Be nice or be gone. Thank you.

Hi Praemonitus! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For identifying a hoax that has now been removed. Good work! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second that - congratulations on spotting this as a hoax. You did exactly the right thing to put a {{hoax}} tag on it - that adds it to a category where people like me who are interested in demolishing hoaxes will see it and check it out (and sometimes find it's real after all). When I saw it there, I checked up on it, and nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cayperl plateau. That would normally start a discussion, lasting seven days, anyone can comment and recommend keep or delete, and at the end an uninvolved administrator would decide what to do, based on the arguments put forward, not on a count of heads.

However Beeblebrox, another admin and an Alaskan himself, looking at my nomination, decided it was a blatant enough hoax to qualify for speedy deletion, and zapped it.

What put you onto it? I am always annoyed to see that well-meaning editors fuss around something like this, tidying it up and correcting the format, and never bother to take five minutes to check whither it is just made-up nonsense. Welcome, again! Here are some links that you may find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Beeblebrox and JohnCD. I tried to find corroborating references, but I couldn't locate anything. There is almost always something published on a geological landform like this. The unsubstantiated part about a well-known politician like Sarah Palin made me suspicious. Praemonitus (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for adding a citation to Ravenloft: Stone Prophet from Computer Gaming World. I was wondering, would you be able to add anything from there to the Reception section? BOZ (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can obtain a copy of that issue from the CGW Museum. There's further information in that article you should be able to use. Praemonitus (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I can't check that out from work, but I will take a look at it when I'm at home. BOZ (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at the article, and suggesting changes. You have my thanks for averting a edit war, which is never a good thing, even to get started. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.156.92 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. Praemonitus (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Mason Clarke is no doubt a very good article. I just thought that the "Biography" part could be divided into smaller sections to make it more accessible. Do you disagree? ~ Anastasia (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My sense of the guidance from WP:BODY is that short sections are generally discouraged. As there are only four paragraphs in the Biography section, I don't feel that further sub-division would be beneficial in this regard. Once the article is expanded further, additional sections will then be needed. Praemonitus (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive comments and copy-edits, much appreciated. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Praemonitus (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its always great to have people who not only review articles, but do some copyediting as well...This edit was definitely helpful. Thank you! I'll try and address the concerns you have raised at the FAC by tomorrow evening.--MONGO 02:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Explorer II, and I have a few questions. Chris857 (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Explorer II, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Captains Albert W. Stevens and Orvil A. Anderson set a new altitude record on November 11, 1935 by ascending to 72,395 feet (22,066 m) on the helium balloon Explorer II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Explorer II. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Praemonitus (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the time you spent to comment at the FAC for Fort Yellowstone.--MONGO 02:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Congratulations on pushing the article through for promotion. Praemonitus (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Praemonitus,

I am requesting input from all participants in the discussion from the recent Signpost article on sexism in Wikipedia for a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams#Proposed change: consistency in article title gendering. Thank you in advance for any contributions to the discussion. Dkreisst (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see Talk:Future of the Earth#KIC 12557548 b. Thank you. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick update. ThanksGlevum (talk)

