User talk:Lithopsian/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

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)

Supernova

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)

Your recent edits

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)

June 2012

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)

Massive reversions

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)

Thanks, I messed up that last change by only reverting one of four changes and then making another edit to the article.

Other possibility is Rollback privilege ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rollback_feature ), which is built-in to Wikipedia, and offers you a [rollback] button next to the edit history. But takes some time requesting the privilege, may or may not be worth it if TWINKLE works for you. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Verification of the references provided for the claim...

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)

And can you tell us from where we can get an image? There are some good images Columbia University's paper, but most probably we can not use those. I have not found any image in Nasa galley! You can reply here: User_talk:Vanischenu#Talkback_on_23_August_2012 --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This was to be featured in the Main Page of Wikipedia. So is there any way you can support the claim with a reliable source. We will be in trouble then and also note WP:verifiability, not truth. If we do not have a materials to support this, then we will have to cancel it. ···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 18:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's on the Main Page today. Regards.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 09:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Most luminous stars

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)

Eta Carinae

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)

Variable star

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)

Copernican principle

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)

(edit conflict) Bold reverting won't work - we have to read their arguments and reply, on talk or/and edit summaries. They sometimes use unreliable sources or re-interpret the sources - those edits can be undone (not reverted). If edits don't have obvious flaws then any editor should watch out for edit warring. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that you were a "rollbacker". This is sometimes very useful, and you might want to make a request. That was the occasion for my getting the lecture. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia concept is that these articles are debated and controversies (including WP:RS) are vetted on the talk page. Hopefully, this will make them better. We are to WP:AGF. And to work this through, e.g., WP:BRD. When one projects the image of WP:Own in a particular article, this can invite the misguided "hiding the truth" sobriquet. The process can be sometimes ugly and frustrating, to be sure. Please excuse my intermeddling. Just food for thought. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Copernican Principle Arbitration Notice

I have filed for arbitration on this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&action=edit&section=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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattmj (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

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, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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)

Google cache

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).

Cached Google pages do sometimes disappear for a while when they are getting updated, but this looks different. I suspect the website owner has requested Google not to show the page, something that any webmaster can do for private content. If so, the "cached" link on Google search results for that page will eventually disappear, and presumably we will then be accused of a conspiracy. So we can't currently see the page that Noleander luckily quoted for us. However, other pages from the same discussion and other discussions at the forum can still be seen. Here is a Google search of posts at that board about Copernican, you can view the cached image of most of them. This one seems to be the original idea that marking up Wikipedia needs to be part of their advertising campaign. This is page 1 of the post I originally link. Lithopsian (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That's extremely helpful. Thanks very much. Bishonen | talk 11:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC).

PZ Cassiopeiae

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)

Large stand of Lithops salicola

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)

AG Pegasi

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)

DYK for 68 Cygni

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Fehrenbach's star

[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)

68 Cygni revisited

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)

HD269810

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

Furhan, you're thinking of bolometric magnitude, which is the total electromagnetic radiation given off by the star. The infobox field is for the V-band magnitude, which is roughly how humans see the star. The difference is due to the fact that the star emits most radiation in the ultraviolet, so it is brighter bolometrically than visually. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Plus, and I'll say this again because you haven't taken it on board from all the previous times: the referenced paper *states* that the absolute visual magnitude (M_V) is -6.6. I did not have to calculate, mis-calculate, or otherwise synthsise to reach this number. I suggest reading WP:NOR thoroughly before you post anything else. In this specific case, it is *never* appropriate to calculate M_V for yourself; you don't have enough information and if you think you do then you need a couple more years education before editing articles about stars. Bolometric luminosity and bolometric magnitude can be considered equivalent and it may be acceptable to convert between the two, but still better to find a peer-reviewed reference that gives you an actual number. Lithopsian (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also how strange that a new user with no edits before this pops up to say Furhan is correct... StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There have been an intriguing number of edits and undos with the same overall "look and feel" under different identifiers. While edits appearing under one or several different IP addressees may be a perfectly innocent failure to log in, it can give an aura of suspicion. Posting under different user names, even getting your friend to create an account just to support you, is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. Don't ever do it or you will get banned. Lithopsian (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that Gangoose has been blocked as a sock of Furhan by a checkuser. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

