![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Lithopsian. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! meco ( talk) 08:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian,
Thank you for your contributions to the Supernova article. Following your changes I made certain revisions in order to comply with Wikipedia policies such as WP:LEAD and, most importantly WP:CITE. If you have reliable sources for some of your additions, it would be appreciated if you could add them in. I'd like to keep the article at WP:FA status, if I could. Regards, RJH ( talk) 14:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
11:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Eta Carinae, please cite a
reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. See
Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Also, if you want to replace citations or remove large amounts of text, you should discuss it on the article's Talk page, first. —
UncleBubba (
T
@
C )
23:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You might want to turn on "TWINKLE" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Twinkle ) to help undo massive reversions like we just saw from an IP address onto VY Cygni. With TWINKLE enabled, when you do a compare of a bunch of edits done by a single user, you will see in the top part of the comparison page a set of "rollback" options, which will undo all of the edits in question. Massive saving in labor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarlneustaedter ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
that "NML Cygni is the largest star known" and "has 6500 times that of sun"
First of all I want to thank you for providing this information about NML Cygni to the article List of largest known stars. The article on NML Cygni has been nominated for Wikipedia:Did you know. If accepted this would be featured in the main page. It is located at Template:Did you know nominations/NML Cygni
But the references must be checked for accepting it. Hence, at the time of reviewing this should be verified. But only the abstract of this source ( [1]) is visible to everyone. Access to full view requires permission. You might have access to the full view. So, can you please help me in solving this problem. Thank you. ··· Vanischenu 「m/ Talk」 00:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Formerly, the entry for Betelguese didn't have anything at all under absolute magnitude. So even if the figure is slightly off, it's still better than what we had before. If it's incorrect, my hope is that someone would fix it, and at the same time fix the starbox on the Betelguese page, which is where I got the data. On the Rho Cas page, the distance was recently changed from 12,000 LY, so that's why I changed it on this page. For the more casual observer, VV Cep appears as a single point of light having a mag. of 4.91, so again, I think that entry is an improvement over what we had before (which was nil). But if someone wants to elaborate on the fact that that's actually a combined magnitude, of course they may. Niobrara ( talk) 18:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You sure you got the right edit here? Your summary doesn't match what you changed (no reference changed), and for a summary to be clear about where something is makes sense (out of context, I might think of Victoria, BC). Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 00:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Dont want to see all that work reverted - Use references. This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include references listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. Moxy ( talk) 21:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Lithopsian: Just using " Revert without reading is wrong. As we are all informed when given status as a reverter, that power is to be used sparingly, and only when it is plainly vandalism or similar behavior. That last edit you reverted was at least a good faith edit, and if it merited being undone, you should have done it that way, and specified a reason.
Rolling back a good-faith edit, without explanation, may be misinterpreted as "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and reverting it doesn't need an explanation". Some editors are sensitive to such perceived slights; if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted."
Go slow on reverting, even though the the tide seems to be rising. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 11:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I have filed for arbitration on this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&action=edit§ion=2 Wyattmj ( talk) 17:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Copernican_Principle and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattmj ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 05:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Copernican principle". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 07:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Lithopsian. You were the first person to post the link to "The Principle" working group forum, that I blocked Wyattmj over — this link. It's a Google cache link, so I don't really get how it can now be a 404. But it is. Do you think that's just some temporary glitch? Or can it be found in some other way? I have to ask ask, as I'm not good at this stuff. Bishonen | talk 14:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC).
Hi, yes you're right and me wrong. I've taken a look at the preprint and, effectively, the size deduced for the star is nowhere 1400 times the Sun's size. I'll fix the article and the list of largest stars ASAP. -- U-95 ( talk) 00:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian! Because I'm sincerely curious: can you explain to me how the caption on the Lithops page, "Large stand of Lithops salicola" is grammatically and semantically correct? I would really appreciate it! Mmpozulp ( talk) 05:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Have begun expanding this - interesting star. Might be worth mentioning on Wolf Rayet page? Also I am a neophyte at astrophysics so any interpretation of papers in describing this star and its nebula much appreciated (some interesting diagrams in the Kenyon 1993 paper...) Thought it might be a good DYK (130 year nova...) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | On 17 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 68 Cygni, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the massive blue giant star 68 Cygni is surrounded by a ring-shaped nebula? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/68 Cygni. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
[2]I thought so, too, at first, but apparently there seems to be a "Fehrenbach's star", e.g. [3]. -- JorisvS ( talk) 22:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to massive OB stars, so would you mind having a look at 68 Cygni so that I can be sure that there are no factual errors or misrepresentations in the "properties" section? I plan to bring it to GA sometime, where the reviewer might not be knowledgeable about astronomy, so such a check would be very helpful. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 02:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that on the case of HD 269810 you said that the magnitude was -6.6, but the real magnitude is -11.1. I can prove this to you because each magnitude of 1 corresponds to a change in brightness by a factor of 2.5. So we know that the sun's magnitude is 4.83 so 4.83+11.1=15.93 and 2.5^15=(approx) 2.18 million times brighter than the sun. This corresponds with the luminosity of HD 269810 which is 2.2 million times brighter than the sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am. furhan. ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
You should listen to I am. Furhan. His facts are correct while yours are not.-- Gangoose ( talk) 01:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Gangoose
Why is the death part on HD 269810 wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am. furhan. ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.-- I am. furhan. ( talk) 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)i am. fuhan.
And can you put the death part back but edit it and provide the right information.-- I am. furhan. ( talk) 18:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC) i am. furhan.
First of all, thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. It is indeed a very helpful subject. But anyway, next time please add a new section if you want to comment.
Regarding that case, as of R136a1 seems a bit very complex thing. The luminosity of 8.6 million Sun is incredibly high. Using the formula for density and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the star is 80% of its Eddington luminosity, which in that case, it would be a turbulent LBV. But the spectrum shows differently, so I suspect that the star is binary, or there is an error.
R136a1's luminosity is not 8.6 million L,it is 7.4 million L.-- I am. furhan. ( talk) 16:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.
About WR25, it makes me dumbfounded when I saw it in the introduction in the Carina Nebula with the claim being the most luminous star in the galaxy. I doubt it very much. Nearby Eta Carinae is more prominent. Also, the luminosity of 6.3 million is beyond its Eddington, and a magnitude of 8.8 from 8,000 ly gives me 3,000,000 Sun, half of the suspected value.
It is a binary and you are forgetting about interstellar gas and dust cloud absorption.-- I am. furhan. ( talk) 18:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.
I myself never heard of BAT99-116. That is a very new candidate, although I found out that it is a binary. So I don't think the 8 million Sun luminosity is correct. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 12:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that there are a couple of stub-articles that the wiki community and you could edit as well as myself. Here I will list them. RW cephei,BAT99-116,NGC 2363-V1,BAT99-100,HD 38282,LBV G0.120-0.048,R136a3,R136b,NGC 3603-B,Arches F9/1/6,WR142e,VAR-81 and NGC 3603-A1. I am. furhan. ( talk) 19:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC) i am. furhan.
FYI, I've hit list of largest stars with a 6-month semi-protection due to the persistent additions of original research. Hopefully this solves the problems here. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 15:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you check my sandbox and go through any errors? hi ( talk) 14:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This is my reply for "recent undo of recent edits"
I apologise for this. Maybe I was a bit to eager to expand the article so I didn't look into the details. Looking into the article, I find that it is poorly constructed, so perhaps you and me could expand this article and improve the content as you did with these edits to Eta carinae ( [4] [5]). We should try to improve this article because this is a chief discovery in astrophysics. UY Scuti is important as R136a1 in astronomy, yet the article is well-written. Perhaps it is a matter of references, (UY Scuti's ref's mentions all of its properties) but we could try to pierce whatever we've got into a good article. We could also get SkyFlubbler into this because he is a good writer. (and when you reply, please leave it at my talk page) 142.177.125.72 ( talk) 17:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)I am. furhan.
