User talk:Red Planet X (Hercolubus)

JamesBWatson

I don't think that James Watson have insulted me by saying "the editor who uses the pseudonym" it's just called like that. Space Infinite (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC) ![reply]

Further - changing (in your case completely removing) another editor's talk comments is very bad form. Doing it on someone else's ralk page, even worse. Down that path only bad things can happen. Lithopsian (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of largest stars.

If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Space Infinite (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC) ![reply]

July 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Space Infinite, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Diff #1 & diff #2. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3-revert rule violation

Your recent editing history at List of largest stars shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS!!!!!!!!!!!! Red Planet X (Hercolubus) 18:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR. Your behaviour today is apt to get you blocked. Your changes weren't helpful and undoing everyone who tells you that is even less helpful. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Hello, I'm Tarl N.. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of largest stars have been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also reverted an edit you made to XX Persei, you added Levesque as a citation, but the Levesque article doesn't mention XX Persei. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UY Scuti

I reverted your changes at UY Scuti - it seems all you did was add two blanks in the middle of the starbox. Please don't make edits like this, other editors have to review your edits and this adds needless additional work. If you wish to test edits, please use the sandbox. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 23:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ways to improve Kepler-418 b

Hi, I'm Lithopsian. Red Planet X (Hercolubus), thanks for creating Kepler-418 b!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Joke, yes? None of the databases you list support your claim for such a large planet.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Lithopsian (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 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 List of largest stars page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help) and a broken reference name (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) 00:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this error and a number of other errors that you introduced. You may want to revisit the article and take a look at its history to see what I changed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary

Hello and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, I noticed that your edit summary in this edit is not civil and constitutes a personal attack. Please try to be more calm and help us to build a civil community. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 13:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What ? But it was not me who did it ! And and you're not really UY Sct ?

UY Scuti, do you mean this edit (I think you mis-pasted)? I agree. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information (eg. XX Persei)

We know the information is missing. No need to add a tag. Lots of other information is also missing. When you find it quoted in a reliable source, add it to the article. Until then, I know what the radius is (best guess from current research) but I'm not a reliable source. Although I'm curious where you keep getting the number 1300? Do you have a source for that, or did it come to your in a dream? Lithopsian (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He mistakenly thought that 1,737,000,000 km = 1,300 R_☉ (actual: ~1,247.5 R_☉). The 1,737,000,000 km for XX Persei actually came from a YouTube video made by a person named "Adzim Rosly". YouTube is normally not a reliable source but the 1,247.5 R_☉ could have been calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law with data from Simbad, etc. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 23:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve BU Geminorum

Hi, I'm Space Infinite. Red Planet X (Hercolubus), thanks for creating BU Geminorum!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The easiest way to create a star article is often just to copy an existing one. Then you get all the expected starboxes and tags.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. THE INFI NITE SPACE X 17:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve L1551 IRS 5

Hi, I'm Space Infinite. Red Planet X (Hercolubus), thanks for creating L1551 IRS 5!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The easiest way to create a star article is often just to copy an existing one. Then you get all the expected starboxes and tags.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. THE INFI NITE SPACE X 12:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Red Planet X (Hercolubus). 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)[reply]

Deletion discussion about V1749 Cygni

Hello, Red Black (Hercolubus),

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether V1749 Cygni should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V1749 Cygni .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Regards— ~ THE INFI NITE SPACE X 12:16 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Kepler-418b

Hello, Red Black (Hercolubus),

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Kepler-418b should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler-418b .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Regards— ~ THE INFI NITE SPACE X 20:55 06 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Hello, I'm Krishna Chaitanya Velaga. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of largest exoplanets have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have used Universe Sandbox 2

plus this [1]

Maps of ancient continents - possible copyright violation

The maps you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons showing the configuration of ancient landmasses since 3300 Ma appear to be derivative works (annotation) of maps in a YouTube video (version 1 is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwWWuttntio with still frames at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-zMzkcijSB9Z2lIOWlUdC04RjQ ; version 2 is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovT90wYrVk4 with still frames at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-zMzkcijSB9flBTQVVyRUtBQlNjT1M3VEdpSXFMeE5BazVEbTNwdFk0elBTQUVRWnJXYjA ). These videos have a copyright licence of "Standard YouTube Licence", which I think allows only non-commercial reuse. I think this restriction would also cover any derivative works. I think this is not compatible with the licensing requirements of Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. Therefore, as there is no evidence to show that you are the creator of the original YouTube images, I have tagged one of the images you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation. You may wish to respond at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nuna_1600mya.png GeoWriter (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry !

YT is not a reliable source. So is US². — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:817C:1730:5906:3419:91D1:F3D (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (List of coolest stars) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of coolest stars, Red Planet X (Hercolubus)!

Wikipedia editor Lithopsian just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Needs work. Must be hundreds of brown dwarfs, many of them with WP articles.

To reply, leave a comment on Lithopsian's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygenian listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Oxygenian. Since you had some involvement with the Oxygenian redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jatulian listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jatulian. Since you had some involvement with the Jatulian redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eukaryian listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eukaryian. Since you had some involvement with the Eukaryian redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Columbian Period listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Columbian Period. Since you had some involvement with the Columbian Period redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rodinian listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rodinian. Since you had some involvement with the Rodinian redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Water on Earth => 4.412 or 4.4 bya or other?

@Red Planet X (Hercolubus): Thank you for your recent edits on the {{Nature timeline}} -
QUESTION: Do you have a reference to support your noted 4.412 bya data? So far, I've found cited support for the 4.4 bya data at the following => "Origin of water on Earth#Water in the development of Earth" - and - "National Science Foundation (2001)" - Several references, "NASA (2005)" - and - "National Geographic (2001)", suggests a more recent date => 4.3 bya - in any case - Thanks again for your edits - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Planet X (Hercolubus): BRIEF Followup - answer may have been found - seems the oceans may have formed as early as => at least 4.404 ± 0.008 bya - based on dating of Zircon minerals^[1] - this seems to account for your noted 4.412 bya data - in any regards - Thanks again for your recent editing efforts - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Wilde S.A., Valley J.W., Peck W.H. and Graham C.M. (2001). "Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago" (PDF). Nature. 409 (6817): 175–8. doi:10.1038/35051550. PMID 11196637.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlantica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Pannotia. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding you and User:V620 Cephei to a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A template you created has been nominated for deletion

Nomination for deletion of Template:The 10 largest stars by radius

Template:The 10 largest stars by radius has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 2407:7000:A269:8200:1D14:E2BA:760:EBBE (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Wilde-1] Wilde S.A., Valley J.W., Peck W.H. and Graham C.M. (2001). "Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago" (PDF). Nature. 409 (6817): 175–8. doi:10.1038/35051550. PMID 11196637.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]