Well the biggest problem is that you gave no references at all, so it just amounted to your opinion. If you gave a reference that said that the star would die as either a hypernova or a gamma-ray burst then it would probably still be there. My personal understanding is that (what I remember of) what you wrote is also factually incorrect. The first thing is to drop your obsession with pair instability supernovae, because this star isn't going that way. The theory suggests that they simply don't occur in the local universe because metallicity is too high. Any statement about what sort of supernova will result needs to be hedged, because we simply don't know. There are theories of massive star evolution into supernovae but they are known to be inaccurate because they don't simply don't match observations. This extends to gamma-ray bursts which are *theorised* to result from *some* supernovae of type Ib or type Ic (or both), but almost certainly not all. This is all in the context of zero reliable observations of the progenitor of a gamma-ray burst, let alone observations of a hypernova or pair instability supernova progenitor. Still, forget what I think I know (or what you think you know) and just describe what the best available research says. Preferably specific to this star, because trying to guess for yourself which model might be applicable to this star is getting dangerously close to own research. You might have to do that if nobody has described the likely end for HD 269810, but do so in only the most general terms and "show your working" :) References, references, references. Lithopsian (talk) 11:58, 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.

Comment for message

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)

Articles

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.

List of largest stars

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)

Sandbox

Can you check my sandbox and go through any errors? hi (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

R136a1

This is my reply for "recent undo of recent edits"

@Lithopsian

@SkyFlubbler

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)

I am. furhan. You were stoned when you wrote this, I'm assuming? "none of the member stars are significantly evolved and none are thought to have exploded as supernovae", word for word in both articles. Minor rewording of "Its luminosity is so great that if it were as close to Earth as the Orion Nebula, the Tarantula Nebula would cast shadows.", "The estimated mass of the cluster is 450,000 solar masses, suggesting it will likely become a globular cluster in the future", and "if it were as close to Earth as the Orion Nebula, the Tarantula Nebula would cast shadows" All of which is irrelevant. I don't care if the words came to you in a vision from God, the sentiments don't need to be repeated in an article that isn't even about that object. Say what needs to be said about the Tarantula and R136 in relation to R136a1, probably just a sentence or two, and leave the rest behind a link. Lithopsian (talk) 20:45, 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)

eta carinae

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_☉.

Does it? I beg to differ. Read the paper instead of just pulling out the first number you find. Lithopsian (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Eta Carinae light curve

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)

FYI

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)

Great Eruption and Homunculus Nebula

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)

R136a1 demotion

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.

• About the sparse citations, that is my fault, so I will try to dig up what I can find. I know a lot of citations that I could have used so I will go and add them.

• I don't really know what some of the errors are. I'm not a particular expert in the subject matter. I'm a 12 year old, and am self educated (in astronomy), so I probably will not be able to spot the errors. However, I will be able to spot the ones that you tagged, so I will try to find the refs on that. Once I am finished, I will tell you.

• I apologize for the plagiarism. I had made a different version on my sandbox, but that was really messed up (bad grammar, incomplete information). Anyway I have corrected that, so it is fine (although the grammar is still pretty bad)

• I probably will not be able to correct the grammar so this is up to you.

• I will comment on the part that you deleted in "evolution" in the sections below.

• • About this, maybe you could put that part back and, instead of deleting it, reword (or just add your own words) it so that it will make itself clear. Also, there is a study which we could use to expand the parts on WNh stars. Also, some of the information in the article contradicts the info in that paper, for example, the fact that it said WNh stars stay on the O sequence for a few thousand years, but the ref said that they turn into WNh stars when at the top of the main sequence. (which is probably after <~2 Myr.)

