Old discussions are archived at archive1 and archive2.

Thank you for creating that 2MASS page for the Substellar Subdwarf. Thanks, CarpD (^_^) [aka. marasama]

Yup, it is a small internet!!! Thanks for the info. on the page making. I kind of stumbled around on wikipedia. Thanks, CarpD (^_^)

Is the text on Astronomy Picture of the Day under copyright? It looks like the first two paragraphs of the article V838 Monocerotis consits largely of a copy/paste job on this APOD picture, which dates back to the earliest revision of that page. Chaos syndrome 21:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've put a rewrite request on the article rather than put a copyvio notice on it. Thanks. Chaos syndrome 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for your efforts to make Wikipedia a verifiable and trustworthy encyclopedia. (I ran into you at Nkoroo, where you rightly added {{unreferenced}} — I fixed that.) By the way, I hope you don't mind I have put this highly interesting subpage of yours on my watchlist. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 12:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! The IAU voted today and approved the therm pluton and accepted charon, ceres, pluto, and xena, AS PLUTON PLANETS!

Well You have to admit, the IAUs summit in prague is convincing, undo changes to ceres, the other changes were footnotes on how they will be coming under fire.

hello. i am sushant gupta from india. actually i am new to this place. would you be my friend??? and help me out. i want to ask you that what actually we have to do here. i mean that we just have to edit the articles. do wikipedia has video tutorial. well yes can you also tell me that how can i insert a picture. actually i want to replace a picture. i have got the same picture in high resolution and just want to replace it. oh! yes on my wacthlist i watched your name . may i know what was that.

thankyou Sushant gupta 16:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)sushant gupta[reply]

hello!! what if i replace that picture which is copyrighted and mention the source from where i got it. well!! when i was going through your user page i got that most of interests matches mine. can you also give me some info about astronomy. well, can you tell me your date of birth.

thankyou Sushant gupta 16:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)sushant gupta[reply]

You were one of the two critics of my "destroy all groups" comment in the Astronomical Object Wikiproject forum, so I wanted to run this by you first and see if I have a convincing case.

First, please look at Sombrero Galaxy under "Environment". I think I have made a good case that the membership of the Sombrero Galaxy to any group is questionable. (A galaxy pair is not a galaxy group.)

Next, look at the (mostly empty) M104 group of galaxies page. It does not make much sense to keep this page if it is uncertain as to whether the Sombrero Galaxy does belong to a group. In this light, would you support a move on my part to get the "M104 group of galaxies" page deleted?

Thank you, George J. Bendo 14:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response on this question. I also sent this message to Marasama, who I asked to email the person who created the Atlas of the Universe website with a CC to me. I am going to wait for the response before moving forward with deleting the article.

Also, please note that the Atlas of the Universe website does list good references, but to write the group information for the Sombrero Galaxy article, I went to the website's references themselves rather than rely on the website for secondary information. George J. Bendo 18:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do you remember me. i am sushant gupta. actually i want to replace the picture 'crab nebule'. i have it in a higher resolution. i have also got some more high resolution pictures on astronomy. if you don't mind can you tell me your date of birth.

thankyou Sushant gupta 15:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)sushant gupta[reply]

A satelite is defined as the secondary object where the Barycenter of the two objects is inside the primary object. The Barycenter of Pluto-Charon is 1200km above the surface of Pluto. --md84419^talk 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Many sources on the Internet are stating that Charon is a dwarf planet, but it isn't among the three (Pluto, 2003 UB313 and Ceres) listed in the IAU press release and I cannot find any other IAU source stating that Charon is a dwarf planet. --md84419^talk 24 August 2006 (UTC)

i asked your date of birth so that i can find your chinese astrological sign.

thankyou Sushant gupta 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)sushant gupta[reply]

is it necessary to be the member wikimedia commons or i can straight insert the picture.

thankyou Sushant gupta 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)sushant gupta[reply]