Hello! Since you were very helpful a few months ago when I nominated "Deadalive" for FA, I was wondering if you could drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/X-Cops (The X-Files)/archive1 and cast a vote/provide suggestions. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Redd Foxx 1991. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 09:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The behavior of this user came to my attention when he removed a cleanup template I had added to an article. He made no attempt to address the concern, nor did he leave a message explaining why he removed the template. I went back and checked his prior edits and found he had repeatedly behaved in this manner despite multiple previous warnings. I wanted to discuss it with him, but his talk page clearly showed that he never responds to messages. Hence I instead posted a limited audit trail of level 3 warnings for future reference, which you have now removed. Now I would appreciate if you could tell me how I did not assume good faith here? In what sense was his behavior good? Praemonitus (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should have really posted one warning for the last relevant edit he made, not a flood of five or six level three warnings. As for not assuming good faith, I didn't say nor imply his behavior was good, because it wasn't. That doesn't mean you need to repeat his behavior. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your concern was simply the number, then I shall just replace them with a single merged message. Thanks for the clarification. Praemonitus (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To continue, how would you recommend I handle this edit today? Or this? Or this? Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend issuing a level four warning for those three, and if the user does it again, report to AIV. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take another look at this? Then we'll close the PR and request featured status. 512bits (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should close automatically. I'd leave it open until then in case anybody else wants to comment. Praemonitus (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a few moments, I was planning on putting up Pavo (constellation) next, so all input good. These listy-type constellation articles can be tricky to make the prose engaging. Triangulum is on its way too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few edits of the Pavo article. Hopefully those were helpful, but if not please revert. Praemonitus (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking as you go. Looks good. just kneading these articles a bit is very helpful/thx... :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've helped out with several other articles I've submitted for FA consideration, is there anyway you could drop by either "Home" or "The Unnatural" and drop some comments, suggestions, or a vote? :) No rush! Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now Tucana is the third of the Southern Birds I have buffed. It passed GA but any comments on prose flow and readability would be much appreciated before FAC.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Q-go#Notability. -- Trevj (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC) -- Trevj (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for input on Tucana....now Musca is at FAC - all input appreciated as it's pretty quiet there....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind participating in the peer review of Caelum going on right now? It's been nearly 2 weeks with no feedback, so anything, positive or negative, would be greatly appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all your concerns; just let me know if you have anything else to add! StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We-ell Ian Ridpath alerted us to his page (thankfully) - see this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I have followed Musca with Grus -feared it was/isa bit rough around the edges...anyway input gratefully welcomed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grus (constellation)/archive1. More ambitious with next one after...Canis Major..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you kidly commented at Thopha saccata peer review....think we fixed everything we could or explained why we couldn't, so at FAC now - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thopha saccata/archive2....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once I've created an article about a galaxy NGC something just to be able to say that I've created an article. I see you did the same, but many times.Tetra quark (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tetra. Yes, I made a few articles. Praemonitus (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,
Can you copyedit CG 4, specially in the structure section? I failed many a times and the no. of threads in Template:Did you know nominations/CG 4 increase just because I don't do good copyediting. Please....-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 12:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a try. Praemonitus (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again on that. Can you please update FAC of 61 Cygni? -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to update. My concerns haven't all been addressed, so for now I'm just going to wait and see. Praemonitus (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Outer space you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Outer space for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Brirush -- Brirush (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be disruptive. Replacing commas with thin spaces was not the main aim of of the edits which introduced {{val}}; it was more about spacing of the errors. However, considering that the articles in question are science articles, thin spaces make sense. Jimp 02:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a comma is less ambiguous and less likely to cause issues with scanning software. But really it should be discussed in the WP:AST before making a sweeping change in style to any astronomy articles, just to see if the astronomy community is okay with the revision. They might be open to it. Praemonitus (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WDS catalog gives 137 arcsec separation, while the listing in Jim Kaler's Stars page gives 90 arcsec. I don't really mind which we use, but given the large proper motion they could both be correct for different years. What do you think about giving the separation in arcmin with lower precision? --Amble (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WDS entry lists 110.8″ for 1911 and 137.0″ for 2000; I don't know where Jim Kaler is getting his data from, but his value is smaller than the separation has been for the last century. Praemonitus (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the two listed observations. The proper motion of tau ceti is 2″ per year, and the position angles for 1911 and 2000 differ by about 90°. This suggests that Tau Ceti is moving past the background star as seen from Earth, and reached a minimum separation at some time between 1911 and 2000. It could easily have been 90″ in some intervening year. It certainly won't be 137.0″ today, so simply stating that value as correct is a case of false precision. That's why I suggested giving a figure in arcmin with lower precision. If we do cite the 137.0″ value, more explanation is needed. --Amble (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Of course we also don't have an uncertainty listed for any of the three values.) --Amble (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your thinking is reasonable, but I would prefer to use the estimate listed in the WDS, while saying "As of 2000". Praemonitus (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your massive contributions to the CarloscomB cleanup effort! Your conscientiousness here has not gone unnoticed, as you have turned multiple terrible articles into high-quality, accurate stubs. Keep up the awesome work! StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was amazing to really take up the slack and cleanup here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas. Glad I could be of some help. Praemonitus (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You have undid my change in the article "outer space" for 100 km sentence. The article that I have added was a non profit aerospace journal whereas the one you have added is an ebook which you can buy for 133 euros. This tends to be an advertisement even if you wouldn't like to do so. Could you please replace it with my article back?