The eddington limit section says, " In practice the theoretical Eddington Limit must be modified for high luminosity stars and the empirical Humphreys Davidson Limit is derived" That says that the eddington limit must be modified for high luminosity stars, i.e R136a1. 142.177.125.72 ( talk) 17:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.
Can you tell me what is wrong with the surroundings section on R136a1? As far as I know, I didn't copy it from any article. I wrote the draft of it on a piece of paper. Also, I checked the Tarantula nebula and R136 articles and I didn't see any of my text there. hi ( talk) 16:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Is E135 a typo (meant to be R136)? See [ change] . Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 02:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you go over R136a1 and remove any errors from it? Whatever you remove, I won't go and put it back. hi ( talk) 14:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
On the eta carinae article, it says that the great eruption increased the luminosity by a factor of 10 which would make the luminosity 50,000,000L☉, but it says in another place that it was 25,000,000L☉. Also, the was a press release that said eta carinae's mass is 90M☉ and that study took place in August 2014 so it would be more reliable than the other ref. I am. furhan. ( talk) 18:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.
Check this. It says Eta carinae's luminosity is ~4,000,000 L☉.
Great light curve images here; very helpful! Just one minor thing: in the 1987-2014 image, the R- and I-magnitude colors are very similar, and I was not easily able to distinguish the two at first. Maybe change the the R to a more maroon color? StringTheory11 ( t • c) 18:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/March_11#2016_notes for next year maybe? Also, be good to buff VY Canis Majoris and lay the whole supergiant/hypergiant drama to rest too.... P Cygni looks fun...I find having 2-3 people on some of these good as it makes it much easier to knock over a few of these more complex articles (biology articles are a breeze in comparison!) as I'd love to do more star ones but get a bit scared of all the astrophysics :P Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you go on my sandbox and create a separate section on the Homunculus Nebula and Great Eruption? hi ( talk) 19:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You demoted R136a1 from B class because of "Significant errors and contradictions (I removed the worst and tagged many others), a bit sparsely cited, difficult grammar to read." I can understand that.
Now, at its birth, the star was 320 M☉ so its Eddington limit would have probably been 13 million L☉ (I don't know for sure, but did some rough calculations). 55% of 13 million is 7.1 million, which was probably its luminosity then. I'm not saying that we should put these numbers in, but just change the wording. (For example, we could say, "The star was probably over half as luminous as its current luminosity at its birth." etc.)
I've now covered the sections that you deleted so now I will move on to its promotion. As I said in my earlier statement,
"I apologise for this. Maybe I was a bit to eager to expand the article so I didn't look into the details. Looking into the article, I find that it is poorly constructed, so perhaps you and me could expand this article and improve the content as you did with these edits to Eta carinae ( [6] [7]). We should try to improve this article because this is a chief discovery in astrophysics. UY Scuti is important as R136a1 in astronomy, yet the article is well-written. Perhaps it is a matter of references, (UY Scuti's ref's mentions all of its properties) but we could try to pierce whatever we've got into a good article."
The "refs that we could pierce together" that we got are mentioned here ( [8] and [9]) and here. There is also a paper in prep that might be interesting.
Me and you could try to make this a project and improve it. Please reply to me and share your ideas on this.
I will now log off Wikipedia for the day. I probably should be finished cleaning up R136a1 by the end of the week and will notify you if I finish. hi ( talk) 01:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Hello, Lithopsian.
R Sagittae, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
![]() |
![]() | Hello, Lithopsian.
S Sagittae, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
![]() |
![]() | On 7 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S Sagittae, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the star S Sagittae changes its radius, temperature, luminosity, and colour over an eight-day period? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S Sagittae. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Thanks for helping with the main page Victuallers ( talk) 23:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the statement about its mass might have come from here: http://www.dfists.ua.es/~ignacio/wd1_research.html - although this page only says it's the most massive young cluster in the Milky Way. This page ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1624) is for a paper co-authored by Ignacio Negueruela, who is responsible for the other page and it says Westerlund 1 is "among the most massive young clusters in the Milky Way". Perhaps this last statement could be included? VirtualDave ( talk) 07:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 11 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article R Sagittae, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the star R Sagittae has 90% of the mass and 10,000 times the luminosity of the Sun? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/R Sagittae. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Hello, Lithopsian.
Beta Cephei variable, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
![]() |
What I'm using for the table in the Beta Cephei variable article is the AAVSO data for β Cep variables. Do you think their data is not reliable enough to use in the article? StringTheory11 ( t • c) 23:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It is clear from your recent edits on the List of brightest stars page that you don't comprehend the edits you are doing. The magnitude of these stars is visual magnitude or 'v', not 'V' magnitudes which are photometrically obtained. Just presuming that the magnitudes are quoted all from SIMBAD, assumes that all the magnitudes are from the same source. They are not. I.e. Magnitudes should be quoted from the Yale Bright Star Catalogue V5, which are visual magnitudes. You need to either discuss/ persuade that another magnitude system should be used, and change all of them, not just because you 'think' they might be right. (as said in your reason to revert.) You have already erroneously assumed that variable stars were mean magnitudes, when in fact they were at maximum brightness as I conclusively proved before.
I also was in the middle of an edit when you again reverted the page, which is not very conducive in solving issues like these. (Note dual edits to revert pages is counted as 3RR if you are maintaining a position.) Consider your position before editing this page again, and formally discuss this on the talk page. Thanks. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 15:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for editing WS104. I just want to ask if there is a need to include the degree of inclination? ---- 損齋 ( talk) 15:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
It's much greater and not more greater. Please consult a student book (my guess is A1 English). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbaleksandar ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
So I woke up one morning, look at the largest stars list, and found this star atop UY Scuti. I saw that you added it. There is no paper about it, but when I look up at SIMBAD it is a red supergiant. I know you are a great editor. Can you show me more info about this star? Out of pure curiosity, I was interested. Hope you reply at my talk soon! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 06:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I created a draft at User:SkyFlubbler/EV Carinae to get started. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 06:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Be star. Since you had some involvement with the Be star redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 23:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Just for your info, a work of fiction can't be speedy deleted, even if it obviously isn't notable. The tag was removed for that reason by admin Ritchie333, not the creating editor Writeintothefuture. However, I've deleted the article as spam, and indeffed Writeintothefuture for using the name of a company as a forbidden user name and promoting its client's product. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Heads up: you appear to have broken several refs in Iota Orionis. -- Elphion ( talk) 04:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I responded to what you posted on my talk page. Sorry I'm new to this :-)
Moviegirl35 ( talk) 23:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Moviegirl35
I'm very new to all of this so forgive me if I am doing this wrong. I would like to edit the fire rock page so that it is more encyclopedic in tone but am not sure how or what needs to be edited for this to take place. Would this serve better to do as a stub? Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfarrell070 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian, thank you for your advices. I'm going to remove the content of 'blue cone monochromac'. When I recently submitted the new article of my SandBox the answer I received from the editor Anarchyte was "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Blue cone monochromac instead". I thought, and now I understand that it was a mistake, that the editor was requesting me to put the content inside this page with the tiny change in the title. I'm going to immediately remove my content from there.
Then my question is: 'Blue Cone Monochromacy' is a human disease, also known as 'Blue Cone Monochromatism' and there is an entry on wikidata for it https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18553394 but not a wikipedia entry, other than a redirect to 'Monochromacy'. 'Monochromacy' is not a disease, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q450059. Do you think it will be better to ask on the talk page of 'Monochromacy' in order to know if editors would like to consider my sandbox article ? In my family there are many people with this disease, I often use Wikipedia and it is strange to me to don't see this disease inside wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renata.sarno ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello With respect to my new page creation which you have suggested for deletion. Have provided 7 citations of National Newspapers, media b2b websites tec in India on the topic, if you still feel it should be deleted, AM OK. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabineschrmal ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Lithopsian OwenJiang ( talk) 22:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
why is speed delation ? — Maisie008 ( talk) 14:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
hello Lithopsian, you helped me some time ago with regards to NML Cygni, therefore I'm addressing you again:
Hello, I'm
Arianewiki1. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very
civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
Thank you.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. What's Bad Faith and edit warring? said DerrickMa502
@ Lithopsian My apologies for the last few posts, but trying to understanding your point of view is getting frustrating. Let's immediately and quickly fix this issue by putting it behind us, because I too have other edits and stuff to do... (like adding another seven stars to the List of brightest stars to tally them to 100 stars.)
