400Weir

Welcome

Hello, 400Weir, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your submission at Articles for creation: K2-315 has been accepted

K2-315, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hitro talk 06:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: K2-315b has been accepted

K2-315b, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gpkp [u • t • c] 15:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:KELT-10 has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:KELT-10. Thanks! Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: KELT-10 (October 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:KELT-10 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:KELT-10, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 400Weir! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: KELT-10 has been accepted

KELT-10, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 10:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Epsilon Mensae

Hello. You created this article without providing any sources. The three reference names are not readily available. Can you fix this or at least attribute where you found them? You may contact me on my talk page or anywhere by WP:PING. That's so the page may be removed from Category:Pages with broken reference names. Regards. Wakari07 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: I tried 2 references suggested by Anomiebot on the article's talk page. Can you review and supply the missing reference named "Reiter2015"? Thanks Wakari07 (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, 400Weir

Thank you for creating EXO 0748-676.

User:Hughesdarren, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, nice work on the article. I can't get a return on the sim-id website - have you put in the correct address? I added in the Uni of Strasbourg website as an alternative ref

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hughesdarren (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

KELT-10b moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, KELT-10b, is blank as of now and needs to be elaborated. It needs content and citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dial911 (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about XO-6

Hello, 400Weir, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Lithopsian, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, XO-6, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XO-6.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. 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.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lithopsian}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

@Lithopsian:Hey Lipstonian, the article doesn't need deletion, because I wasn't finished with the article, but know I'm finished, so it's not required. Thanks for reviewing though!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lithopsian (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you may be blocked from editing. CUPIDICAE💕 19:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nuvola:Sorry about that deletion. It was mainly a mistake, and it won't happen again. 400Weir (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about NGTS-1

Hello, 400Weir, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Lithopsian, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, NGTS-1, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGTS-1.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. 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.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lithopsian}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lithopsian (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve HD 50002

Hello, 400Weir,

Thank you for creating HD 50002.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I don't think your article on HD 50002 meets the notability standards for an astronomical object. Specifically, I can find no secondary sources that cover this object in a nontrivial way. The references on Simbad and the Astrophysics Data System just list this star along with many others that were part of some sort of survey; I see no papers that discuss this specific star in depth. Although the specific notability criteria for astronomical objects lists naked-eye visibility, a consensus is developing that the cutoff for that is magnitude 6.0, which is a bit brighter than this star (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)PopePompus (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|PopePompus}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PopePompus (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve HD 59640

Hello, 400Weir,

Thank you for creating HD 59640.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I don't think this article establishes notabilty for the star. There is not enough in-depth coverage of the star by secondary sources. Merely appearing in a catalog is does not establish notability (see WP:NASTRO). Also, although naked-eye visibility is a criterion under WP:NASTCRIT, for the purposes of notability the faintest naked-eye object has a brightness of magnitude 6.0, so this star is too faint to establish notability that way.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|PopePompus}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PopePompus (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation of designations on star articles

Thanks for your articles on stars. I have found some where the "other designations" in the infobox contain abbreviations which are wikilinked but point at disambiguation pages. Could you make them point to the relevant articles please?— Rod ^talk 08:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have attempted to do HD 53501 (please check I got these right), but HD 59640 has similar issues.— Rod ^talk 09:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about HD 59640

Hello, 400Weir, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Lithopsian, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, HD 59640, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 59640.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. 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.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lithopsian}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lithopsian (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve all the star articles you create

You have created a number of new articles on individual stars, and perhaps others that I haven't noticed. A few of these have been challenged as being insufficiently notable, at least in part because they are insufficiently referenced and do not adequately show whatever could make them notable. It may help to read the specific guidelines for notability of astronomical objects and also the recent discussions there specific to borderline-naked-eye stars which applies to some that you have created. Some of them will be very borderline since you seem mostly to be creating articles for stars in constellation navboxes, brighter than magnitude 6.5, etc, and maybe some of them will be kept after discussion.