Thanks

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diyetisyenece (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I reverted it because, frankly, it was unclear and poorly written. The fact that the explanation is already covered in the body of the article was a reason to remove it from the lead: the lead is only intended to be a brief summary of the body (per WP:LEAD). I'll add your reference to the explanation in the body. Praemonitus (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Your biographies of scientists and astronomers are well done. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Magnolia677. Praemonitus (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praemonitus, I just noticed that you edited about 90 of the 2,000 sub-pages of the List of minor planets § Main index from 11 to 28 December last year. In order to avoid frustration, I'd like to let you know, that your removal of red-links on this list will be undone by the next run of the automated update procedure. Among other things, this procedure adds a redlink to every entry of a named minor planet, for which neither an article nor a redirect exists. You can avoid automated linking by creating a #REDIRECT that points to the corresponding entry in the list. This would also be consistent with the existing practice of redirecting non-notable minor planets to the list. Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 04:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the notification Rfassbind. Note that there were red links for non-named asteroids as well. Praemonitus (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed them as well (they already existed). I was actually thinking about removing all redlinks on provisional designations... what is your thought on them? -- Rfassbind – talk 17:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well none of the red links I removed were at all notable, so I'm not sure I see a benefit in maintaining them. Beyond the low thousands, I'd estimate the odds are pretty low for an object to be notable. Praemonitus (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check this online-tool for future edits on linked minor planets in the List of minor planets. Compared to manual edits, this semi-automated tool should reduce the number of edit slip-ups (e.g. here). Rfassbind – talk 13:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the link Rfassbind. Praemonitus (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Coastline of Western AustraliaI am not sure how long merge silences seem to indicate disinterest, and subsequent closure of merge suggestions, I created both articles, and see that 'regions' could expand considerably, and also the coastline article could expand as well, necessitating from my perspective as creator of both, a distinction between the two. However, despite vigorous and space consuming debates with fellow west australians elsewhere about coastal issues, none of the fellow editors have bothered to even ventured into the realm of merge discussion. But this is a mere pin prick on time waiting for comment, the highly esteemed Tasmania wikiproject, some attempts to enlist interest or comment, a year to 18 months is required to elicit a response, a stellar distance in time to usual wikipedia processes. However, simply to move the merge tag on your part simply reinforces my own prediliction to remain tasmanian and silent on the matter of discussion seeins that I created both in the first place, it is always nice when someone actually turns up and discusses things. But then, moving a tag is hardly a discussion. Have a good day ! JarrahTree 23:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, well I don't have any particular preference with regards to a merge; my edit was just to make it easier to start reading the content. Praemonitus (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well the people most likely to have discussed havent, I think I will ask someone to remove the notice (it would not be appropriate for me to do so), and retain my distance. cheers JarrahTree 23:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you've done some edits (like this one) where you replaced a bunch of template-based hatnotes with a single manual hatnote. While I can't really object to collapsing the hatnotes into one, please use {{hatnote}} for such edits rather than manual :'' formatting. The manual formatting is bad semantics and breaks some things like Hovercards, while there's no problem if you use {{hatnote}}. Thanks, {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. Praemonitus (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind [1]. Thanks for your very intelligent contribution! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the wrong editor. No worries. Praemonitus (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NGC 1614, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the luminous barred spiral galaxy NGC 1614 is undergoing a minor merger event which has triggered a starburst region around the galactic core? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NGC 1614. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The West Virginia Barnstar
		Praemonitus, I hereby award you The West Virginia Barnstar for your thoughtful review of Literary Hall which helped to promote the article to Featured Article status. Thank you for elevating an important West Virginia historic landmark article to Featured Article status, which will allow a larger audience to learn about West Virginia's history, its people, and its culture. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WV. It wasn't much, but I'm glad I could be of some help. Congratulations on getting the article promoted. Praemonitus (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one isn't gathering much interest at FAC...not sure whether subject matter or maybe prose a bit dry. If you could look it over I'd be grateful....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I sort of took a few runs at it and fixed some things. I'll do a review. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do a similar magical 'heirarchy or orbits' chart that you did for Beta Scorpii for Beta Capricorni, please. :) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll have a look when I have a little time. Praemonitus (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praemonitus, I noticed that you created the redirect Antares Observatory that points to the List of observatory codes. More specifically, it points to the anchor on H55: Astronomical Research Observatory (ARO) at Charleston, Illinois, US

Unfortunately I can't find anything about such Antares Observatory. Can you please help me understand? Thx, Rfassbind – talk 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rfassbind. The MPC Observatory Codes listing for H55 gives: Astronomical Research Observatory, Charleston. Based on the longitude, that's near Charleston, Illinois. Praemonitus (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So I presume there is no source-based reason why you created Antares Observatory rather than Astronomical Research Observatory for (H55). Correct? Rfassbind – talk 05:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's the name of the observatory used by Robert Holmes, who discovered SN 2006bg among others. That may have been why somebody added the name to the list entry. All I did was add a redirect for a potential search term. Beyond that, I don't really care. Do what you will. Praemonitus (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I found the name "Antares" in some old MPC-observatory-code list from 2006. So it's just an alternative/outdated name, which can be used as a (secondary) redirect. Sorry for being so inquisitive; I (mostly) expect others to know something I don't, especially when all I get are the lousy sources provided by the MPC.