I did happen to reread this " User:Arianewiki1 wanted all magnitudes to be clearly referenced and to come from a single source, preferably the Yale Bright Star catalogue (or FK5, but that is a non-starter). Nobody objected." mixed with some of the unnecessary rhetoric...
Q1. Do you Lithopsian actually object to using the Yale Bright Star Catalogue V5?
Q2. Do you Lithopsian object to using the magnitudes in the 2015 USNO's Astronomical Almanac [11]?
Q3. As most of the star magnitudes quoted in USNO's Astronomical Almanac also appear in the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) Part I (Fricke+, 1988), do you object to quoting both of these as reference sources in the List of brightest stars page?
Q4. Do you know of any other consistent magnitude listings better than the BSCV5 or FK5?
Thanks.
In this edit, "1th" is a typo. Page 6 of the reference says "Ks≈10∼11 mag" so I'm not sure what was intended. Art LaPella ( talk) 17:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war, as you have done here.
[12] Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Comments:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Arianewiki1 (
talk)
14:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Arianewiki1 (
talk)
22:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This edit you made here [16] is not constructive. Saying "typo" in the edit summary is unacceptable, especially when the original text what not made by me, and also then removing my 'clarification needed', especially when the article text does not relate to the LMC at all, binary systems, or being of higher luminosity or hotter.
You have not explained this edit properly and this can appear to deliberate edit evasion. Either discuss issues with contentious statements or leave them alone.
Other than that, your earlier improvements with references are much appreciated, especially the la Bouquini (2015) article, which I am already familiar. Thanks for that at least. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 10:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
This is a company that supply top RADIUS software / AAA for IP services providers based in Toronto. The software has innovations and people who are looking for a software that has both AAA and Billing would be interested in the article. Since it has the one of the best on the market and supplies to high end internet operators world wide including Verizon Wireless (applications for CARS and Cameras). Like other companies, Cisco, Amdocs, Juniper and other We also add references to others in the area who has similar articles. See the links. If you see any commercial stuff or offending feel free to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcchmp ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It seems like you are being unfair to me. The sites are real and we are in business from 1997! (not new or spammers) http://www.aradial.com/ http://www.spotngo.ca/
Also the links added, Aradial develops one of the best RADIUS servers and AAA servers on the market and should be on Wikipedia. I added relevant links for example for our partners: Telrad, Airspan and you removed it. Added link where Juniper and Radiator RADIUSes (commercial) where added. BTW, I did not want to add a link in the sites but ref to Araidal Article
These are our competitors that you allow for some reason to exist: Aptilo Networks NetApp Mikrotik Juniper_Networks
I am sorry if I am bothering you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcchmp ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Coffee: too. In proper courtesy to you and your past edits, I have just begun modifying the Hypergiant page, aiming to simplify it and to make the article a bit more easier to read. Some of this text looks like speculation, and I have already removed some of the text that cannot be verified. I would appreciate if you feel these edits are contentious, and if so, could you make comments on the article's Talk page, especially if I had missed something vital. I will in the coming days be making further edits to this Hypergiant page. Thanks. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 05:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for you edit here, however we have the OTRS ticket on the talk page. Look at this, please. -- Archeologo (Museo Galileo) ( talk) 20:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
On 23 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S Doradus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the star S Doradus was calculated to have ranged between 100 and 380 times the radius of the Sun? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S Doradus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, S Doradus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lithopsian.
S-type star, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
. You can see the hook and the discussion
here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you.
APersonBot (
talk!)
12:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the great contribution! There's just one unreferenced section which I wasn't comfortable with, and some non-dealbreaker concerns. Thanks! FourViolas ( talk) 02:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Chi Cygni at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
21:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
S-type star at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk)
15:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
On 10 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chi Cygni, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Chi Cygni is a variable star that is over 10,000 times brighter at its maximum than at its minimum? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chi Cygni. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Chi Cygni), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
On 11 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S-type star, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that S-type stars have bands of zirconium monoxide in their spectrum? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S-type star. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, S-type star), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You have failed to respond to another editor ( Arianewiki1) regarding your edits at Talk:V399 Carinae, for almost three months. It would be highly appreciated if you could try to take the time to comment there, as soon as possible. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
How you doing to be assisded by citation bot and using the HotCat ! Thank ! Red Planet X (Hercolubus) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
plus in a reference to know how you do the data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Planet X (Hercolubus) ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
plus how to protect a page, delete a page and Blocked a user ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotorn 999999 ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I've noticed that after making edits to articles as part of my current project relating to the IAU WGSN, you frequently shortly thereafter make edits of your own. Not that I have any objections to your edits, but I was wondering how you were seemingly following me? Do you simply have all these articles on your watchlist or have you some clever method of keeping track that I might find useful sometime in the future? Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the two tips. The 1st is straightforward enough, but I can't find where to enable the 2nd in my preferences? And you're right about the star articles! Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 08:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eta Geminorum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castor. 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) 09:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I declined your db-move request for IC 3568. I notice that in Category:IC objects, the pages are not consistent, and sometimes go with a WP:COMMONNAME, which is generally preferable to official names per naming conventions. If you believe the page should still be moved, consider the WP:RM {{ subst:Requested move}} process. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 05:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 10:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Is a really interesting 'star'. I'm just stubbying things out so that folks can improve things later :) Always easier when not working from a totally blank page! Benkenobi18 ( talk) 04:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback on HD 150248. I have fixed the ref. problems, you were correct, I did not put where I found all the data. Please see if the constellations info looks better. Thank you. Telecine Guy ( talk) 21:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Nominate the pages for AfD. Otherwise, piss off. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 14:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
If you had actually bothered checking the sources that I provided, the information is there. I'm just stubbying things out for now. Since you know. Adding content is supposed to be the goal of the Wikipedia. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 14:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
http://www.alcyone.de/cgi-bin/search.pl?object=HR5994
B9.5V, spectral class. Magnitude 5.57. Then you look in here: http://www.uranometriaargentina.com/
36 Iota2 5.57 B9.5V 16 09 18.5 -57 56 03 144480 243368 L.6665 15 59 3 -57 35.7 6.0
Which gives you the other parameters. Now, can I please get to building the Wikipedia or are you going to continue stalking all my pages? Benkenobi18 ( talk) 14:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: @ Lithopsian: Lithopsian. Clearly your last quite hostile edits on variable stars magnitude on List of brightest stars was both unhelpful and were not based on consensus. I tried to compromise with your request of adding sources, but you continue to not even to both to do so on the Talk page. Being an individual who has done and measured stars via photometry using comparison stars, it is clear to me your last edits only cherry-picked old sources by selecting material to suit your own arguments - and ignored mine. You've continue to point-blank refused to engage in solving these issues, and refuse to understand my point of view no show no willingness to compromise. As difficult impasse of this section of warrants independent scrutiny, and I'd advise that discussion continue on the article's Talk page before any new edits. I'd request EdJohnston to close this article to edits until consensus is obtained. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited V528 Carinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WISE. 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) 11:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
You seem experienced, so I ask you. I have found this misleading redirect page [19] where the reported fake name Urodelus is pointing to Epsilon Ursae Minoris. Do you know what is the best way to remove this redirect without going through the process of nominating it for deletion? Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 10:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Arianewiki1 (
talk)
14:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi L,
You left a comment on a page that I created stating that it requires better references. The information on the page is as I have received it from the professor himself. I might have changed a bit of English. But most of it is the way the professor or the scientist sent it to me.