A more general problem with the articles is the lack of reliable sources. Often there will be a Simbad link in the starbox (BTW, usually broken, check that these work before leaving an article) and perhaps something else. While it might be considered to support much of the basic data in the starbox, Simbad makes a poor source; it is a portal, meaning that it points to other research and is updated as that research changes, so what Simbad says today might not be there tomorrow. Much worse than that is the self-calculated data (see also its close cousin WP:SYNTHESIS), usually in starbox detail. Calculating physical properties of stars, even using online tools, is not acceptable to Wikipedia. Again, see WP:RELIABLE, but basically if you can find an actual number published somewhere you probably shouldn't be putting it in an article. Then be very wary of websites, which may be equally unreliable and basically just some unknown person doing the same guessing you would have done, and maybe not as well. Even if you were a professional astronomer, if it hasn't been peer-reviewed it probably isn't reliable enough. Books also tend to be acceptable, but be wary of the increasing number of self-publications. Anything that isn't reliably-sourced may be removed at any time, potentially the whole article could go although that would be extreme if the subject is notable and just unsourced (it does happen to biographies for obvious reasons). Lithopsian (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lithopsian:Hello, i've found another website that covers some sources, and I'll use those from now on. Thank's for the feed back by the way. 400Weir (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Qatar-3 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Qatar-3 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qatar-3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Lithopsian (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Qatar-3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yellow dwarf. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of HD 44385 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HD 44385 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 44385 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Lithopsian (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

20 Cameloparadlis (sic)

Oh dear, a bit of a mess. You created this article with the wrong title. An article with the correct spelling is at 20 Camelopardalis, or used to be. It was merged after (lack of) discussion, so it is now a redirect. This means two things:

• this article can only be moved to the correct spelling by an admin, and probably only after a formal move discussion;
• it probably shouldn't be created at all without discussion since it is classed as a WP:SPLIT after being previously merged.

My suggestion for how to move forward is:

• Delete the new article, blank it and tag it for speedy deletion. Even if you think the spelling is a likely typo, it would be neater to create a redirect from scratch. Keep the contents somewhere if you wish to continue with the article since they will be hard to find after a speedy deletion.

Either:

• Boldly paste the new article into the correct title. Slightly naughty, so be prepared for some indignation and possibly just having it instantly reverted.

Or:

• Start a WP:SPLIT discussion at List of stars in Camelopardalis. You will need to show why the star is notable, either against the general criteria or against the criteria for astronomical objects.

Lithopsian (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I reverted your change to the redirect target at 20 Camelopardalis. Probably not good to redirect to an invalid spelling, especially when it was previously merged following a formal proposal. Lithopsian (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

HD 33266 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, HD 33266, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HD 33266 has been accepted

HD 33266, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hitro talk 07:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of HD 2 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HD 2 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Lithopsian (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: KELT-10b has been accepted

KELT-10b, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of HD 49306 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HD 49306 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 49306 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Lithopsian (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

HD 212771

How did you get mass of 2.07 solar masses for this star from 2020 Reniers & Zechmister? A quick glance of it shows nothing with 2.07 solar masses in the entire article. Xenmorpha (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have no qualms, I will change the mass of HD 212771 to agree with 1.42 +-0.07 solar masses in 2019 Campante et al. (https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab44a8). The author Tiago L. Campante seems to have sustained interest in the star as evidenced by 2017 Campante et al.(https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx876) and 2017 North et. al (https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx2009) (a coauthor in this work - also this work has most extensive referencing of HD 212771 masses in literature). This is more in line with the value of 1.51 +-0.08 solar masses in 2013 Mortier et al. TS13 (https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321641) and 1.60 +- 0.13 solar masses in 2015 Jofré et al. (https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201424474) and finally 1.601 +0.126-0.247 solar masses in 2018 Stock, Reffert & Quirrenbach (https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833111) Xenmorpha (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. The reason I had no qualms was because I was unaware that the CDS Portal may have incorrect information. 400Weir (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Minor advice: apostrophes

