User talk:V620 Cephei
V620 Cephei, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi V620 Cephei! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC) |
Shared account?
[edit]Can you explain the meaning of your recent edits to the page User talk:Space Infinite? Does it mean that another editor allowed you to use their account? Also, I would still like an answer to the question I asked there about 7 hours ago, and which I now see I had previously asked in June. If the edits were made by you, can you please answer? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
List of largest stars
[edit]Hello, V620 Cephei! I am glad that you are contributing meaningfully to our project! But your recent edits in List of largest stars seems to be inappropriate to me. You always make a note about UY Scuti. Here:
"UY Sct is a red supergiant star located in the constellation Scutum."
This edit was done repeatedly since last year. I assume you are the same person. Let's be clear. First of all, we are at the sizes of stars. Just sizes. This article is no longer concerned about its location. It was obviously in Scutum; that's why it has the genitive Scuti. Dunno if you can't even comprehend that, even to a 6 year old child. And that info should be provided by the article of the star.
"However, the quoted size was measured at indirect methods so it is simply just an estimate."
This was already explained at the headline of the article. In addition, possibly all the stars above V528 Carinae are all based on indirect methods and estimates. No need to repeat it.
"With its smallest value, its size would be similar to that of V354 Cephei (see below). With its largest value, its size would be similar to that of the possible size of VV Cephei A."
Things are unclear, my friend. Putting this list is like typing a keyboard in the dark. Judging which star is where and what is the size is like finding a needle ina haysack. It is so, so unclear! We need to just at least put an imagery on a person's mind reading it, that if things are wrong and UY Scuti is smaller, it would be similar to V354 Cephei. VV Cephei A? No, not at all. I don't think it's a good star to be compared of.
" Despite its large size, UY Sct is not classified as a hypergiant. There is an MKK luminosity class 0 (zero) for hypergiants. It is approximately 2 times the size of the famous Betelgeuse."
The issue whether UY Scuti is a hypergiant or not is no longer an issue of this article. Furthermore, although indeed Betelgeuse is famous, it is not a good choice since it was way below the list. In addition, we already have a star for comparison, V354 Cephei. No need to be added.
"At its larger size, its size would be similar to that of size of VV Cephei A given by Hayasaka."
What?! "At its larger size, its size..."? No sh*t sherlock, but this one of the worst redundancies I've ever seen.
I edited it towards the pre-September conditions. If you have any concerns, or you want to clarify and defend your edit, just talk to me at my talk. Thank you! No hard feelings doc. SkyFlubbler (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Calm down, don't be crazy ok! I'm not 6 years old, I'm 13 years old!
And sorry for the bad grammar because I don't speak english, I'm french!
Missing information (eg. List of largest stars)
[edit]We know the information is missing. Lots of other information is also missing. When you find it quoted in a reliable source. Until then, I know what the Theta Muscae Ac and XX Persei's radius are but I'm not a reliable source. Although I'm curious where you keep getting the numbers 1,250 (for XX Per) and 804 (for Theta Muscae Ac)? Do you have a source for that, or did it come to your in a dream? THE INFINITE SPACE X 17:28 9 November 2016 (UTC)
May 2017
[edit]
Do not use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at 2A01:E35:8BCD:7270:34AE:18FF:6CC3:C426 (Maybe). Such attempts to avoid detection or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
In fact the board was wrong because 4.6 Gya - 10 Gya is not 4.6 Gya, it is 4.59 Gya, The origin of life is 4.28 Gya according to Timeline of natural history!
A page you started (Zirconian) has been reviewed!
[edit]Thanks for creating Zirconian, V620 Cephei!
Wikipedia editor Salimfadhley just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Please consider adding this era to Template:Geological history for consistency.
To reply, leave a comment on Salimfadhley's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.