I have been reviewing the articles for various asteroids. I would like to thank you for creating so many. However, there is a problem with your statements about many C-type asteroids. You state that they are carbonate-rich. This is not correct. C-types contain few carbonates, but a lot of carbonaceous material. I have edited the articles for asteroids 241 and below, but would you be willing to correct the other C-types further along the list? Thank you. Michaelbusch 20:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following your suggestion I added two graphs in negative colours for better comparison – see Talk:Ananke group. Eurocommuter 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you edited PZ Myers. A related article, PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments, has been nominated for deletion. You can comment on this nomination here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments. Thanks. Sanguinity 17:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been writing/correcting about Jyväskylä and Jyväskylän maalaiskunta. Maybe you noticed or maybe not, but some of the childish lies about Jyväskylä apparently written by the people of maalaiskunta, some of which were based on a "study" that (you can look up the study itself) had no merits whatsoever - the same criteria being applied to maalaiskunta which the study did not cover, would have given really bad results as well. "homekoulut", schools with the sick building syndrome are a real problem in maalaiskunta and a real threat to the children's health.

The source for the nickname of the second moon of EL61 is Mike Brown and his students (Kristina Barkume, Darin Ragozzine, and Emily Schaller). They've been using the name since they discovered the object, as a shorthand in conversation and in presentations to other scientists. For better or worse, there has been considerably less media coverage of this one than of Eris, so there are no press releases. Reference would either be personal communication or Darin's DPS presentation or departmental seminar. Michaelbusch 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On December 26, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stegosaurus in popular culture, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions!! Nishkid64 01:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you might be interested that AMK152 proposed, in a series of edits on 27 December 2006, a geotimebox for various articles dealing with the Geologic time scale. For example: AMK152's edit of Hadean looked like this. See discussion at Template talk:Geotimebox. --Bejnar 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested to merge the Geology timescale project into the Geology project as the first one got inactive. I've seen you've done quite a bit for geology timescale. Would you be interested in joining in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology? Solarapex 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it clearly states at WP:STUB, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new WikiProjects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, it does not appear to meet the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type (60 currently existing stubs). Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at these following talk pages:

• Talk:Leo (constellation)
• Talk:Triangulum
• Talk:23 Ursae Majoris
• Talk:New Worlds Imager

Cosmium 22:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you edit the number of nearby stars to a higher number of notable stars and change the nearest starname/stardistance to a nearer notable star other than B/F stars in every constellation articles' template box if necessary as you observe in the list of stars by constellation. Cosmium 21:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that fine for you to change just the nearest starname and stardistance, but I'll change the number of nearby stars. Cosmium 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sooooooo much for making the pretty new star tables in every articles of the list of stars by constellations by making more like the other websites than simpler, former tables. I will give you $1000 for that! Because you did a lot since the Christmas Eve and took you 10 days and your done just five days before I'll go back to school (January 8, next Monday).--huh huh huh huh huh!!! Cosmium 22:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apprechiate you reverting my edit on Enceladus (moon). All contributions are apprechiated but in your edit summary for the revert, you put something like this:

Do not use the name Luna. There is no such moon

When you see 'Luna' as a moon on Wikipedia, the article is talking about our Moon, not a moon that is actually named Luna.

Regards, Kamope 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my responses:

• We have been placing nicknames in the "other names" section of the infoboxes consistently. It is an appropriate place for the nicknames.
• I agree about the forced linebreaks in the infobox. However, the infoboxes are currently set up such that the boxes will list all "other names" on a single line. This means that the infobox may stretch to a length of 400-500 pixels without the line breaks. Perhaps Mike Peel can solve this probelm when he revises the infoboxes.
• I will keep your information regarding italics and bold type in mind. I was not completely clear on their use.
• I started revising the galaxy articles by placing the references below the external links, and I think other people started using the format for galaxy articles. If this is a severe problem, it is something that WilliamKF could fix.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss these changes with me. Dr. Submillimeter 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message is to notify you that a stub category that you created (Category:Siberian mythology stubs) is up for deletion at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Jyri, I award you the EMC2 barnstar for all your contributions on astronomy. Keep up the good work! Awarded by Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basin Groups. It is not just one book. I reported both Harland's book and the GeoWhen database because those were the most authoritative, and were directly addressing the geologic timescale. The usage occurs in a number of articles, for example, Birriel, Jennifer (2006) "The Faint Young Sun Paradox" Mercury 35:6, pp.12-19, on page 17. Lunokhod has an interesting comment on my talk page User talk:Bejnar#Hadean subdivision. --Bejnar 19:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jyri! Love your userpage remake! I also remade my userpage and so did one of my wikifriends. Kamope · talk · contributions 02:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come I can't see the whole page? The right edge is partly outside the frame but there is no horizontal roll bar. No point in listing all your brag tags if people can't read them, is there?;=)--Death Bredon (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated the article Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000) for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000). Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Meanings of asteroid names (139001-140000) during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Urhixidur 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Extinct animals in popular culture, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extinct animals in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Turks and Hungarians share a lot of history, which means they also share a lot of vocabulary. That doesn't make them linguistically related in any way. Another example is Finnish, which has many thousands of words and idioms loaned from the Indo-European language Swedish. Still the languages are grammatically and otherwise very different" Turks are Altai people. Hungarians are Urals with Altai mixture(Huns), they speak Ural language now, they do not use Altai, grammatically. Huns are also Altai people, so they use Attila name. Attila lived in 300-400's. In 1400's and 1500's, Turks and Hungarians made wars, some share of history started. Greek language has more Turkish words than Hungarian, but they are not linguistically related at all. But, Hungarians are mixture of Ural and Altai peoples. Finnish is very similar to Hungarian. But, Swedish is very similar to German. I think Finnish as a Ural language is somewhat similar to Turkish, because you write and read the same way, in both languages, for example. At first sight, Indian and English seem very different, but they are grammatically related. Why is not Finnish and Turkish related, whereas Indian, Persian, English are proven to be related? I will search for it. Nevertheless, even if Ural and Altai are distinct families, we know Hungarians are mixed with Altais. Also, Turkish and Hungarian does not share a lot of vocabulary, but less vocabulary. Finally, links between Turks and Hungarians are at very past(300), but sharing of a lot of vocabulary is at near past(1500).Ayasi 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC) I mean by Uralic peoples, all different ethnic groups that speak Uralic languages. I know genetics is different than language ties. Also, I am more interested in linguistics than genetics. I mean Hindi,Urdi,etc. by Indian (Indo in Indo-European), not Dravidian language families, of course. And, Sanksrit is very different than English in vocabulary, and only experts can see the similarity. By Hun blood which also explains Attila name, you mean genetical heritage, of course. Because, blood concept is Aristotle's thesis for heritage, and not modern. (Although I am not interested in genetics, 4 years ago I was interested and I read that in a biology book.) Maybe, Ural-Altai concept can be wrong, but I don't think Altai languages concept is wrong. Because, Japanese and Turkic languages (especially Kazakh) are very similar, in rules; but they are different in vocabulary since Japanese loans words from Chinese, or Turkic languages loan words from Persian, Arabic. Turkish people who learn Japanese see the similarity, but I do not know Japanese. Ayasi 11:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dont edit the ipaetus article.crackpot to you maybe but it is theory.If you feel it is crackpot then why dont you del the 9\11 conspiracy theory all together. do yourself a favor and dont edit this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 06:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've put a proposed rewrite of the final section of this on the article's talk page (in response to your December comment!). Comments? Chrislintott 11:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made up the planetary number for designating planets, including planets in our solar system and extrasolar planets. Planets in our solar system are numbered from 0-7 in the order of apparent magnitude and extrasolar planets are numbered from above 7 in order of discovery. When designating planets, it must have P followed by a number with no space.

Is that's OK that I'll or you'll could put planetary number into some wikipedia articles about the planets.

Is that's OK that I'll or you'll create planetary number article. If so, it needs reliable sources before creation, otherwise the new article will be deleted.