Hi 400Weir, good work on your star articles. One small piece of advice: Wikipedia's Manual of Style tells us to avoid contractions (such as it's or don't), so for example I changed "it's impossible to see with the unaided eye" to "it is impossible to see with the unaided eye". Thanks, Loooke (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I’ll make sure to incorporate into my articles 400Weir (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

KELT-6b moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, KELT-6b, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: KELT-6b has been accepted

KELT-6b, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Artem.G (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Opposition

400Weir (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CoRoT-16b, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve HD 68402

Hello, 400Weir,

Thank you for creating HD 68402.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The Jenkins reference seems to be the only one here supporting notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Graeme Bartlett}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HD 27245, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magnitude.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve HD 196775

Hello, 400Weir,

Thank you for creating HD 196775.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Your article HD 196775 satisfies WP:NASTCRIT but it probably does not satisfy WP:GNG. I fear it may be deleted if it is not modified to include references to secondary sources that discuss this specific star in significant detail.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|PopePompus}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PopePompus (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@PopePompus: I don’t how else to prove notability because not a single source describes the star in great detail. Speed doesn't always mean quality. (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@PopePompus: Ignore the reply above. I've found a paper in which HD 196775 is one of the targets. Speed doesn't always mean quality. (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

2MASS J20360829−3607115

It is not helpful to blank pages, even if it's following the result of an AfD discussion. Please make sure that the merge has been performed before redirecting to the intended target. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

HD 86267

Hey,

The source for this star being 1.73 times the mass of the Sun ([1]) doesn't seem to contain reference to the star at all. Am I missing something? Ovinus (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The table shown in the actual paper isn’t the full table. There’s actually way more stars they’ve observed. I got it from the VizieR table linked here [2]. Speed doesn't always mean quality. 400Weir (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks. Also what does "Speed doesn't always mean quality" have to do with this? Ovinus (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh! About that. Just a little quote in my signature. I’m sorry for any confusion. Speed doesn't always mean quality. 400Weir (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh... I should have realized that. Ovinus (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, 400Weir. Thank you for creating HD 30432. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:HD 203473

A tag has been placed on Category:HD 203473 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!} 01:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, 400Weir. Thank you for creating HD 183552. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for making articles!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, 400Weir. Thank you for creating HD 30669. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for writing these articles.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Whew!

Hello, 400Weir,

If I hadn't been behind schedule in looking into today's Proposed Deletions, TOI-5205 would have been deleted two hours ago! You got to it just in time. Of course, PRODs can be restored upon request so deletion is not forever with PRODs. But thanks for checking on Proposed Deletions, so much more attention is given to deletion discussions at AFD that often I don't think anyone even notices those articles that are PROD'd. Even though the page has become a redirect, I'm glad its history has been preserved in case another editor wants to return and expand this article. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Sections

Hey, what's with the personal attack?[3] I don't hate sections, but I do address WP:OVERSECTION. Praemonitus (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the offensive comment. I just added the section because it may be confusing to new readers of the astronomy section of Wikipedia, especially when the characteristics about the star get lengthy. Speed doesn't always mean quality. 400Weir (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm not clear what you mean by the statement about quality. I do a lot of my work in the sandbox, and it can take some time to put it together. Praemonitus (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

That’s supposed to be my signature quote. I really need to format it properly at some point. Speed doesn't always mean quality. 400Weir (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Praemonitus (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, 400Weir. Thank you for your work on 23 Leonis Minoris. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northern Parkway (Baltimore), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Alameda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Have you considered applying for the WP:AUTOPATROLLED user right? You seem to know what you're doing regarding article creation. VQuakr (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I haven't considered applying. I'll check the terms. Speed doesn't always mean quality 400Weir (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I've just read the terms. I want to apply. Speed doesn't always mean quality 400Weir (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok! Let me know if you need help. It doesn't really change your workflow, it just is meant to take a bit of workload off of new page patrollers. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi 400Weir, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on V701 Coronae Australis

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page V701 Coronae Australis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HD 137366 has been accepted

HD 137366, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited HD 129899, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ap.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Speed doesn't always mean quality 400Weir (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

GuapMachine (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)