Where do I find references to personal comments of these professors and scientists?
Annakoppad ( talk)Annakoppad —Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on Planetary transits and occultations. I lifted this material from two other pages that appeared to have duplicated it. I have now researched and added some additional citations, but I still can't find verification of some of it, so I've left them as "citation needed". Perhaps some kind soul will be able to find these. Portnadler ( talk) 12:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian.
Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed.
New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lithopsian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian,
I understand that I am just an amateur, but my change was totally justified. "Regor" is another name for "Gamma Velorum". It´s at least better than a dash.
Please reconsider your action.
45.35.9.242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.35.9.242 ( talk) 05:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to rollback you on NW Puppis; accidentally rollbacked the wrong page! - IagoQnsi ( talk) 15:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Is it a correct redirect? Xx236 ( talk) 13:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello there. I've haven't logged into Wikipedia for a few days which is why I missed the speedy deletion of Roffey Park Institute. I create the article because I do believe that it is a notable UK management research institution that has been around from the 1940s (I think). I was hoping that others (or indeed myself) night be able to contribute to it. Now the page has been deleted, I can't quite remember what the article looked. Can it be reinstated? Thanks Seaweed ( talk) 15:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
SOL3 is an established business from the Philadelphia area, as well within the sneaker community. It's a trademarked, patented product that has been very successful in the footwear industry and deserves notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeinphilly ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand why VY Orionis or articles about stars with no significant sources would be AfDed, but although the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (UDF) object-related articles do not have lots of sources, they are somewhat important. I create UDF object articles because it would be helpful for Wikipedia to have lots of articles about galaxies that are almost as old as the Universe. SpaceDude777 ( talk) - December 22, 2016 - 7:33 UTC
I just thought I'd let you know that recently, Pan-STARRS 1 released one of the largest sky surveys yet, and images of astronomical objects can be accessed at http://ps1images.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/ps1cutouts (you just type an object's name in the box), and read that Pan-STARRS 1 data and images can be used for publications and commercial use as long as they are acknowledged ( http://ipp.ifa.hawaii.edu/). So, for articles for astronomical objects that don't have images, we can use Pan-STARRS 1 images. If I'm wrong, please notify me. SpaceDude777 (talk) December 30, 2016: 2:57 UTC.
Dear Lithopsian,
I was working on that from the root of that group ( https://www.geni.com/people/Karumuttu-Thiagarajan-Chettiar/6000000003215947491 & /info/en/?search=Karumuttu_Thiagarajan_Chettiar,) Especially mahathma gandhiji wore loin cloth at karumuttu thiagarajan chettiar house 251 west masi street. ( https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Karumuttu_Thiagaraja_Chettiar_the_textil.html?id=44ftAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y) since i collect all information about the 4th generation, i did start with vee technologies http://www.veetechnologies.com/profile/our-roots.htm, and even sona valliappa group also am working in that http://www.valliappa.com/sonagroup/promain.htm). this current generation from the root.
So please let me know how i can continue to update this information to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinuseo ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
If you get challenged on this let me know. I have some good references. Maybe I'll put them into MOS if I can find the right place, but MOS usually doesn't address grammar issues. Jeh ( talk) 23:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Howdy, as you seem to be a fairly prolific editor of astronomy-related Wikipedia articles, I thought I'd let you know about the Open Supernova Catalog ( https://sne.space), which has collected a vast amount of data on individual supernovae, including near-complete collections of light curves, spectra, and metadata.
I'm the current manager of the OSC, and I'd like to copy a lot of the content from the OSC onto Wikipedia (such as plots of light curves, pictures of host galaxies, etc.), but I wasn't sure how to get started, as I'm definitely a novice Wikipedia editor! Do you have any recommendations on how to best get this done? Is there a working group that keeps the supernova-related pages up to date?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaoar ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
At the end of the day there is little point creating articles about non-notable subjects because they are likely to be deleted, although personally I tend to be quite tolerant of borderline objects where the article is well-written, well-sourced, and complete. Write a pointless stub about anything except the most famous of objects and it'll be gone before you can blink :) I'm not sure what the source of the OSC data is, whether it is a primary or secondary source, or portal similar to Simbad. It may make a useful reference in supernova articles, or general link.
Thanks Lithopsian! I was more thinking about fleshing out the few dozen stubs/starts for supernovae on your user page: [ [20]]. The data on the OSC is secondary, gathered from a wide variety of sources, which are listed in full on the individual OSC pages. The simplest thing to do might just be to provide links to the relevant OSC pages, but it's also a good place to farm data about various supernovae for the infoboxes. Not every supernovae should get a page of course, just the notable ones.
I'm not intending to do much of this myself, but I figured it was working making the astronomy aficionados on Wikipedia aware of the page's existence and potential utility. --Quaoar ( talk) 11:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on M Puppis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IExistToHelp ( talk) 23:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The Bayer designation υ2 for Flamsteed's 56 Ceti was evidently introduced by Flamsteed himself (as reported in Wagman's Lost Stars). [Correction: 56 was υ1, 59 was υ2.] Lalande's version of Flamsteed's catalog includes it (available on Google Books, see link at 56 Ceti). Our article for 56 Ceti says Bode carried it forward, but I don't have Bode to hand, so can't check. -- Elphion ( talk) 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I've posted here about the speedy deletion of Fareportal - /info/en/?search=Talk:Fareportal#This_page_should_not_be_speedy_deleted_because...
Fareportal seems to me to meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia - its a pretty big company. It may not have done a lot of notable stuff in and of itself, but I think the article I posted reflects that, in just covering the key details. Draykyle ( talk) 20:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the Eta Carinae article, which you nominated at FAC, has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 12, 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 12, 2017. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 02:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
"look at all the stubs ..."
