User talk:SkyFlubbler/Archives/2023/October

Unblock request October 3, 2023

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SkyFlubbler/Archives/2023 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 124.106.148.162. I hope this will be removed, as I am clueless how to remove any proxies or technical computer stuff. SkyFlubbler (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as, since your account is not blocked, you can edit from another IP. It would be easier to go to WP:IPECPROXY and follow those instructions to request IP block exemption via email than try to get this IP block lifted. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

. SkyFlubbler (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting astronomy lists

Hello, SkyFlubber. I wanted to let you know that I have been rewriting some astronomy superlative lists as workpages for those messed up lists with more updated data based on more recent and reliable papers. Are you interested?

• Talk:List of most massive black holes/workpage
• Talk:List of largest cosmic structures/workpage
• Talk:List of largest exoplanets/workpage
• Talk:List of most massive exoplanets/workpage
• Talk:List of largest nebulae/workpage (not too sure since the list is still controversal)

Note that they are not entirely finished and my sandbox page names may be moved. Regards—ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 21:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late replies due to IP blocking issues.

I looked upon the lists and I welcome more additions, though the most massive black holes list in your version seems to be overly complicated with all the spin parameter and shadow radius, which is largely empty with data (which really does little to do with the black hole masses), plus the event horizon diameters which can be contested because Schwarzschild radii assumes a black hole with no spin, which does not actually exist. For the purposes of accessibility, the current form of the most massive black holes list with just the mass and notes has been pretty effective so far, and I don't really see it being necessary to change it.

My take is provide important data without overwhelming the audience. This is the reason why I removed the distances of galaxies in the List of largest galaxies. SkyFlubbler (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I did add radii in this table because I thought there is likely no need to make the List of largest black holes by radius (a redirected page) as a seperate list or article, considering more massive black holes are in general larger in term of size. BTW, keep in mind the list still more recent mass estimates. See also Talk:List_of_most_massive_black_holes#Revisiting_the_list about the spin parameter and black hole radii. Regards—ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 17:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

A curious question.

Now, I know that Wikipedia is not a messaging site, but as you are an astronomy student, what do you think is the R90 diameter of Abell 1413's BCG? The Space Enthusiast (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea, and we cannot jump to conclusions. It is foul to make a guesstimate since we only have assumptions. The R₉₀ is a method specifically used by ESO/Uppsala, and it did not cover A1413-BCG because it was too far north. The only available measurement on the galaxy is by SDSS which is noted for severely underestimating the sizes. However, I should emphasize to please stop making unfounded assumptions unless you have a source to back it up. We cannot make a guess because no estimation exists on the galaxy using that method.

I hope that clarifies. Plus, even if we determine that A1413-BCG is of thousand-kiloparsec scale, there are still a lot of galaxies within that range of size, and the chances of it being the largest galaxy known is considerable, but not conclusive. SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much! The Space Enthusiast (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)