Talk:911 Agamemnon

message: Yay, I add in some information contained in the linked sources that the original author neglected to copy over, and someone figures it's justifiable to delete it just because I bothered to put a comprehensive explanation in the "reason for editing" box, instead of just dumping the figures there without any justification for having done so, which I easily could have done.
Have put it back in with even more exacting info extracted from another one of the sources, and duplicated the relevant part in the sidebar. Let's see if it lasts.
Factual and citation-supported data is something that's still welcome on WP, right? Rather than the completely unsupported and often contradictory nonsense data that currently infests a large minority if not the majority of minor planet articles? Or stubs that give lots of references but copy in none of the actual useful info, so people visiting WP then have to go off to the various external sites (which may well disappear without warning) to try and find the small amount of relevant data from within what could be quite a wall of text, confusing images, or 5+ minute long videos?
I don't enjoy or make a habit of getting involved with WP metastream flamewars, but, FFS. Think and read before you kneejerk revert, eh?
PS, the "166.66km diameter" figure that was already there doesn't even have a citation, just an enigmatic "(LCDB)", which is something I think I've seen before but I haven't a clear idea of what it is or how to access it (Light Curve Database?). What to do, what to do... ;) 146.199.0.203 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What page/table in reference #10 "Asteroid Catalog Using Akari: AKARI/IRC Mid-Infrared Asteroid Survey" does the size estimate of 185km come from? -- Kheider (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just began revising 911 Agamemnon, and in the process, added several published diameter figures. To the anon user: I already posted on your talk page (146.199.0.203). Pls make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's code of conduct. Thank you, Rfassbind – talk 04:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is getting too late at night, but I still do not see where the 185km estimate for 911 Agamemnon is in reference #10. That is a notable deviation from the NEOWISE estimate of ~130km. I would still like to known how to extract 911 Agamemnon's diameter in the ORIGINAL SOURCE instead of getting it from LCDB. -- Kheider (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Such fun! 

message: :What page/table in reference #10 "Asteroid Catalog Using Akari: AKARI/IRC Mid-Infrared Asteroid Survey" does the size estimate of 185km come from? -- Kheider (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just began revising 911 Agamemnon, and in the process, added several published diameter figures. To the anon user: I already posted on your talk page (146.199.0.203). Pls make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's code of conduct. Thank you, Rfassbind – talk 04:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is getting too late at night, but I still do not see where the 185km estimate for 911 Agamemnon is in reference #10. That is a notable deviation from the NEOWISE estimate of ~130km. I would still like to known how to extract 911 Agamemnon's diameter in the ORIGINAL SOURCE instead of getting it from LCDB. -- Kheider (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  185km diameter