Thank you for quality articles such as stars and stellar systems, such as Eta Carinae, improved in collaboration, for project work (talk page tags, moves and redirects), for rewriting the Copernican principle, for your modest user page of the astronomy statistics, - stellar: you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you removed a reference in this edit, saying it was a Chinese whisper. Can you explain what you meant by that? While I dislike Phys.org and would have cited the paper itself had I noticed it, the paper itself has been published by MNRAS. — Huntster ( t @ c) 14:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Raise Data Recovery as an article that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the topic under CSD A7. That criterion did not apply because the article was about a computer program, and A7 only applies to articles on real persons or groups, individual animals, organisations, web content and organised events. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, I have buffed Capella on and off over the years. It was improved to GA status by Spacepotato. I like the history stuff and am good at prose, but am not so crash hot at the astrophysics. And astro articles are much harder than biology articles to get through FAC. Feel free to give it a good going over, fine-tune the info and would be cool to do a co-nomination (or even three way nom if Spacepotato is still interested in it. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate your recent edits on Supernova. They are both informative and relevant. Thanks. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 01:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted you to know that I nominated Kepler-351b for deletion. Can you make sure that the nomination was a good idea? SpaceDude777 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, have nominated Capella at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Capella/archive1. So keep an eye and we'll see what crops up. Given you like luminous stars... Rigel might be a good one to buff too. FA-hood serves two purposes - (1) closest thing we have to a Stable Version, FAC completion is a good reference point in case an article degrades. (2) getting something on the main page. Always fun. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
In the southern hemisphere do they really call the equinox in March "vernal" or "spring" and the one in September "autumnal" or "fall" in spite of the actual seasons? Also, what leads you to believe the Latin names are more common and less ambiguous than the English ones? -- Lasunncty ( talk) 05:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thank you for your message. I was teaching a group of dental students to edit as part of the Wikipedia Collaboration of Dental Schools. I completely understand that when a page is created it is not meant to be left blank. The students were meant to add the content straight away but there has been a delay. I created the page to make it easier for them to get started. I will have them re-create themselves when they are ready to add the content. Thanks! TheStudiousDentist —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Lithopsian. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! meco ( talk) 08:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian,
Thank you for your contributions to the Supernova article. Following your changes I made certain revisions in order to comply with Wikipedia policies such as WP:LEAD and, most importantly WP:CITE. If you have reliable sources for some of your additions, it would be appreciated if you could add them in. I'd like to keep the article at WP:FA status, if I could. Regards, RJH ( talk) 14:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
11:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Eta Carinae, please cite a
reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. See
Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Also, if you want to replace citations or remove large amounts of text, you should discuss it on the article's Talk page, first. —
UncleBubba (
T
@
C )
23:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
You might want to turn on "TWINKLE" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Twinkle ) to help undo massive reversions like we just saw from an IP address onto VY Cygni. With TWINKLE enabled, when you do a compare of a bunch of edits done by a single user, you will see in the top part of the comparison page a set of "rollback" options, which will undo all of the edits in question. Massive saving in labor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarlneustaedter ( talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
that "NML Cygni is the largest star known" and "has 6500 times that of sun"
First of all I want to thank you for providing this information about NML Cygni to the article List of largest known stars. The article on NML Cygni has been nominated for Wikipedia:Did you know. If accepted this would be featured in the main page. It is located at Template:Did you know nominations/NML Cygni
But the references must be checked for accepting it. Hence, at the time of reviewing this should be verified. But only the abstract of this source ( [1]) is visible to everyone. Access to full view requires permission. You might have access to the full view. So, can you please help me in solving this problem. Thank you. ··· Vanischenu 「m/ Talk」 00:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Formerly, the entry for Betelguese didn't have anything at all under absolute magnitude. So even if the figure is slightly off, it's still better than what we had before. If it's incorrect, my hope is that someone would fix it, and at the same time fix the starbox on the Betelguese page, which is where I got the data. On the Rho Cas page, the distance was recently changed from 12,000 LY, so that's why I changed it on this page. For the more casual observer, VV Cep appears as a single point of light having a mag. of 4.91, so again, I think that entry is an improvement over what we had before (which was nil). But if someone wants to elaborate on the fact that that's actually a combined magnitude, of course they may. Niobrara ( talk) 18:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You sure you got the right edit here? Your summary doesn't match what you changed (no reference changed), and for a summary to be clear about where something is makes sense (out of context, I might think of Victoria, BC). Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 00:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Dont want to see all that work reverted - Use references. This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include references listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. Moxy ( talk) 21:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Lithopsian: Just using " Revert without reading is wrong. As we are all informed when given status as a reverter, that power is to be used sparingly, and only when it is plainly vandalism or similar behavior. That last edit you reverted was at least a good faith edit, and if it merited being undone, you should have done it that way, and specified a reason.
Rolling back a good-faith edit, without explanation, may be misinterpreted as "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and reverting it doesn't need an explanation". Some editors are sensitive to such perceived slights; if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted."
Go slow on reverting, even though the the tide seems to be rising. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 11:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I have filed for arbitration on this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&action=edit§ion=2 Wyattmj ( talk) 17:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Copernican_Principle and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattmj ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 05:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Copernican principle". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 07:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Lithopsian. You were the first person to post the link to "The Principle" working group forum, that I blocked Wyattmj over — this link. It's a Google cache link, so I don't really get how it can now be a 404. But it is. Do you think that's just some temporary glitch? Or can it be found in some other way? I have to ask ask, as I'm not good at this stuff. Bishonen | talk 14:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC).
Hi, yes you're right and me wrong. I've taken a look at the preprint and, effectively, the size deduced for the star is nowhere 1400 times the Sun's size. I'll fix the article and the list of largest stars ASAP. -- U-95 ( talk) 00:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian! Because I'm sincerely curious: can you explain to me how the caption on the Lithops page, "Large stand of Lithops salicola" is grammatically and semantically correct? I would really appreciate it! Mmpozulp ( talk) 05:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Have begun expanding this - interesting star. Might be worth mentioning on Wolf Rayet page? Also I am a neophyte at astrophysics so any interpretation of papers in describing this star and its nebula much appreciated (some interesting diagrams in the Kenyon 1993 paper...) Thought it might be a good DYK (130 year nova...) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | On 17 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 68 Cygni, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the massive blue giant star 68 Cygni is surrounded by a ring-shaped nebula? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/68 Cygni. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
[2]I thought so, too, at first, but apparently there seems to be a "Fehrenbach's star", e.g. [3]. -- JorisvS ( talk) 22:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to massive OB stars, so would you mind having a look at 68 Cygni so that I can be sure that there are no factual errors or misrepresentations in the "properties" section? I plan to bring it to GA sometime, where the reviewer might not be knowledgeable about astronomy, so such a check would be very helpful. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 02:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that on the case of HD 269810 you said that the magnitude was -6.6, but the real magnitude is -11.1. I can prove this to you because each magnitude of 1 corresponds to a change in brightness by a factor of 2.5. So we know that the sun's magnitude is 4.83 so 4.83+11.1=15.93 and 2.5^15=(approx) 2.18 million times brighter than the sun. This corresponds with the luminosity of HD 269810 which is 2.2 million times brighter than the sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am. furhan. ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
You should listen to I am. Furhan. His facts are correct while yours are not.-- Gangoose ( talk) 01:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Gangoose
Why is the death part on HD 269810 wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am. furhan. ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.-- I am. furhan. ( talk) 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)i am. fuhan.
And can you put the death part back but edit it and provide the right information.-- I am. furhan. ( talk) 18:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC) i am. furhan.
First of all, thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. It is indeed a very helpful subject. But anyway, next time please add a new section if you want to comment.
Regarding that case, as of R136a1 seems a bit very complex thing. The luminosity of 8.6 million Sun is incredibly high. Using the formula for density and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the star is 80% of its Eddington luminosity, which in that case, it would be a turbulent LBV. But the spectrum shows differently, so I suspect that the star is binary, or there is an error.
R136a1's luminosity is not 8.6 million L,it is 7.4 million L.-- I am. furhan. ( talk) 16:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.
About WR25, it makes me dumbfounded when I saw it in the introduction in the Carina Nebula with the claim being the most luminous star in the galaxy. I doubt it very much. Nearby Eta Carinae is more prominent. Also, the luminosity of 6.3 million is beyond its Eddington, and a magnitude of 8.8 from 8,000 ly gives me 3,000,000 Sun, half of the suspected value.
It is a binary and you are forgetting about interstellar gas and dust cloud absorption.-- I am. furhan. ( talk) 18:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.
I myself never heard of BAT99-116. That is a very new candidate, although I found out that it is a binary. So I don't think the 8 million Sun luminosity is correct. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 12:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that there are a couple of stub-articles that the wiki community and you could edit as well as myself. Here I will list them. RW cephei,BAT99-116,NGC 2363-V1,BAT99-100,HD 38282,LBV G0.120-0.048,R136a3,R136b,NGC 3603-B,Arches F9/1/6,WR142e,VAR-81 and NGC 3603-A1. I am. furhan. ( talk) 19:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC) i am. furhan.
FYI, I've hit list of largest stars with a 6-month semi-protection due to the persistent additions of original research. Hopefully this solves the problems here. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 15:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you check my sandbox and go through any errors? hi ( talk) 14:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This is my reply for "recent undo of recent edits"
I apologise for this. Maybe I was a bit to eager to expand the article so I didn't look into the details. Looking into the article, I find that it is poorly constructed, so perhaps you and me could expand this article and improve the content as you did with these edits to Eta carinae ( [4] [5]). We should try to improve this article because this is a chief discovery in astrophysics. UY Scuti is important as R136a1 in astronomy, yet the article is well-written. Perhaps it is a matter of references, (UY Scuti's ref's mentions all of its properties) but we could try to pierce whatever we've got into a good article. We could also get SkyFlubbler into this because he is a good writer. (and when you reply, please leave it at my talk page) 142.177.125.72 ( talk) 17:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)I am. furhan.