--BlueEarth 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers in planetary number is infinitely many. Even if there are tens of thousands of exoplanets in next couple decades, the planetary number will be in the range of 10 × 10⁵. It is possible to number all of the planets in our galaxy, using in billions. If there are 1080 billion planets in our galaxy, the highest planetary number is 1080 billion. We never use all of the numbers. It is just like numbering stars using the star catalogues. For example, HD catalogue can number up to 225,000 while HIP number up to 115,100. I'm a person that I'm making up the numbering system for designating planets. When I'm going to be an astronomer, I will make planetary number to be used in scientific literature, even if I work in IAU. BlueEarth 19:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't IAU will never name extrasolar planets, but it should. We should start naming extrasolar planets. Only few extrasolar planets have unofficial names. Stars, galaxies, nebulas, clusters, and galaxy clusters are extrasolar objects that have names. In our solar system; planets, dwarf planets, moons, asteroids, TNO, SDOs, and comets have names. BlueEarth 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm naming some of the extrasolar planets. I should name important exoplanets, exoplanets that orbit BF stars, and some exoplanets that used other techniques other than radial velocity. BlueEarth 20:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the Microsoft Word article about the 'List of planets' including planets in our solar system and extrasolar planets. The other desinations for planets are by constellation, by year, and by parent star. In parent star, I used numbers after 'P' with no space instead of using b,c,d and so on. Same thing for other designations above. It also includes planetary number and names. The rest of them includes mass type, composition type, and appearance type. BlueEarth 20:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to draw your attention to Talk: Aldebaran in fiction, where User:AldeBaer apparently has a grand plan to stuff all the "(Astronomical location) in fiction" articles back into their respective non-fictional articles -- starting with dumping all of the "Aldebaran in fiction" refs into Aldebaran, which would leave us back where we started. Any input to the discussion would be appreciated. RandomCritic 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constellations in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Constellations in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constellations in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Constellations in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be preciated that if you should add discovery locations to every extrasolar planet articles, I added some. Extrasolar planet articles should importantly include discovery location in their templates about where the discovery of planets take place. BlueEarth 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius in fiction, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Sirius in fiction satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirius in fiction and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Sirius in fiction during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 14:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

HI please try to add a bit more detail about location or at least the coordinates. Cheers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also please index Lake Konnevesi should be indexed as CategorY:Lake Konnevesi|Konnevesi under K . Keep up the new articles ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 19:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, right.— JyriL ^talk 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Are you interested in a meetup for contributors of the English language Wikipedia in Finland? If so, please comment at Wikipedia:Meetup/Helsinki (and, of course, invite other Wikipedians you know who might be interested). Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good god. I had no idea. I am certainly learning a lot about conduct on Wikipedia from reading the dialogue between other users and User:BlueEarth. How old is this person anyway. I am shocked at the number of Articles this person has credited to themselves. I suspect that at least one professional Astronomer has quit Wikipedia over this user (ie. Dr.Millimeter). I was not sure at first whether to take him/her seriously or as a vandal. If you have anything you thing I should know I would gladly read it.
Thanks - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask you, because I didn't want to make the same mistakes that BlueEarth did, the who/when/why of changing or adding to articles because. I created a formula from combining a couple of simple astronomy formulas and rearranging them alegbraically. I don't consider this new or (OR) original research being that it is so simple it just seems to me that it has been overlooked. This is a link to the formula, which I use to calculate the insolation for any (extrasolar) planet where the necessary values are known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Insolation
I gather that if it is considered "OR" it will be deleted, is that the case(?), because L=4π·R²aT⁴ and L=4π·d²f are both pretty basic astronomy formulas, and algebra is not original, so f=(R²aT⁴) ÷d² can't be original, right?
-GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that forest planets is a type of habitable planets may likely exist orbiting the stars, and so is the ocean and desert planets.

I written this article by hypothesizing whats the forest planet would be like and its nature. The reason I didn't add references to forest planet article is that because I was searching for web for forest planet and couldn't find good sites. I would like to have somebody add references to the article.

The forest planet article does contain examples of science fiction as Star Wars and Star Trek, and as a type of hypothetical planet.

I've added astronomy categories of desert planet article including Mars, extrasolar planet, and types of planet in addition to fictional planets and science fiction themes, because desert planet is also a hypothetical type of planet, but Mars is most likely a desert planet, so desert planet is a fact.

