User talk:Камень

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Камень, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! –Capricorn42 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!--Камень (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1999 RQ36[edit]

Камень, please cease to add back the inaccurate size estimates for RQ36. As I have explained, the estimates we post on neo.jpl.nasa.gov are uncertain by ~50%, while the size estimate from the radar observations is uncertain by only 10%. Similarly, the mass value posted on the ru.wikipedia.org article is uncertain by much more than 50% - even with the radar data - so it should be cited to only one significant figure.

In the interests of full disclosure, please be aware that I work with the near-Earth object group at JPL, specializing in radar observations of asteroids. Michaelbusch (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Камень, I am very well aware of the rules on reliable sourcing of Wikipedia (you may see my history of contributions for this). So that you may understand the uncertainties in the neo.jpl.nasa.gov estimates, which are based on optical photometry, I will quote from the page you link: "... the diameter estimate should be considered only approximate, but in most cases will be accurate to within a factor of two." Thus the ±50%. I have not removed the links completely, only the information that is uncertain. I consider the Nolan et al. paper to meet all the requirements for reliable sources, having seen it. I will add additional sources for the radar observations to the en.wikipedia.org article for your edification. Please add them to ru.wikipedia.org in appropriate locations. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I have linked an abstract by Hudson et al. 2000, with preliminary results from radar imaging. They give a diameter estimate of 500 m. Please understand that the 500 m value is not significantly different from the (510 ± 50) m best-fit value given by Nolan et al. 2009. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sys-admins would agree with me on this, I'm afraid. Please do not make a scene. As I have said, there are electronic sources describing the radar observations, which I have linked on 1999 RQ36. And please note that I am not pushing a paper that I am a co-author on. I merely know the field. Michaelbusch (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]