The eddington limit section says, " In practice the theoretical Eddington Limit must be modified for high luminosity stars and the empirical Humphreys Davidson Limit is derived" That says that the eddington limit must be modified for high luminosity stars, i.e R136a1. 142.177.125.72 ( talk) 17:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.
Can you tell me what is wrong with the surroundings section on R136a1? As far as I know, I didn't copy it from any article. I wrote the draft of it on a piece of paper. Also, I checked the Tarantula nebula and R136 articles and I didn't see any of my text there. hi ( talk) 16:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Is E135 a typo (meant to be R136)? See [ change] . Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 02:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you go over R136a1 and remove any errors from it? Whatever you remove, I won't go and put it back. hi ( talk) 14:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
On the eta carinae article, it says that the great eruption increased the luminosity by a factor of 10 which would make the luminosity 50,000,000L☉, but it says in another place that it was 25,000,000L☉. Also, the was a press release that said eta carinae's mass is 90M☉ and that study took place in August 2014 so it would be more reliable than the other ref. I am. furhan. ( talk) 18:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.
Check this. It says Eta carinae's luminosity is ~4,000,000 L☉.
Great light curve images here; very helpful! Just one minor thing: in the 1987-2014 image, the R- and I-magnitude colors are very similar, and I was not easily able to distinguish the two at first. Maybe change the the R to a more maroon color? StringTheory11 ( t • c) 18:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/March_11#2016_notes for next year maybe? Also, be good to buff VY Canis Majoris and lay the whole supergiant/hypergiant drama to rest too.... P Cygni looks fun...I find having 2-3 people on some of these good as it makes it much easier to knock over a few of these more complex articles (biology articles are a breeze in comparison!) as I'd love to do more star ones but get a bit scared of all the astrophysics :P Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you go on my sandbox and create a separate section on the Homunculus Nebula and Great Eruption? hi ( talk) 19:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
You demoted R136a1 from B class because of "Significant errors and contradictions (I removed the worst and tagged many others), a bit sparsely cited, difficult grammar to read." I can understand that.
Now, at its birth, the star was 320 M☉ so its Eddington limit would have probably been 13 million L☉ (I don't know for sure, but did some rough calculations). 55% of 13 million is 7.1 million, which was probably its luminosity then. I'm not saying that we should put these numbers in, but just change the wording. (For example, we could say, "The star was probably over half as luminous as its current luminosity at its birth." etc.)
I've now covered the sections that you deleted so now I will move on to its promotion. As I said in my earlier statement,
"I apologise for this. Maybe I was a bit to eager to expand the article so I didn't look into the details. Looking into the article, I find that it is poorly constructed, so perhaps you and me could expand this article and improve the content as you did with these edits to Eta carinae ( [6] [7]). We should try to improve this article because this is a chief discovery in astrophysics. UY Scuti is important as R136a1 in astronomy, yet the article is well-written. Perhaps it is a matter of references, (UY Scuti's ref's mentions all of its properties) but we could try to pierce whatever we've got into a good article."
The "refs that we could pierce together" that we got are mentioned here ( [8] and [9]) and here. There is also a paper in prep that might be interesting.
Me and you could try to make this a project and improve it. Please reply to me and share your ideas on this.
I will now log off Wikipedia for the day. I probably should be finished cleaning up R136a1 by the end of the week and will notify you if I finish. hi ( talk) 01:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Hello, Lithopsian.
R Sagittae, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
![]() |
![]() | Hello, Lithopsian.
S Sagittae, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
![]() |
![]() | On 7 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S Sagittae, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the star S Sagittae changes its radius, temperature, luminosity, and colour over an eight-day period? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S Sagittae. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Thanks for helping with the main page Victuallers ( talk) 23:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the statement about its mass might have come from here: http://www.dfists.ua.es/~ignacio/wd1_research.html - although this page only says it's the most massive young cluster in the Milky Way. This page ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1624) is for a paper co-authored by Ignacio Negueruela, who is responsible for the other page and it says Westerlund 1 is "among the most massive young clusters in the Milky Way". Perhaps this last statement could be included? VirtualDave ( talk) 07:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | On 11 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article R Sagittae, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the star R Sagittae has 90% of the mass and 10,000 times the luminosity of the Sun? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/R Sagittae. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Hello, Lithopsian.
Beta Cephei variable, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
![]() |
What I'm using for the table in the Beta Cephei variable article is the AAVSO data for β Cep variables. Do you think their data is not reliable enough to use in the article? StringTheory11 ( t • c) 23:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It is clear from your recent edits on the List of brightest stars page that you don't comprehend the edits you are doing. The magnitude of these stars is visual magnitude or 'v', not 'V' magnitudes which are photometrically obtained. Just presuming that the magnitudes are quoted all from SIMBAD, assumes that all the magnitudes are from the same source. They are not. I.e. Magnitudes should be quoted from the Yale Bright Star Catalogue V5, which are visual magnitudes. You need to either discuss/ persuade that another magnitude system should be used, and change all of them, not just because you 'think' they might be right. (as said in your reason to revert.) You have already erroneously assumed that variable stars were mean magnitudes, when in fact they were at maximum brightness as I conclusively proved before.
I also was in the middle of an edit when you again reverted the page, which is not very conducive in solving issues like these. (Note dual edits to revert pages is counted as 3RR if you are maintaining a position.) Consider your position before editing this page again, and formally discuss this on the talk page. Thanks. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 15:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for editing WS104. I just want to ask if there is a need to include the degree of inclination? ---- 損齋 ( talk) 15:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
It's much greater and not more greater. Please consult a student book (my guess is A1 English). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbaleksandar ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
So I woke up one morning, look at the largest stars list, and found this star atop UY Scuti. I saw that you added it. There is no paper about it, but when I look up at SIMBAD it is a red supergiant. I know you are a great editor. Can you show me more info about this star? Out of pure curiosity, I was interested. Hope you reply at my talk soon! SkyFlubbler ( talk) 06:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I created a draft at User:SkyFlubbler/EV Carinae to get started. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 06:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Be star. Since you had some involvement with the Be star redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 23:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Just for your info, a work of fiction can't be speedy deleted, even if it obviously isn't notable. The tag was removed for that reason by admin Ritchie333, not the creating editor Writeintothefuture. However, I've deleted the article as spam, and indeffed Writeintothefuture for using the name of a company as a forbidden user name and promoting its client's product. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Heads up: you appear to have broken several refs in Iota Orionis. -- Elphion ( talk) 04:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I responded to what you posted on my talk page. Sorry I'm new to this :-)
Moviegirl35 ( talk) 23:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Moviegirl35
I'm very new to all of this so forgive me if I am doing this wrong. I would like to edit the fire rock page so that it is more encyclopedic in tone but am not sure how or what needs to be edited for this to take place. Would this serve better to do as a stub? Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfarrell070 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian, thank you for your advices. I'm going to remove the content of 'blue cone monochromac'. When I recently submitted the new article of my SandBox the answer I received from the editor Anarchyte was "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Blue cone monochromac instead". I thought, and now I understand that it was a mistake, that the editor was requesting me to put the content inside this page with the tiny change in the title. I'm going to immediately remove my content from there.
Then my question is: 'Blue Cone Monochromacy' is a human disease, also known as 'Blue Cone Monochromatism' and there is an entry on wikidata for it https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18553394 but not a wikipedia entry, other than a redirect to 'Monochromacy'. 'Monochromacy' is not a disease, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q450059. Do you think it will be better to ask on the talk page of 'Monochromacy' in order to know if editors would like to consider my sandbox article ? In my family there are many people with this disease, I often use Wikipedia and it is strange to me to don't see this disease inside wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renata.sarno ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello With respect to my new page creation which you have suggested for deletion. Have provided 7 citations of National Newspapers, media b2b websites tec in India on the topic, if you still feel it should be deleted, AM OK. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabineschrmal ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Lithopsian OwenJiang ( talk) 22:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
why is speed delation ? — Maisie008 ( talk) 14:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
hello Lithopsian, you helped me some time ago with regards to NML Cygni, therefore I'm addressing you again:
Hello, I'm
Arianewiki1. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very
civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
Thank you.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. What's Bad Faith and edit warring? said DerrickMa502
@ Lithopsian My apologies for the last few posts, but trying to understanding your point of view is getting frustrating. Let's immediately and quickly fix this issue by putting it behind us, because I too have other edits and stuff to do... (like adding another seven stars to the List of brightest stars to tally them to 100 stars.)