As I will revise (rewrite) the entire List of observatory codes in the near future, I'd appreciate if you could find the time to double-check some of my amendments. Rfassbind – talk 14:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mare Tranquillitatis pit crater.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the corrections. I appreciate folks going in and working on the stubbies. I think all the notable stars are done now, finally. Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Praemonitus. While I must praise you for your edits and improvements for many, many stars, can you try looking at Iota Crateris, Kappa Crateris, Lambda Crateris, and Psi Crateris? These are all Bayer objects that are missing articles, and you seem to be very good at writing articles for these kinds of stars, based on the edits I've seen. Thanks in advance. Loooke (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll take a look when I get through my current list. Praemonitus (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Loooke: the articles are finished, but they did not prove to be very interesting objects. Praemonitus (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for possibly boring you. :) Many Bayer objects are kind of boring. I requested these stars because 1) you can find stellar parameters for these (mass, luminosities, age, etc.) and 2) a lot of people just tend to make one-sentence stubs, which I really don't like. Thanks again. Loooke (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You're quite welcome. Praemonitus (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being nosy, but are you aiming to un-stub every Bayer star? Or just the interesting ones ;) Lithopsian (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly aiming at getting the Bayer articles properly sourced. Now and then I create a new article just for the variety. Usually I'll try to grab one that looks interesting in some way. Praemonitus (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you were skeptical of my inclusion of total velocity for the article on Proxima Centauri, and I will admit, it is gained from data already existing in the article myself, but my question is if it would qualify under original research. It is simply the 3-dimensional line calculation made from the provided radial velocity, proper motion, and distance of the star. Would this qualify under WP:OR's "routine calculations" provision, as the answer is non-debatable based solely on the data it is based off of? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SYNTH. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That's exactly what you are doing. Tarl N. (discuss) 13:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@exoplanetaryscience: Yes, there are sources available for that type of data. But I'm not even clear what frame of reference is being used there. Are you listing the peculiar velocity with respect to the galactic rest frame, or is it the heliocentric velocity? That needs to be clarified. Praemonitus (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your responses to my comments at Wikipedia: Village Pump (ideas lab), and also for drawing to my attention to how Wikipedia has an article called "Parametric statistics". Perhaps, if one types in "Parametric data", it should be redirected there. Vorbee (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: Thanks. Well I wasn't quite sure whether that was what you intended. The redirect has just been created – it can always be expanded into a separate article later if somebody so desires. Praemonitus (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert was totally correct. I was just keeping track of the different articles that now disambiguate to free electron. The page originally pointed to Free electron model and I was just keeping track that it should point instead to Fermi gas. It was fixed with a redirect so your WP:NOTBROKEN was correct. Sorry for the confusion. --MaoGo (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you again on the astronomical object talk page. LovelyGirl7 talk 01:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Unfortunately I don't have much else to suggest. Praemonitus (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re [2], note that it's in fact the opposite: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Clearing_Category_Pages_using_citations_with_accessdate_and_no_URL. --Nemo 04:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo bis: Yes, but that's only seems to be true when we're more-or-less guaranteed the link won't go away, such as with a DOI. C.f. Help:Citation_Style_1#Access_date. I don't even recognize this address, and even if it is a University, we can't know how long they will make that service available. I prefer to have an accessdate present. It shouldn't hurt matters, at any rate. Praemonitus (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of laypeople like myself, I'm looking to add a compare/contrast statement that discriminates between the IGM, ICM, and WHIM. At the moment, if that information is indeed present in their respective articles, it is not intelligible to casual readers/those with no astronomical background. Would you be willing to help me with this? For example: do any of those overlap, and if so, can anything be said about what percent overlap? Is one a subset of another? That sort of thing. Thanks in advance for your consideration! Blue Danube (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Danube: Doesn't Outer_space#Intergalactic_space cover it? I haven't delved into that astronomy topic very much. Praemonitus (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary on Physical cosmology was much too snippy. I apologize and will do my best to follow your advice to "Be nice or be gone." – S. Rich (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm a user of russian wiki. I tried to find information in references of Nu Horologii article, that you have written. But there is something wrong there %) The last paragraph contains data doesn't match the sources (about a close encounter with the star Alpha Fornacis). Can it be a mistake? Best regards, -- Marhorr (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Marhorr: the Deltorn and Kalas (2001) paper refers to Nu Horologii as HD 17848 and Alpha Fornacis as HD 20010. Praemonitus (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, you're right absolutely! Thank you for answer! I'm just blind)) -- Marhorr (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marhorr: no problem at all. Glad I could help. Praemonitus (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I a posting to inform you that the Cretoxyrhina article has been renominated for FAC, which you helped review. Because the second FAC seems to be dragging out due to the absence of reviewers, I am posting on this talk page to let you know.