• • About this, I have a comment to make. R136a1 is presumably 80% of its Eddington limit, so 8.7 million ÷ 8 × 10 = 10,875,000, or its Eddington limit. Now, the 80% of its Eddington limit was derived by Crowther in this publication, so they would be using the value of 265 M_☉ and 8,700,000 L_☉. The current luminosity (using the value derived by hainich) is irrelevant here, but I calculated It to be around 65-70%. (Actually, I got a value of 68% which corresponds to a luminosity of 7,395,000 L_☉. Now, this value should differ from the actual value because; The mass is between 256-265 M_☉ (and some studies claim that it is even as high as 286 M_☉), and the value I got was below 7,400,000 L_☉. Anyway, this value should be close to the actual one.)

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)

DYK for S Sagittae

Thanks for helping with the main page Victuallers (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The mass of Westerlund 1

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)

Probably. Someone got over-excited though. Even the (very old, in this context) web page only says "It is probably more massive than any other young cluster in the Local Group of galaxies." and that is an exaggeration of what they were prepared to put in a journal paper, which started as "likely to be one of the most massive young clusters in the Local Group" in 2003 and moderated to "among the most massive young clusters in the Milky Way" by 2008. If it is in a peer-reviewed journal and not refuted by more recent research then it can go in the article. We should be careful not to exaggerate, which usually means not relying on blogs, web pages (even of professional researchers!), and press releases, and not to state as fact information which is disputed or obsolete. Here's a fairly recent summary of young cluster masses in the local group, to provide some context: http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1961 Lithopsian (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The paper you referred me to says on page 20 "Currently the most massive young cluster known in our Galaxy is Westerlund 1", although the authors qualify that by pointing out that it's easier to observe than some other clusters. I think that with things like this it's safer in Wikipedia to say "among the most massive" because they could find something bigger tomorrow, if they haven't already! I'll put in the sentence "It is among the most massive young clusters in the Milky Way". Towards the bottom of the Wd1 article there is a sentence which ends "how such a massive cluster formed", and so I think would read better if the fact that it is so massive was mentioned earlier on. I'd also like to look into the sentence "In the future, it will probably evolve into a globular cluster" - "probably" sounds a bit too strong to me. Let me know if you have any thoughts on it.VirtualDave (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for R Sagittae

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Beta Cephei variable

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)

@StringTheory11 Apparently not. At a minimum, it would need to be cited, but it isn't exactly a peer-reviewed citable source. I don't know where they get their data from. Usually from the GCVS, but in this case it doesn't really match up. Sometimes there are citations in the VSX page, but they're often old or not relevant. Stankov is the most recent comprehensive source I could find, but there may be a handful of updates since then. Both Stankov and GCVS can be queried online. Also try this one, could have some stars that Stankov missed or rejected, and cites other fairly recent sources. Lithopsian (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Whenever I work with individual star articles now I never cite databases anymore for precisely that reason; I'll attempt to extend that practice to lists. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you by chance know of a similar paper or the like for the Alpha Cygni variables? I'm interested in doing something similar there, but I had no luck finding such a paper on the ADS. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

van Genderen did a series of papers in the 1990s. It isn't easy to extract a simple narrative from a series of rambling papers about all sorts of variable supergiants, but I'm not aware of anything much in the way of a comprehensive review since then. Lithopsian (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A 5x expand should be easier as less material there in first place. I have started building a list of stars. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing Bright Star Page

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)

Why are you bringing 3RR threats to my talk page? There is only one person who has made three reverts on that article, and it isn't me.

And what is all this about the Bright Star Catalog? There is nothing in the article about that, or about a particular photometric system being required. You're just making it up. I'll take your ideas to the correct place, but I have no clue where you get this stuff. Lithopsian (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A question of WR104

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)

If there is published information that isn't already in the article, then certainly include it. Lithopsian (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Alpha Ursae Majoris page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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)

Reference errors on 17 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Procyon page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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)

Hypernova

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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)

EV Carinae

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)

Be star listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Cymoeba

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)

Iota Orionis

Heads up: you appear to have broken several refs in Iota Orionis. -- Elphion (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Which aren't fixed yet. -- Elphion (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'll have to look up CitationBot, which I know nothing about. -- Elphion (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation Bot is an excellent tool for creating scientific references using the cite journal and related templates, looking up and filling in the entire template from a bibcode, doi, or pmid (and others?). However, it has had a tough time recently, been broken, been blocked, been upgraded, and currently is only partially functional for unknown reasons. By all means use it, but check its edits. You can add a button to the edit toolbar from your preferences, which is currently the only part that seems to work. Otherwise look for the Expand citations link in the left panel. Lithopsian (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

==

Hello, Lithopsian. You have new messages at Moviegirl35's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

==

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

Fire Rocks Speedy Deletion

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)

Blue Cone Monochromacy

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)

Does he got deletion?