I did happen to reread this " User:Arianewiki1 wanted all magnitudes to be clearly referenced and to come from a single source, preferably the Yale Bright Star catalogue (or FK5, but that is a non-starter). Nobody objected." mixed with some of the unnecessary rhetoric...
Q1. Do you Lithopsian actually object to using the Yale Bright Star Catalogue V5?
Q2. Do you Lithopsian object to using the magnitudes in the 2015 USNO's Astronomical Almanac [11]?
Q3. As most of the star magnitudes quoted in USNO's Astronomical Almanac also appear in the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) Part I (Fricke+, 1988), do you object to quoting both of these as reference sources in the List of brightest stars page?
Q4. Do you know of any other consistent magnitude listings better than the BSCV5 or FK5?
Thanks.
In this edit, "1th" is a typo. Page 6 of the reference says "Ks≈10∼11 mag" so I'm not sure what was intended. Art LaPella ( talk) 17:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war, as you have done here.
[12] Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Comments:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Arianewiki1 (
talk)
14:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Arianewiki1 (
talk)
22:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This edit you made here [16] is not constructive. Saying "typo" in the edit summary is unacceptable, especially when the original text what not made by me, and also then removing my 'clarification needed', especially when the article text does not relate to the LMC at all, binary systems, or being of higher luminosity or hotter.
You have not explained this edit properly and this can appear to deliberate edit evasion. Either discuss issues with contentious statements or leave them alone.
Other than that, your earlier improvements with references are much appreciated, especially the la Bouquini (2015) article, which I am already familiar. Thanks for that at least. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 10:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
This is a company that supply top RADIUS software / AAA for IP services providers based in Toronto. The software has innovations and people who are looking for a software that has both AAA and Billing would be interested in the article. Since it has the one of the best on the market and supplies to high end internet operators world wide including Verizon Wireless (applications for CARS and Cameras). Like other companies, Cisco, Amdocs, Juniper and other We also add references to others in the area who has similar articles. See the links. If you see any commercial stuff or offending feel free to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcchmp ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It seems like you are being unfair to me. The sites are real and we are in business from 1997! (not new or spammers) http://www.aradial.com/ http://www.spotngo.ca/
Also the links added, Aradial develops one of the best RADIUS servers and AAA servers on the market and should be on Wikipedia. I added relevant links for example for our partners: Telrad, Airspan and you removed it. Added link where Juniper and Radiator RADIUSes (commercial) where added. BTW, I did not want to add a link in the sites but ref to Araidal Article
These are our competitors that you allow for some reason to exist: Aptilo Networks NetApp Mikrotik Juniper_Networks
I am sorry if I am bothering you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcchmp ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Coffee: too. In proper courtesy to you and your past edits, I have just begun modifying the Hypergiant page, aiming to simplify it and to make the article a bit more easier to read. Some of this text looks like speculation, and I have already removed some of the text that cannot be verified. I would appreciate if you feel these edits are contentious, and if so, could you make comments on the article's Talk page, especially if I had missed something vital. I will in the coming days be making further edits to this Hypergiant page. Thanks. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 05:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for you edit here, however we have the OTRS ticket on the talk page. Look at this, please. -- Archeologo (Museo Galileo) ( talk) 20:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
On 23 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S Doradus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the star S Doradus was calculated to have ranged between 100 and 380 times the radius of the Sun? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S Doradus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, S Doradus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lithopsian.
S-type star, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
. You can see the hook and the discussion
here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you.
APersonBot (
talk!)
12:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the great contribution! There's just one unreferenced section which I wasn't comfortable with, and some non-dealbreaker concerns. Thanks! FourViolas ( talk) 02:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Chi Cygni at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
78.26 (
spin me /
revolutions)
21:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
S-type star at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk)
15:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
On 10 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chi Cygni, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Chi Cygni is a variable star that is over 10,000 times brighter at its maximum than at its minimum? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chi Cygni. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Chi Cygni), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
On 11 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article S-type star, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that S-type stars have bands of zirconium monoxide in their spectrum? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/S-type star. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, S-type star), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You have failed to respond to another editor ( Arianewiki1) regarding your edits at Talk:V399 Carinae, for almost three months. It would be highly appreciated if you could try to take the time to comment there, as soon as possible. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
How you doing to be assisded by citation bot and using the HotCat ! Thank ! Red Planet X (Hercolubus) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
plus in a reference to know how you do the data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Planet X (Hercolubus) ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
plus how to protect a page, delete a page and Blocked a user ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotorn 999999 ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I've noticed that after making edits to articles as part of my current project relating to the IAU WGSN, you frequently shortly thereafter make edits of your own. Not that I have any objections to your edits, but I was wondering how you were seemingly following me? Do you simply have all these articles on your watchlist or have you some clever method of keeping track that I might find useful sometime in the future? Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the two tips. The 1st is straightforward enough, but I can't find where to enable the 2nd in my preferences? And you're right about the star articles! Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 08:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eta Geminorum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castor. 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) 09:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I declined your db-move request for IC 3568. I notice that in Category:IC objects, the pages are not consistent, and sometimes go with a WP:COMMONNAME, which is generally preferable to official names per naming conventions. If you believe the page should still be moved, consider the WP:RM {{ subst:Requested move}} process. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 05:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 09:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 10:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Is a really interesting 'star'. I'm just stubbying things out so that folks can improve things later :) Always easier when not working from a totally blank page! Benkenobi18 ( talk) 04:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback on HD 150248. I have fixed the ref. problems, you were correct, I did not put where I found all the data. Please see if the constellations info looks better. Thank you. Telecine Guy ( talk) 21:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Nominate the pages for AfD. Otherwise, piss off. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 14:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
If you had actually bothered checking the sources that I provided, the information is there. I'm just stubbying things out for now. Since you know. Adding content is supposed to be the goal of the Wikipedia. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 14:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
http://www.alcyone.de/cgi-bin/search.pl?object=HR5994
B9.5V, spectral class. Magnitude 5.57. Then you look in here: http://www.uranometriaargentina.com/
36 Iota2 5.57 B9.5V 16 09 18.5 -57 56 03 144480 243368 L.6665 15 59 3 -57 35.7 6.0
Which gives you the other parameters. Now, can I please get to building the Wikipedia or are you going to continue stalking all my pages? Benkenobi18 ( talk) 14:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@ EdJohnston: @ Lithopsian: Lithopsian. Clearly your last quite hostile edits on variable stars magnitude on List of brightest stars was both unhelpful and were not based on consensus. I tried to compromise with your request of adding sources, but you continue to not even to both to do so on the Talk page. Being an individual who has done and measured stars via photometry using comparison stars, it is clear to me your last edits only cherry-picked old sources by selecting material to suit your own arguments - and ignored mine. You've continue to point-blank refused to engage in solving these issues, and refuse to understand my point of view no show no willingness to compromise. As difficult impasse of this section of warrants independent scrutiny, and I'd advise that discussion continue on the article's Talk page before any new edits. I'd request EdJohnston to close this article to edits until consensus is obtained. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited V528 Carinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WISE. 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) 11:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
You seem experienced, so I ask you. I have found this misleading redirect page [19] where the reported fake name Urodelus is pointing to Epsilon Ursae Minoris. Do you know what is the best way to remove this redirect without going through the process of nominating it for deletion? Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 10:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Arianewiki1 (
talk)
14:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi L,
You left a comment on a page that I created stating that it requires better references. The information on the page is as I have received it from the professor himself. I might have changed a bit of English. But most of it is the way the professor or the scientist sent it to me.