Macrophyseter | talk 02:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Cite Gaia DR2}} template produces citations in CS1 style. Would it be useful to have a CS2 option? Lithopsian (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian: that might be useful for demonstrating consistency when taking through an FA candidate. Otherwise I'm not really all that bothered. Praemonitus (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

. . . because of the in-your-face header on your Draft page, but please see WP:USERNOCAT: no one wants to see your Draft categorized alongside actual articles. Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: I messed up the comment tags on the cats. Sorry. Praemonitus (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a spam link you restored.[3] Please be careful. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Next time please provide a proper explanation in the message so we don't have to guess at your intent. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure that is fair :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Things are moving really slowly at the FAC...any input would be gratefully received......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are a prolific and highly respected author on Wikipedia. This is my first time posting a "talk" mesage in Wikipedia. The declination for Gamma Camelopardalis is wrong. It seems to have gone wrong when you edited the article in 2017. Version before your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamma_Camelopardalis&direction=prev&oldid=799760830 Version with/after your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamma_Camelopardalis&direction=next&oldid=780235947 The declination in the "Observational Data" box changed. The new dec is wrong; the old is approximately correct. I reach that conclusion by inspecting Norton's Star Atlas (1986) Map 2, or here. If I am wrong to attribute this typo to you, my apologies. I only mention it because you have written and edited many articles. If you have an automated system to enter star coordinates, then there might be other errors you want to check for. In the current version of Gamma Camelopardalis, the citation for the RA and Dec is a citation you added. I followed the link and downloaded the PDF. It does not provide the RA or Dec for this star or other objects. The article only explains how the Hipparcos mission data reduction worked. Respectfully, Rosewc (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosewc: Thank you for correcting the error. I'm only human and do make mistakes, so I appreciate it when those get fixed. Praemonitus (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think "possible" is better than "random", because the section is mentioning the events that they can be calculated with probability. It can be "Possible events"; the section is not including all of the possible events, however we're talking about mathematical events instead of the miracles. My edit didn't say "All possible events".Ahmetlii (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmetlii: Being able to calculate the probability doesn't suddenly make it non-random. Your revision is more ambiguous to me. Praemonitus (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit is more ambiguous. Random is used for other meanings rather than mathematics terminology, it can be confused with other meanings. Possible is better, because of the reasons that I mentioned.Ahmetlii (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmetlii: No, 'possible events' include events that are not necessarily random, but for which we don't have sufficient data to know with certainty. The Earth being swallowed up by a red giant Sun, for example. Hence, I see your version as more ambiguous. Some events are impossible to predict due to random interactions. If you just want to continue to disagree, please take it to the article talk page and get a consensus. Praemonitus (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, we can calculate them if we have enough data, right? :) Thanks again for your time. I will move this discussion to the discussion page.Ahmetlii (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmetlii: No. Just like it is impossible to predict the weather with perfect accuracy, there's no way to calculate which asteroids will impact the Earth and when with perfect accuracy. We do know with absolute certainty though that the Sun will become a red giant. Praemonitus (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to know with perfect accuracy. As an example, someone draw triangle, square, pentagon, hexagon.. inside the circle for calculate π. Don't need to know the exact π, and it's impossible due to uncertainty principle; but also everything can be provable and everything is not completed because of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. So, I'm still suggesting "possible events". Ahmetlii (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmetlii: Thanks. Changing to 'Possible' just reduces clarity. 'Potential' might work, and has a slightly higher clarity since it speaks to the future. Praemonitus (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ahmetlii (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On User:Praemonitus/Draft, the Haumy1996 reference has two different "first69" values, causing the page to be categorized in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. Per your "Hands off" message, I haven't edited it myself. Can you fix that to remove the page from the category? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmcbarn: Hopefully it's fixed now. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know an article's importance could be "bottom". Thanks for the laugh, and I will have to remember that for the next charlatan's bio. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assessing Marat Arakelian for WikiProject Astronomy. - TimDWilliamson ^speak 21:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Phebe Estelle Spalding! If you're looking at other early Pomona faculty, Frank Brackett is still redlinked as has a bunch of sources waiting at the list page. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Space Barnstar
		Thank you for your star-studded work on Wikipedia. It is most helpful and much appreciated. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 23:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Space Barnstar
		For your contributions to articles on stars and other astronomy-related topics! Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have no expertise in this field and no opinion about how the Moon article should read. But it looks like the ref after the following sentence (Rebecca Boyle's article) supports the statement you've tagged as "vague". Check it out & see if you think the ref is valid, and/or if it's maybe placed on the wrong sentence. - Special-T (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Special-T: Hello. I'm sure the statement is probably correct. I'm just saying, what is that actually telling us about the Moon? Nothing, as far as I can see. It just says we guessed wrong before, but why does that matter? Praemonitus (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some years back, I noticed - by this point, I'm not sure how I noticed, but probably it was by patrolling newpages in userspace - that you had created a userspace subpage based on the content of Woman's Who's Who of America (1914 edition), to serve as a list of useful redlinks. I mentioned this as a useful resource on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles.

A few months later, you requested that the subpage be deleted, and it was.