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)

Galaxy Stubs

Thanks for the suggestion, Lithopsian OwenJiang (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

why

why is speed delation ? — Maisie008 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have no idea what "speed delation" might be but speedy deletion is a very necessary process to keep Wikipedia free of rubbish. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

calculation of the radius of NML Cygni

hello Lithopsian, you helped me some time ago with regards to NML Cygni, therefore I'm addressing you again:

• First I've got a question. on the talk page of NML Cygni you said: The radius is not calculated from the angular radius. As explained in the paper, 16.2 mas is not a directly measured value. It was derived from assumed values of the temperature, luminosity, and distance. 1,650 is a rounded value for the most likely physical parameters given in the reference (3,250K and 270,000 L). I was wondering, is there an article in the en.wiki or somewhere else in the net, that explains how exactly the radius of a star is calculated based on the (estimated) stellar parameters. The reason is I'd like to mention the calculation of the radius on the de.wiki, because you're right, people (including myself) are obsessed with the largest, the most massive and so on and I think it is important to highlight the fact, that all radii are calculations based on estimated values.
• Second I'd like to ask you a favour, if you can spend the time. This article http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...610..427Z is used as reference in the de.wiki for a calculated radius of 3700 for NML Cygni. Can you check if this is true, because it would make NML Cygni the by far largest known star. Thanks a lot. --Agentjoerg (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Bad Faith / Edit Warring

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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

Quick Solution to Current List of Bright Stars Issue

@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?

I also later said;

"The source of these magnitudes was taken from the USNO's Astronomical Almanac [10], which has a list of bright stars and their positions. If you bothered to look page L14 under "Section H:Stars ans Stellar Systems" it says of the 1467 stars listed; "all stars of visual magnitude 4.5 or brighter, as listed in the fifth revised edition of the Yale Bright Star Catalogue (BSC). I know this to be true, as the once missing No.63 β Auriga Beta Aurigae / Menkalinan 1.9 magnitude isn't included. (I fixed this on 18 June 2015, myself.) It is not in the FK5, because the star is a variable. (Most of these magnitudes also appear in the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) Part I (Fricke , 1988) (FK5), which had a revised edition in 1991.) The BSC V5 is mostly used because the magnitudes are consistent in both hemispheres of the sky. (The only useful 'update' is HIP magnitudes, which is also within the FK6, etc. This has the advantage of not suffering from atmospheric effects, which have to be properly accounted for in photometry.)"

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?

(Note: HIP photometry is good, but is not precisely 'V' magnitude. I don't know of any other sources that are acceptably recent.)

Thanks.

1th

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)

Resolved

 – Art LaPella (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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:

Furthermore, by stating "I have given up engaging with Arianwiki1 since that author has been repeatedly abusive to me, making demands, chasing down my edits, and simply being difficult where it would be easier to be helpful." This is avoiding WP:GF which is clearly sanctionable. You were properly requested to "Justify these statements properly, or they will be removed under Wikipedia adopted policies." More than a month had past, and you refused to engage in gaining consensus. You did nothing. I do suggest you read the Edit Warring warning above, as you have already avoided; "The article's talk page to discuss controversial changes." You just haven't done this. This is why I reverted your edit.