Where do I find references to personal comments of these professors and scientists?
Annakoppad ( talk)Annakoppad —Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on Planetary transits and occultations. I lifted this material from two other pages that appeared to have duplicated it. I have now researched and added some additional citations, but I still can't find verification of some of it, so I've left them as "citation needed". Perhaps some kind soul will be able to find these. Portnadler ( talk) 12:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian.
Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed.
New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Lithopsian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian,
I understand that I am just an amateur, but my change was totally justified. "Regor" is another name for "Gamma Velorum". It´s at least better than a dash.
Please reconsider your action.
45.35.9.242 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.35.9.242 ( talk) 05:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to rollback you on NW Puppis; accidentally rollbacked the wrong page! - IagoQnsi ( talk) 15:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Is it a correct redirect? Xx236 ( talk) 13:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello there. I've haven't logged into Wikipedia for a few days which is why I missed the speedy deletion of Roffey Park Institute. I create the article because I do believe that it is a notable UK management research institution that has been around from the 1940s (I think). I was hoping that others (or indeed myself) night be able to contribute to it. Now the page has been deleted, I can't quite remember what the article looked. Can it be reinstated? Thanks Seaweed ( talk) 15:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
SOL3 is an established business from the Philadelphia area, as well within the sneaker community. It's a trademarked, patented product that has been very successful in the footwear industry and deserves notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeinphilly ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand why VY Orionis or articles about stars with no significant sources would be AfDed, but although the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (UDF) object-related articles do not have lots of sources, they are somewhat important. I create UDF object articles because it would be helpful for Wikipedia to have lots of articles about galaxies that are almost as old as the Universe. SpaceDude777 ( talk) - December 22, 2016 - 7:33 UTC
I just thought I'd let you know that recently, Pan-STARRS 1 released one of the largest sky surveys yet, and images of astronomical objects can be accessed at http://ps1images.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/ps1cutouts (you just type an object's name in the box), and read that Pan-STARRS 1 data and images can be used for publications and commercial use as long as they are acknowledged ( http://ipp.ifa.hawaii.edu/). So, for articles for astronomical objects that don't have images, we can use Pan-STARRS 1 images. If I'm wrong, please notify me. SpaceDude777 (talk) December 30, 2016: 2:57 UTC.
Dear Lithopsian,
I was working on that from the root of that group ( https://www.geni.com/people/Karumuttu-Thiagarajan-Chettiar/6000000003215947491 & /info/en/?search=Karumuttu_Thiagarajan_Chettiar,) Especially mahathma gandhiji wore loin cloth at karumuttu thiagarajan chettiar house 251 west masi street. ( https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Karumuttu_Thiagaraja_Chettiar_the_textil.html?id=44ftAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y) since i collect all information about the 4th generation, i did start with vee technologies http://www.veetechnologies.com/profile/our-roots.htm, and even sona valliappa group also am working in that http://www.valliappa.com/sonagroup/promain.htm). this current generation from the root.
So please let me know how i can continue to update this information to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinuseo ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
If you get challenged on this let me know. I have some good references. Maybe I'll put them into MOS if I can find the right place, but MOS usually doesn't address grammar issues. Jeh ( talk) 23:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Howdy, as you seem to be a fairly prolific editor of astronomy-related Wikipedia articles, I thought I'd let you know about the Open Supernova Catalog ( https://sne.space), which has collected a vast amount of data on individual supernovae, including near-complete collections of light curves, spectra, and metadata.
I'm the current manager of the OSC, and I'd like to copy a lot of the content from the OSC onto Wikipedia (such as plots of light curves, pictures of host galaxies, etc.), but I wasn't sure how to get started, as I'm definitely a novice Wikipedia editor! Do you have any recommendations on how to best get this done? Is there a working group that keeps the supernova-related pages up to date?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaoar ( talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
At the end of the day there is little point creating articles about non-notable subjects because they are likely to be deleted, although personally I tend to be quite tolerant of borderline objects where the article is well-written, well-sourced, and complete. Write a pointless stub about anything except the most famous of objects and it'll be gone before you can blink :) I'm not sure what the source of the OSC data is, whether it is a primary or secondary source, or portal similar to Simbad. It may make a useful reference in supernova articles, or general link.
Thanks Lithopsian! I was more thinking about fleshing out the few dozen stubs/starts for supernovae on your user page: [ [20]]. The data on the OSC is secondary, gathered from a wide variety of sources, which are listed in full on the individual OSC pages. The simplest thing to do might just be to provide links to the relevant OSC pages, but it's also a good place to farm data about various supernovae for the infoboxes. Not every supernovae should get a page of course, just the notable ones.
I'm not intending to do much of this myself, but I figured it was working making the astronomy aficionados on Wikipedia aware of the page's existence and potential utility. --Quaoar ( talk) 11:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on M Puppis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IExistToHelp ( talk) 23:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The Bayer designation υ2 for Flamsteed's 56 Ceti was evidently introduced by Flamsteed himself (as reported in Wagman's Lost Stars). [Correction: 56 was υ1, 59 was υ2.] Lalande's version of Flamsteed's catalog includes it (available on Google Books, see link at 56 Ceti). Our article for 56 Ceti says Bode carried it forward, but I don't have Bode to hand, so can't check. -- Elphion ( talk) 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I've posted here about the speedy deletion of Fareportal - /info/en/?search=Talk:Fareportal#This_page_should_not_be_speedy_deleted_because...
Fareportal seems to me to meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia - its a pretty big company. It may not have done a lot of notable stuff in and of itself, but I think the article I posted reflects that, in just covering the key details. Draykyle ( talk) 20:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the Eta Carinae article, which you nominated at FAC, has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 12, 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 12, 2017. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 02:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
"look at all the stubs ..."
Thank you for quality articles such as stars and stellar systems, such as Eta Carinae, improved in collaboration, for project work (talk page tags, moves and redirects), for rewriting the Copernican principle, for your modest user page of the astronomy statistics, - stellar: you are an awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you removed a reference in this edit, saying it was a Chinese whisper. Can you explain what you meant by that? While I dislike Phys.org and would have cited the paper itself had I noticed it, the paper itself has been published by MNRAS. — Huntster ( t @ c) 14:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Raise Data Recovery as an article that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the topic under CSD A7. That criterion did not apply because the article was about a computer program, and A7 only applies to articles on real persons or groups, individual animals, organisations, web content and organised events. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, I have buffed Capella on and off over the years. It was improved to GA status by Spacepotato. I like the history stuff and am good at prose, but am not so crash hot at the astrophysics. And astro articles are much harder than biology articles to get through FAC. Feel free to give it a good going over, fine-tune the info and would be cool to do a co-nomination (or even three way nom if Spacepotato is still interested in it. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate your recent edits on Supernova. They are both informative and relevant. Thanks. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 01:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted you to know that I nominated Kepler-351b for deletion. Can you make sure that the nomination was a good idea? SpaceDude777 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, have nominated Capella at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Capella/archive1. So keep an eye and we'll see what crops up. Given you like luminous stars... Rigel might be a good one to buff too. FA-hood serves two purposes - (1) closest thing we have to a Stable Version, FAC completion is a good reference point in case an article degrades. (2) getting something on the main page. Always fun. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
In the southern hemisphere do they really call the equinox in March "vernal" or "spring" and the one in September "autumnal" or "fall" in spite of the actual seasons? Also, what leads you to believe the Latin names are more common and less ambiguous than the English ones? -- Lasunncty ( talk) 05:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thank you for your message. I was teaching a group of dental students to edit as part of the Wikipedia Collaboration of Dental Schools. I completely understand that when a page is created it is not meant to be left blank. The students were meant to add the content straight away but there has been a delay. I created the page to make it easier for them to get started. I will have them re-create themselves when they are ready to add the content. Thanks! TheStudiousDentist —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)