Yesterday, while skimming my old contributions from that namespace, I discovered that this had happened. Would you have any objection to my salvaging the content from your deleted page and mirroring it in my userspace? DS (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: To be honest, I don't even remember anything like that. I do keep a draft page that I have used for building various articles: User:Praemonitus/Draft, and that includes a convenience link to the 1914 Women's Who's Who google scan. Perhaps that is what you mean? There's not much of interest on there at the moment. Praemonitus (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean User:Praemonitus/Who's Who (created April 2013, filled with useful redlinks, deleted July 2013). Confirm it's okay with you that I restore the content? DS (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: Sure, I suppose. Praemonitus (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For HD 24479, how did you calculate the log luminosity and temperature, because I tried for HD 167257 to no avail. 400Weir (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@400Weir: For the logT range of 4.022±0.003, I get upper 4.025, mean 4.022, and lower 4.019 logs for an error range, or 10,592, 10,520, and 10,447 K. (10^4.025 = 10,592, after rounding off.) That gives me a single deviation margin of error range around the mean of 10,520: 10,592-10,520 = 72; 10,520-10,447 = 73. Oops, I guess there's an error. It should be 10,520+72
−73. Hope that helps. Praemonitus (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praemonitus: Thanks for the tip! 400Weir (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it through - assumed "north at the top" was a universal standard in images. But of course (as you pointed out) denizens of the southern hemisphere see lunar north at the bottom. - Special-T (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Special-T: Yes it's not something immediately obvious to us northern hemisphere dwellers. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praemonitus! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Venus that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Please note specifically that addition of visible maintenance templates should not be marked as minor. DrKay (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay:: I did not add a maintenance template; I restored it. That seems pretty minor. I didn't want to warn the original removal, but it can be viewed as inappropriate. Praemonitus (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note specifically that addition of visible maintenance templates should not be marked as minor. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If I'm going to be pedantically warned over minor edit use, I will no longer bother using the minor edit flag. Praemonitus (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you could check Mars also during Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mars/archive1. 2001:4455:656:5900:59E4:79F7:A1C4:1441 (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly avoided the Mars article because it seems likely to already be getting enough attention. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've been making good progress on it... apart from some frustrating details. Why would some sources list the synodic period as 779.94 days and others as 779.96 days? (tears out own hair) XOR'easter (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: Well, they may just be taken from two different data sets with their own margins of error. As my Dad says, a man with two wrist watches never knows the time. I'd just pick one. Most reliable sources seem to use the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac as a reference. I get a value of 779.9361 from Allen (2000). That's essentially the same as the value in the Mars Fact Sheet from NASA, with rounding. Praemonitus (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the best thing to do. XOR'easter (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jupiter you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mover of molehills -- Mover of molehills (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mover of molehills: Thank you. I look forward to your findings. Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit-war, as you are doing at Venus. I have disagreed with you in good faith that the size of Venus relative to the other planets is one of the key pieces of information that belong in its lead description. I feel very strongly that the original editor who put this in the first sentence of the source was correct to do so. It is the sort of information that any school-kid will associate with Venus, the sort of information that would instantly spring to the mind of someone setting pub-quiz questions. It's certainly as relevant as the origin of the name. It is bad form to re-revert when you've been challenged in good faith. I would suggest that you self-revert and open the subject for discussion at the talk-page. Elemimele (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jupiter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jupiter for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mover of molehills -- Mover of molehills (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to improve Jupiter to FA, but I don't know how. What should I do? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane: You could try taking it through the WP:FAC process. You may need to do it more than once before they are satisfied, so don't worry if it fails. Just welcome the feedback. Praemonitus (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you had concerns about the writing quality at the FAC, I might as well notify you that I'll take some more advice on how to work on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you have pings disabled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Solar System (estimated annual readership: 3,851,137) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Praemonitus, I've made quite a few edits on Wikipedia, but I'm still fairly clueless and clumsy. I noticed that you changed a citation I put in your recently created SZ Lyncis article. Specifically you changed "cite web" to "citation | postscript=.". I don't even know what "citation | postscript=." does, much less why it is the preferred way to handle such a source. Could you explain to me why this format is better (or point me somewhere to learn about it)? I'd like to understand the best way to cite web sites etc., so that I don't create extra work of other editors. Thanks! PopePompus (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PopePompus: Hello. Well the two citations formats have slightly different layouts, so I changed it over to be consistent with the other citations in the article, per WP:CITEVAR. Some people like one style and some the other; I usually go with the citation style #2 ({{citation}}) template when I create a new page as I'm more familiar with that style. But I do use style #1 when it's already established for the article. All the template pages have their own documentation. You can also reference WP:CS1 and WP:CS2. But personally I wouldn't worry about it too much; it just takes a few seconds to modify. Praemonitus (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praemonitus, I moved your newly created article "CG Ursae Majoris" to "CQ Ursae Majoris", because everything in the article (except the title) seems to be about CQ Ursae Majoris. I hope I didn't screw things up!PopePompus (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PopePompus: Ah, thanks for that. I must have accidentally clicked the wrong link in the constellation template. Praemonitus (talk)

At the beginning of the article on Arcturus, Arcturus is called the 3rd-brightest star in the night sky. However, in the list of brightest stars, Arcturus is 4th, as well as later on in the same Arcturus article. So why was my change reverted? Sdiabhon Sdiamhon (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdiabhon Sdiamhon: Hello. Well the first star on the list is the Sun, and it's not visible in the night sky. Also, try reading the full context of the later mention and it will explain why it's fourth there. Praemonitus (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Sun is listed first, but with a rank of 0, followed by Sirius, Canopus, Alpha Centauri, and Arcturus. Thus the two lists have different criteria.

