisation and Spectra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work at the Seyfert galaxy article. Gaba (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe that little more than a month ago the Seyfert galaxy article looked like this. Amazing job Careless Torque, keep it up! Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gaba ! Careless Torque (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Careless Torque, I've made some edits to the Seyfert article, please have a look at them and if you don't agree feel free to either revert or improve upon them. Most importantly I merged the Seyferts as active galactic nuclei into Characteristics and rearranged some sections. I'll make a list of corrections in the article's talk page, so see you there. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 11:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I made a longish comment at Seyfert:Talk last week about references and inaccuracies in the current Seyfert article. Could you please take a look and comment? I appreciate your work, but I think you have a few misunderstandings that have crept into the article itself. Thanks, - Parejkoj (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Careless Torque. I was just reading over the Seyfert galaxy article, and I actually think it is quite close to GA status now. About the only thing that I think it needs right now is a few more references in some sections. If you were to nominate it, I would be happy to conduct an in-depth review of it. You've done a great job on it, keep up the work! StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Careless Torque. You have new messages at StringTheory11's talk page.
Message added 20:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Careless Torque,

I just saw your message left at WikiProject Astronomy and I made some changes to the Solar physics article. Mainly I took the first section which was redundant and converted into a lead, moved two paragraphs from it to the Research Projects section and renamed it Research and added categories to the article. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. Thanks for bringing up attention to this article. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 14:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gaba , cheers for the edits. I didn't like the introduction of the article myself, tried rewording it but didn't have enough time so I planned on rewriting it completely. I also feel that the previously written paragraphs need more references, which I'm trying to work on. I do like the idea of moving those two paragraphs into the research section, thank you. Careless Torque (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, more references are always welcomed :) I don't have much time to work extensively on an article right now but if there's a particular thing I could help you with, do let me know. And please feel free to change/undo any edit I made to the article if you're not entirely happy with it. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some files that you uploaded or altered have been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!