However, as you did here, [13], in this my comment [14], you also tried falsely accused me of producing "Remove fluff sentence originating from non-neutral editor (User:WAFred))"[15] As I stated, "This edit in question can be construed as a derogatory comment under WP:PA". This was made worse but justifying this under a fictitious User: (User:WAFred). Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There you go again. I've asked you not to come here making threats and demands, but still you can't resist. You take everything as a personal insult, even edits that had nothing to do with you. Your only response to any edit to an article that doesn't 100% meet your own personal idea of perfection is to reverse it, never to improve it. I find it impossible to have any useful discussion with you. If this is unacceptable to you, then the simplest answer is not to come to my talk page making further threats and demands. BTW, edit warring takes at least two people. Lithopsian (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Eh? " I've asked you not to come here making threats and demands,..." What "threats" and what "demands"? There are actually none within the statements above - and stating Wikipedia policies cannot be in anyway be construed as a threat. Actually under WP:AVOIDYOU "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." As for the WR31a page I still count 27 mistakes, and there are 11 sentences now all uncited. Even the given references are misquoted, and show the complete distinct lack of necessary knowledge and wisdom. That's no "threat" - that is the cold facts! Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)

Kappa Pavonis edit

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)

Please kindly explain this bot edit [17] between [18]. If you perceive this as WP:AOHA, then I'd suggest you read WP:HA#NOT before you do so. If you are feeling WP:HARASS you can easily access WP:ANI. This questionable edit might have been accidentally or inadvertently added, if so please ignore this edit. Cheers. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Aradial AAA and Billing

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)

Why the following is allowed and adding Aradial or Spotngo Wireless articles is not?

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)

This is the wrong question. Other pages, for good or bad, don't change the reasons why yours keep getting deleted. I have a website, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled to a Wikipedia page. I also have a company, and that doesn't automatically get a page either. Just being a legitimate company doesn't affect whether it is notable or not. When Time Magazine puts me on the cover, then I get a page :) Also I'm not the one you need to persuade. I'm not likely to be the next person to review one of your articles, so the article needs to stand on its own merit. Articles about companies, legitimate or not, that are not notable enough to need a Wikipedia article are effectively just free advertising, aka spam. A couple of admins have already pinged you on this so be very careful. BTW, I'm not an admin, just an editor that checks through new pages from time to time, flagging up (or not) when they need a bit of work, a lot of work, or just getting rid of. Lithopsian (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hypergiants

@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)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

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.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Galileo's telescopes

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)

DYK for S Doradus

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)

S-type star has been nominated for Did You Know

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)

Proposed a cropped version of the W Aquilae image, in case you aren't watching. FourViolas (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chi Cygni

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)

Again, per above. There's just one tiny issue regarding semantics. Thanks for all the excellent hard work you've put into this. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of S-type star

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)

DYK for Chi Cygni

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)

DYK for S-type star

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)

Your edits at V399 Carinae

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)

@Coffee: I'll apologise up front. Yes, I am refusing to engage with Arianewiki1. If I get in trouble for that, then so be it. After repeated previous attempts to resolve differences about content impersonally and calmly, I can no longer assume good faith. Arianewiki1 has accused me of just about every Wikicrime there can be simply for disagreeing, been abusive, threatening, conniving, and for a while stalked my edits past and present looking for things to get angry about. I have reached the conclusion that there can be no useful engagement with Arianewiki1 - I see no real desire for constructive discussion, only dominance games and attempts to trip up other editors with violations of some rule or other. To protect my own sanity, I try to stay out of the way and no longer respond to any rants, barbs, or threats from Arianewiki1. Again, I'm sorry for not finding a way to handle this better. Lithopsian (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Citation bot and HotCat

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)

In your preferences (click at the top of the page), on the gadgets tab you can find HotCat. Once you have saved this, any page you go to will have some buttons in the categories that make it quick and easy to edit them. There is also autocomplete so you always get good categories. Just above the HotCat checkbox is "Citation Expander". This will add a button to the editing window toolbar that you can click to make Citation Bot run on the current page. Then you can just create a cite journal template with a bibcode or doi in it, Citation Bot will do the rest. Lithopsian (talk) 18:42, 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)

@Gotorn 999999: I don't know what you're asking. If you want to know how to protect, delete, and block, then you don't Admins do those things. There are procedures that allow you to bring matters to the attention of the people who decide. Lithopsian (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be following me! :)