I accept that Arcturus is third given the condition of individual stars, so I added a parenthetical remark referring to the Observation section for explanation. Sdiabhon Sdiamhon (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdiabhon Sdiamhon: Thanks. In terms of talking about the properties of the star, the brightness ranking relative to other stars is somewhat unimportant so the detailed discussion is left for the body. The WP:LEAD is just supposed to be a summary. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, you said on my talk page that short descriptions should not have terms that are unfamiliar to a general person. Unfortunately, I have made thousands of edits adding technical terms to my short descriptions, and I don't always have the time to edit Wikipedia. So, is it needed to revert my edits completely, or should I make the descriptions more concise without removing the edits that I want to stay? Is it also possible that you can help out with the mass revision of my edits?--The Space Enthusiast (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Space Enthusiast: I think that most of your edits have been okay. I just don't believe most people will know what a 'G type giant star' means without further information, so it's better to just say 'star' in that case. Descriptions like 'Binary star' or 'Variable star' are probably okay. Anyway, there's other people who go around simplifying the short descriptions, so I expect that they will be fixed in time. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. The Space Enthusiast (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nice job on the Jupiter GA. Would you consider bringing it back to FA? LittleJerry (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: Thank you, but I have no interest in running it through the FA process. It's just too much effort for little benefit. There are other articles I'd rather improve. Praemonitus (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just giving you a heads-up regarding this, as your efforts on the GA played a big part. igordebraga ≠ 07:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Manuel Foster Observatory you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Manuel Foster Observatory you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Manuel Foster Observatory and Talk:Manuel Foster Observatory/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted that you had reverted my edit to the Outer space article where I converted the SFN format citation. (O'Leary|2009). Seeking your advice on how to correct the article Space launch#Definition of outer space which uses a section of Outer space as an excerpt. It would appear that there is a bug in wikipedia that causes an issue in the article with the excerpt when the Harvard/SFN type citation is not included in the excerpted section. I have seen this several times now. This is why I changed that citation to a full one. Any advice appreciated. I have been choosing to address issues in the WikiProject Spaceflight and this is an issue. SpaceHist65 (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SpaceHist65: Hello SpaceHist65. I'd suggest a copy and paste would allow you to deal with the issue. It isn't appropriate to be switching citation format in an established article without consensus. You shouldn't need to be altering the citation format of one article to address an issue in another article. Otherwise I don't know how to address your specific issue, but perhaps it should be dealt with by the people who made the {{excerpt}} template? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Manuel Foster Observatory you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Manuel Foster Observatory for comments about the article, and Talk:Manuel Foster Observatory/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you rated "Summer solstice", for purposes of Wikiproject Astronomy, as low importance. Yet it is also listed as a vital Science/Astronomy article. In addition, predicting the seasons is one of the reasons what we would now call astronomy developed in ancient times. Would you please explain your rating? Jc3s5h (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h: Hello. Well we have the solstice article as a top rated article, but the winter solstice article is rated low so I was being consistent. I had considered increasing it to a 'mid', which would be consistent with a level 5 VA. Praemonitus (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize, I feel we might have too many solstice related articles. I think I'd rather see a mid rating than a low rating. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h: I took the liberty of changing both to mid importance. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to express my thanks to you for adding O–C diagram to the Glossary of astronomy article - a useful entry I would never have thought to include myself! I made a few minor stylistic changes to your definition to make the format more consistent with that of the other entries (e.g. 'A diagram...' instead of 'This is a diagram...'). I encourage you to continue adding to the glossary - it would greatly benefit from the input of someone like yourself who seems to know quite a bit about astronomy and could offer their opinion on which terms might be most relevant to glossary users. Thanks again! —PJsg1011 (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PJsg1011: Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C messier (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C messier (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your clarification note on Big Bang from yesterday appears to be more related to the Wikipedia article for initial singularity than with the Big Bang. If you can improve the wording in that article for initial singularity then the clarification request you made would be easier to update. HenryRoan (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to address my request for clarification? It should be clarified in the Big Bang article. Praemonitus (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its more of making a copy within Wikipedia. The article on initial singularity seemed well worded and I adapted text from it to address the gap in Big Bang. If you would like to add more by a copy-paste from the initial singularity article then that should be ok. I could not tell how much more you wished to be added from that article into the Big bang article for clarity. HenryRoan (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praemonitus, XOR'easter and CactiStaccingCrane. I asked Z1720 to pick a few TFA reruns for the Main Page for October, and Solar System was one of his selections. I see you three were busy working on this during the successful WP:FAR for this article last year. The article seems in good shape to me to run on October 29, but let me know if any of you notice any significant problems. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: I gave it a once over and fixed a few issues. To me it looks good to go. Thanks for the head's up. Praemonitus (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Muliphein (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edits and comments on the blurb are welcome. I'm thinking of running this at TFA on January 6; does that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: go for it. Praemonitus (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thought you might be interested: Missing link found: supernovae give rise to black holes or neutron stars. SN 2022jli seems to be notable for an article. Artem.G (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem.G: Yes that does look interesting. It's a little surprising that a close companion could survive the event. Maybe it too was a massive star? I see 3-4 publications about it, so it should be notable enough. Praemonitus (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to read the publications from the press release, but honestly I don't understand much. But yeah, it looks definitely notable for an article. Artem.G (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've created the article yesterday, would be great if you'll have time to check the infobox - it's the first astronomical object I'm writing about :) Artem.G (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your copyediting, article creation and other great edits. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 15:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Praemonitus (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I always like meeting new editors that contribute helpfully to Wikipedia. :) UserMemer (chat) Tribs 15:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't, or not necessarily. Please stop removing it indiscriminately, especially if you leave a false sense of certainty in Wikipedia's voice. Isn't "likely" just as weaselly? Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but I've replaced it with an inline tag. Praemonitus (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect 61 Virginis in fiction has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 3 § 61 Virginis in fiction until a consensus is reached. TompaDompa (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the time when you replied to me when I did my "help needed in expanding "List of conjunctions (astronomy)"? You are still the only one to have even cared about my cause. I look up to that. I hope this kitten will brighten up your day. Thank you.

Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Millimeter Ultra-Broad Line Object. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because you may have a possible Conflict of Interest and this is highly inappropriate for Wikipedia, which is not somewhere to publish new results, it is only for established science. Only resubmit when there are twenty or more preprints by others. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: I think you have the wrong editor. All I did was add a category to the article. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draftify script just tags people who made contributions, it is not always obvious who contributed significantly. Just ignore it please. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back on 2016 September 13 you added the following to the entry on the constellation Hercules: "Hercules is bordered by Draco to the north; Boötes, Corona Borealis, and Serpens Caput to the east; Ophiuchus to the south; Aquila to the southwest; and Sagitta, Vulpecula, and Lyra to the west." I think you have your west and east the wrong way round. Would you like to check and correct, if necessary? Thanks. Skeptic2 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeptic2: Yes I think you're right: RA is measured eastward. I fixed it. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acting so promptly! Skeptic2 (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you were the last one to edit the odlist template for galaxy names. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Odlist Is it possible to add the ESO designation for European Southern Observatory ? Thanks. Phantomdj (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phantomdj: Hello. My understanding is that those are for catalog/survey identifiers, rather than for an observatory. On SIMBAD, ESO seems to be for the ESO/Uppsala Catalogue, but on List of astronomical catalogues it shows up as the European Southern Observatory Catalog. I'm unclear where it should point. Maybe try asking on WP:AST? Praemonitus (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It looks like the ESO designation is referring to the ESO/Uppsala Catgalogue, which doesn't seem to have a wiki page as of yet. It doesn't look like the European_Southern_Observatory_Catalog would be an appropriate link, as this seems to refer to something else.

An interesting read from the first volume of the catgalog is here:

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1974A%26AS...18..463H

other volumes are linked here:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974A%26AS...18..463H/abstract

In case you are interested.

Thanks for your time. I'm going to leave this stone further unturned, for now. Phantomdj (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Praemonitus, just noticed there is an NGC designation (NGC 6051) on IC 4588. However, I believed it is mistake because when I took at Courtney Seligman website [4], according to Harold Corwin they are actually two separate objects. So the NGC catalogue shouldn't be inside IC 4588 in the first place. Inside the your current draft of IC objects, can you change the designation to PGC 57025 instead? Sorry to disrupt you. Galaxybeing (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Galaxybeing: SIMBAD has them listed as the same object, and I was using that as my authoritative source. However, I added a correction to the article on IC 4588, with a reference. Praemonitus (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted edits made in good faith without what Wikipedia considers a good reason. Please don't revert edits unless there is a good reason. I've gone ahead and reinstated the edits. If you feel they need to be undone, would you mind providing a valid reason, and preferably open a new section in the talk page to discuss first? — SkyLined (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyLined: I thought I was pretty clear when I said it was not an improvement. Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence stated what the object was; now it just gives a relation to the Sun. The editor also inappropriately removed a sentence on how the star was discovered, which I have since restored. If you want to discuss it on the talk page, feel free. Praemonitus (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]