I knew that Bryan Derksen had created ocean planet recently, but the article doesn't contain info about science fiction. This article is pure astronomical. BlueEarth (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I counted the total numbers of Bayer-Flamsteed stars for every constellations in Wikipedia via the list of stars by constellation and I came up with 3364 stars, but when I looked up in wikisky.org_all_groups, there are 4118 stars. Which numbers of stars is more publishly correct. If 4118, does the list of stars by constellation in Wikipedia contain all these stars? I don't think that Star Table List contain every BF stars.

I also just created PS catalog (Planetary System catalogue) to be used to catalog stars with planets in numbers in order of discovery of orbiting planets. BlueEarth (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in this website and found that there is no table of all BF stars in each constellations, but all about the information about the table. The info about the table is not just BF stars but also HD/HIP stars. Can you find the website and post an external link on my talk page that goes directly to the table of only BF stars. BlueEarth (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know exactly how many Bayer and Flamsteed stars are there? In these wikipedia articles, I putted 1564 Bayer stars and 2554 Flamsteed stars from wikisky.org. BlueEarth (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do most BF stars have known physical properties such as mass, radius, luminosity, and surface temperature. BlueEarth (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could use rollback, so I gave it to you. This is the full spiel. Cheers, NoSeptember 14:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• unknown, planet lies within the Elliptical galaxy YGKOW G1

Why was this planet removed from the list. If it was a possible detection that cannot be proven, would it not be listed here? Marasama (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The elliptical galaxy designation confused me. Readded with a comment.— JyriL ^talk 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Marasama (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make tables for all list of stars by constellation articles sortable for all columns nicely. BlueEarth (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have other things to do. Why can't you do it by yourself? If there are quirks, they're due to limitations in the table sorting template or in JavaScript itself. — JyriL ^talk 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that to make tables sortable, I would have to delete splitted columns as shown below:

Before

After

--BlueEarth (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what source did you use for 220 Stephania (and others) regarding spectral type? According to JPL it is an XC-type and not a P-type. --Harald Khan Ճ 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am appreciating that you should redirect some of the red linked letters in candidates section of list of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets to a planet section of stars with extrasolar planets articles. BlueEarth (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that about 77% of all extrasolar planets have inclinations between 45-135°. I posted this into the extrasolar planet article under measured properties section on 23:16 May 7, 2008. BlueEarth (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. How did you end up with that value? — JyriL ^talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because me and some astronomers think that most protoplanetary disks made from galactic disk and molecular starcloud take place between 45° to 135° to the plane of the Milky Way. After when stars form, they flatten out into protoplanetary disks as newborn stars move around the center of our galaxy. Protoplanetary disks are usually flatten out with some slope to the plane of our galaxy by the shaping effect of the rotating galactic disk. So planets orbiting the stars are in the same plane as stars orbit the center more commonly than perpendicular to that, and hence more edge-ons than face-ons to Earth. So we estimate the ratio as 77 edge-ons, 23 face-ons. BlueEarth (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you said is incorrect. Stellar axes are pretty much randomly distributed. --— JyriL ^talk 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page PSR B1257+12 b to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vähän luulen, että tämä paikka ei ole Turussa... =) JIP | Talk 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jyril,

I've proposed to move List of asteroids and related pages (meanings of names, subpages, etc.) to List of minor planets etc., since that's the official terminology and it's a bit weird to call Pluto or even Quaoar an "asteroid". Since this will require a bot, I want to be sure there are no objections before going ahead. So far the vote has been in favor. kwami (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Precambrian has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jyril. Since you have created 1,300 articles, I have requested for you to get autoreviewer rights. This won't affect your editing any, it will just mark pages you create as patrolled automatically. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I've granted the permission. Keep up the good work. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — JyriL ^talk 07:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Phanerozoic Footer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cenozoic Footer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eon Footer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created was nominated for deletion: Stars_in_astrology

The AfD discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stars_in_astrology

MakeSense64 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ISS011 Upheaval Dome.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bright giant stars, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subgiant stars, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Z Centauri, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox extrasolar planet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pluto system.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mesozoic Footer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —hike395 (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Impact craters of Panama indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peculiar variables has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PopePompus (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]