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)

@Cuddlyopedia: It is possible to examine the edit list of a user (contributions page), but I don't have any fancier methods than that. Recent edits will show up very easily in a nice popup by hovering over a user link in the watchlist if you have that enabled from your preferences, good for checking where else vandals might have been. But in your case it is just that you're editing articles on my watchlist. I don't have every astronomy article on my watchlist, but I do have several thousand, mostly individual stars. Whenever an edit shows up I take a quick look at the edit, then very often give the article itself a scan to see if anything strikes me as needing work. Many of them do need work! Lithopsian (talk) 10:27, 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)

@Cuddlyopedia: I think the preference is Navigation Popups on the Gadgets tabs. I find it incredibly useful. Lithopsian (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It was, yes. Thanks. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

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)

IC 3568

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)

Reference errors on 22 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Mira page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

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.

Betelgeuse

added a link pointing to Granulation

Delta Scuti

added a link pointing to Aquila

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

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.

Winter Triangle

added links pointing to Spring and Ly

Stellar nucleosynthesis

added a link pointing to Degenerate

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)

Q Cygni

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)

Ways to improve HD 150248

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)

Star stubs

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)

@Benkenobi18: alcyone is a software program and not what we'd normally consider a reliable source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bright star catalogue - the one from Harvard isn't considered to be a reliable source? Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Bright Star Catalogue, 5th Revised Ed. (Preliminary Version) (Hoffleit , 1991, Yale University Observatory) as distributed by the at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. As for the uranimetria, that's the source for the 'list of stars in constellation x', which is corroborated here. Why aren't those pages being tagged? Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Using the ref with the Catalog itself is better though but ok - where are you getting the mass and abs mag from? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

ABS is from Gould's Uranometria, which I'll add to the sources, I just wanted to stub out the article and hole fill, and then come back and fix them. Mass is from the Luminosity/Spectral class tables. Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I recommend not using either of those. Stars don't sit plonk on the main sequence at the same spot over their main sequence lifetime..and many are unusual. And many have interstellar extinction between them and us. Best to use secondary sources if possible (i.e. the journal articles in the reference.). I can't imagine the absolute magnitude of uranometira being that current given HIPPARCOS fine tuning of distance post 2007...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Trying to move past the unnecessary rudeness, I won't be asking for articles about notable subjects to be deleted. However, creating badly referenced stubs full of made-up data is not very helpful. I, and the more diplomatic Casliber, are not here to run round after you doing the stuff that any WP:COMPETENT editor should be doing. Cite it or lose it. Lithopsian (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

List of brightest stars : Continuing problems

@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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

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)

Fake star name pointing to star article

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)

I'm not really an expert on Wikipedia policies and procedures. Redirects are not especially easy to delete, partly because there is generally very little cost and confusion by even a poor or unlikely redirect title. You might try for a speedy delete but I'm not sure if it will go through as an "implausible typo or misnomer". Other than that it needs the full discussion, although there isn't likely to be much discussion for something this obscure. I'll watch and pipe up if you request a delete. Lithopsian (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will think about it, and I will let you know. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banibrata_Mukhopadhyay

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)

Yes, that can be difficult but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. You may know something, but for Wikipedia it needs to be verifiable. This is especially important in biographies of living people, for obvious reasons. I've only tagged the information that is uncited since it does not appear to be particularly contentious, but another editor would be quite justified in simply removing it all, so there is some incentive to finding published sources. Full policy guidelines are here. When I get time, I will come back to the astrophysics part - that's more my field and it does need to be changed. Lithopsian (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Planetary transits and occultations

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)

It's better than before you started on it, which is always a good thing. Lithopsian (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr

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.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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)

Regor

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!

Sorry, didn't mean to rollback you on NW Puppis; accidentally rollbacked the wrong page! -IagoQnsi (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

L1 Puppis

Is it a correct redirect?Xx236 (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

L1 Puppis is intended to redirect to OU Puppis. Is your question because it was getting messed up by the displaytitle template? I think it is all OK now. Lithopsian (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Roffey Park Institute

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)

You can ask the deleting admin (not me, the one that actually did the delete) to restore the page to your userspace so you can work on it some more. They will usually do this, although it's no guarantee the article will be acceptable in the future. Only in very unusual circumstances would they restore it directly to article space in the hope of someone doing some more work. Be careful about attempting to replace it since replacement of a deleted article with something essentially the same is frowned-upon. This would be a good time to read the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines since you will ultimately have to meet those or the article will get deleted again, speedily or otherwise. An article will only be speedily deleted if it makes no credible claim of significance, but may still be deleted after discussion if it makes claims and still turns out not to be notable. A notable organisation might still be speedily deleted if you neglected to mention the reasons why it is so famous. I also seem to remember the article might have been overly promotional? Maybe not, but watch out for that (and copyright) especially when you're sourcing material from the company itself. Lithopsian (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I'm managed to find a cached version of the page and I now remember it was just a single sentence and small company information. I don't think anyone else had edited the page, so perhaps Roffey Park Institute is not as notable as I thought it was. I'm not connected to them in any way, so it wasn't promotional. I'll leave it as deleted. Seaweed (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

SOL3

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)

It is gone. I'm sure that everything you say is true, real product, real company, real sales, trademark, patents, and all the rest, but that's not what counts. Might be time to read up on notability. Articles which don't meet the notability criteria will be deleted. If they don't even attempt to establish notability, or if they cross other lines such as copyrighted text or excessively promotional tone, then they will be speedily deleted. Remember that Wikipedia is here to provide information on subjects that a significant number of people globally might be tempted to search, not to advertise every company trying to get noticed. You may also wish to read the policies on paid editing and conflict of interest. It is not prohibited to write about subjects that you have a close connection to, or even that you have been paid for, but it is important to be fully open to avoid any accusations of bias. Lithopsian (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

UDF objects

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

Not entirely up to me. We're about to find out what others think, fingers crossed. I'll give my opinion though :) First, WP:NASTRO is quite clear. Not naked eye, no significant coverage, not in Wikipedia. The reason is obvious enough: there are billions of astronomical objects and all except a few thousand are simply uninteresting to anyone that would want to use Wikipedia as a source. Specific to the UDF catalogue, do you plan on creating 10,000 articles about them? Probably not (hopefully not!), so you are cherry-picking "interesting" ones. I and one or two other people have been approving some of them that make some sort of claim to notability even if they don't quite meet WP:NASTRO (eg. closest UDF object), but creating a one-line stub just because you identified a blob on an image doesn't really cut it IMO. If even you can't find anything to say about it, probably there isn't anything to say about it. If you think the UDF is important, perhaps a better place to focus your enthusiasm would be Hubble Ultra-Deep Field. It is currently rated as start-class, but could easily become C-class. For UDF objects which don't rate their own article, they can always be an entry in a list or an image in a gallery. Lithopsian (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Pan-STARRS Sky Survey Images now available

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.

Could be. Have you asked any of the copyright experts on Wikimedia? Lithopsian (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete page

Dear Lithopsian,

I was working on that from the root of that group (https://www.geni.com/people/Karumuttu-Thiagarajan-Chettiar/6000000003218637491 & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

LED lamp, "a large number ..." is a collective, etc.

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)

@Jeh:. Is this a thumbs up or thumbs down? It is a fairly standard piece of grammar with no disagreements between different standards, although it certainly causes confusion for a lot of people. Still, equally clearcut issues have caused major edit wars, so who knows ... Lithopsian (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely a thumbs up. I've been challenged for making a similar edit to yours. Really understanding it took me into grammar well beyond anything I learned in school - the difference between a "partitive" and a "quantifier." Jeh (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Open Supernova Catalog

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)

There is no specific group that I'm aware of for just Supernova articles. You could start at WikiProject Astronomy and the subgroup for astronomical objects (not covered by other groups).

Were you thinking of creating new articles? On specific supernovae? It would probably be frowned upon to go madly in that direction. Read WP:NASTRO for guidelines on which objects would be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes, probably not a great many supernovae. Mass creation of articles from external data should be discussed first at the relevant project pages. On the other hand, there are already quite a few articles and for the most part not of great quality or depth. The core Supernova and confusingly overlapping Type Ia supernova, Type II supernova, and Type Ib and Ic supernovae articles are generally fairly complete, but there is always room for improvement. There is always the possibility of lists, which can be made up of many objects which would not be notable in themselves.

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.

The last thing is the issue of copyright. Material for Wikipedia cannot, except for minor quotations and occasional fair use exceptions, be copyrighted. Almost all material is copyrighted explicitly or by default, but can be released under a suitable license (Creative Commons) or released into the public domain. Images are generally held at Wikimedia Commons for use across all Wikipedia sites. Images which are non-free but considered appropriate for use on Wikipedia (don't ask, its a legal minefield!) can occasionally be uploaded directly on wikipedia.org. Lithopsian (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

Autopatrol

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of M Puppis

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

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

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)

Upsilon^2 Ceti

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)

With a reference, you could put it back. I couldn't find anything about υ², or υ¹ for that matter. Didn't look in the obvious place for weird designations of course. What prompted me to make the changes was that υ¹ was renamed, by someone else, to simply υ Ceti. I don't know if it all merits going back to the superscripts, or just a quick note in the articles since it is hardly common usage. Lithopsian (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in case you don't watch the relevant obscure pages: I replaced the υ² and υ¹ designations with just υ at Table of stars with Bayer designations and Table of stars with Flamsteed designations. Lithopsian (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the changes in the list articles told me you were up to something :-). Historically, Bayer had just the one upsilon, and Flamsteed added the second. The 19th century consolidators (Argelander and Baily) felt that upsilon^2 was a bridge too far, and reverted to Bayer's designation, and the superscript versions appear to have dropped out of use. There's a note of the older usage at 56 Ceti, and I'm thinking of adding one to Upsilon Ceti. We don't use the older notation at List of stars in Cetus, and presumably don't need to at the two articles you edited -- unless the goal of those lists is to list *every* "Bayer" designation. -- Elphion (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking about what each page should contain, given that we have a reference for the terms υ² and υ¹, however uncommon they may be in actual use. The List of stars in Cetus probably shouldn't show them, and doesn't, given that they are largely of historical interest. The Table of stars with Flamsteed designations certainly shouldn't show it. It should show the designation by which the star is commonly known. The Table of stars with Bayer designations maybe should show it, but might need a note explaining the alternate and more common usage - not 100% sure on that though. My thinking is that it is an attempt to be a thorough cross-reference for Bayer designations, even the ones that are a bit obscure. Lithopsian (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. I've added a note (and the Flamsteed number 59) to Upsilon Ceti -- and corrected the note at 56 Ceti (56 was upsilon^1, 59 was upsilon^2). -- Elphion (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Fareportal

I've posted here about the speedy deletion of Fareportal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Eta Carinae for TFA

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)

Precious

"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)

Chinese whisper?

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)

Chinese whisper, a copy potentially subtly reworded compared to the original. The original journal paper is also cited so little point having a second-hand copy unless there is some doubt about notability. Lithopsian (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion nomination of Raise Data Recovery

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)

Will do. I got it in my head it was a company ... but no. Lithopsian (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok I got one....

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)

Not sure Spacepotato is around at the moment, but I went over the article and made some changes and updates. I'll go over it in a day or two and see if anything big strikes me on the science side. Otherwise it probably needs quite a lot of copyedit. Lithopsian (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Supernova Page Edits

Appreciate your recent edits on Supernova. They are both informative and relevant. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Kepler-351b

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)

You're preaching to the choir here :) I'll tag along with the RfD and see how it goes. Lithopsian (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Capella redux..and Rigel

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)

Another one might be Epsilon Aurigae, which the evidence is firming for some sort of dust cloud/disk thing, possibly around a B-type secondary star..? Or Canopus..just getting all the evidence together..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

equinox terms

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)

Take it to the article talk page where it can be fully discussed and hopefully some form of consensus reached. Lithopsian (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Golden Proportions Page

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)