User talk:PNSMurthy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello!

Hi there! PNSMurthy (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


PNSMurthy, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi PNSMurthy! 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 experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


May 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to RX Telescopii, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

GCIRS 7 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, GCIRS 7, does not have enough sources and citations 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) 05:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Sure, will do, am still working on that one tooPNSMurthy (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

SP77 46-44 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, SP77 46-44, does not have enough sources and citations 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. TheImaCow (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about WOH S377

Hello, PNSMurthy, 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, WOH S377, 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/WOH S377.

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) 19:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I saw the WOH S337. It's a foreground object, isn't it. It's probably a halo giant, thanks for letting me know!PNSMurthy (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about RS Mensae

Hello, PNSMurthy, 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, RS Mensae, 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/RS Mensae.

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) 20:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello PNSMurthy,

I have moved the page you recently created into draft-space, at Draft:Pending addition for stars over 700rsol, because it is currently empty. You are welcome to move it back into article-space once the list contains entries. Thank you, Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

It is supposed to be empty, it is a place no one has put entries in yet. I will move it back into it’s place, I am sorry for any inconvenience.

Thanks, PNSMurhyPNSMurthy (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Why have you now moved it into template-space, though? What is your intention for the page? If it is supposed to be collaboration between editors rather than a page that ordinary site visitors will read, it should either be on Talk:List of largest stars or moved into your own userspace. Passengerpigeon (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Very sorry, I am still learning about Wikipedia. It is a page for people to catalogue stars not yet added to the list of largest stars.PNSMurthy (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and again, sorry for any inconvenience I caused by making this mess!PNSMurthy (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of SMC 5092 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SMC 5092 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/SMC 5092 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. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of HV 2255 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HV 2255 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/HV 2255 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. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, PNSMurthy

Thank you for creating HV 2255.

User:Sam-2727, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Not all stars are notable.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Sam-2727}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Sam-2727 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

{{Re|Sam-2727}}, Hi Sam, I do not get why this page should be deleted, it seems to be the same as all other star stubs. How does a star not being notable mean it has to be deleted? - nope, I get why this page was never meant to be. PNSMurthy (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability

Please, in the future, check if stars meet WP:NASTRO or the general notability guidelines (WP:Notability). Sam-2727 (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure Sam, thanks for the advice!123455 (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC) PMurthy1011 (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about AZ Cephei

Hello, PNSMurthy, 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, AZ Cephei, 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/AZ Cephei.

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) 17:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

{{Re|Lithopsian}} Yeah, I think I remember editing that article, is it a violation of the notablity guideline? Anyway, sure, it can go:)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:  The comment the reviewer left 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.
Dan arndt (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I will continue to work on it. I could not find any acceptable and relaible refs, but will continue searching:)PMurthy1011 (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

V1804 Sagittarii and V1647 Orionis.

How big are those stars and where did you see the sizes? (Please give sizes for all your stars in your personal list, and also add some line breaks to make it look much more clean) example:

Like this:

1. star a

2. star b

3. star c

Not like this:

star a star b star c

Nussun05 (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha, I am still working on my list As far as I remember, V1647 Orionis is around 2 million km (the cite for that stars showed that) - it is a protostarPMurthy1011 (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

V1804 Sagitarii is in the same site where you found the 1800 estimate for VV Cephei (check the history for the new list).PMurthy1011 (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The ref mentions it, but it does not give a size Nussun05 (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If you could see the original document on my pc, you will see it in a text box beside Westerlund 1-26 as a note. It is not part of the actual list:)PMurthy1011 (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the list and will re-upload it when finished with it.PMurthy1011 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

btw 2 million km would only be slightly larger than our sun (1.4 million) and not one of the largest stars. Nussun05 (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a mistake. I checked it's size, and after calculations it is 2,004 (roughly) solar radiiPMurthy1011 (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable ref. Nussun05 (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The ref no longer exists, is now says 'nginx not found', sorry! - and if you're asking me about how I got it's size in the first place, it is from the copy I saved to my notes.PMurthy1011 (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice

The article List of strongest arthurian knights has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research and fails WP:LISTN. There are no inclusion criteria for what makes a knight the "strongest" and the article itself even admits it is OR and unencyclopedic... "This list is liable to opinionated edits, and is backed up by shaky ground... this mythology is inconsistent and listing is from the opinions of both the writer, and reader of texts."

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. Spicy (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Spicy,

As you may have seen from the above topic on my talk page, I have already has difficulties with this page. I will add a new section specifying number of victories and defeats, and from the percentage gained from that I will rank my list. (Please note that these wins will come from literature).

Thanks again, PMurthy1011 (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi. When you sign talk page posts, it currently appears as "PMurthy1011", which does not match your username. I don't know if this is intentional or not, but it can be somewhat confusing to readers because it looks like a username. If you want your signature to correctly reflect your username (PNSMurthy), you can reset it by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal, clearing out the Signature field, and un-checking the "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkbox. Cheers. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure AlanM1, I have now changed it, sorry for any inconvenience caused!PNSMurthy (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm Izno. An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia:Protection policy seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Izno (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of visionary tall buildings and structures, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Robynthehode (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I was merely expanding on a phrase though, and it was a little synonymous, though there definitions may be considered separate and/or different. I did not think it needed a source, but sure, I will be more cautious here onwards:)PNSMurthy (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

List of knights

I see you've copied a PRODed article to your userspace at User:PNSMurthy/List of Strongest Arthurian Knights. Just because the page is inappropriate for mainspace doesn't mean it can be kept in userspace; please see the appropriate section in WP:NOTWEBHOST:

Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia.

You can ask for this to be deleted yourself by placing {{db-u1}} at the top of the page; otherwise I'll be nominating it for deletion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that's because I am still editing it. I will re upload it to Wp is and when I am able to find reliable sourcing. - if not, it can go. Please do not nominate this for deletion until I have worked things out.
Thanks!PNSMurthy (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Please indent your replies, as I've done for you; see Help:Talk for more info; thanks.
The general topic of Arthurian knights is encyclopedic, and already exists at Knights of the Round Table. There's no possible way to create a list of them by "strongest" in any remotely acceptable form. If you attempt to recreate it, it will be PRODed or nominated at WP:AFD as well. I'm giving you the chance to save everyone the hassle and request that it be deleted from your userspace. If not, I will be nominating at MFD. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I myself have had problems with this list (see above topics on this page). I will simply blank the page.PNSMurthy (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Done! You don't have to worry about that anymore! I will also delete it from my sandbox.PNSMurthy (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi PNSMurthy! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Nomination for deletion, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited V538 Carinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AGB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 06:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It's correct! Don't have to worry mate!PNSMurthy (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Arjuna

Hi, re this, if you read the talk page you will see that the article is undergoing a big rewrite because it was such a mess. You're welcome to help but tags aren't that at present, really. - Sitush (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but a lot of this information is unsourced, please add the sources for your information, otherwise those signs might come back again (if it is not me, it might be someone else), but please, there is a lot of source work needed in that article:) And yes, I see what you mean, if needed. I will help.PNSMurthy (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC) - there I assumed the signs were gone. They are still there. Sorry!PNSMurthy (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
No, a lot of it is not unsourced - it was, as is noted on the article talk page. This was not a "major cleanup" but rather a lot of mostly pointless fiddling about. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It didn't read well mate. It was needed.PNSMurthy (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You're new here and get some slack but please do not push it. See WP:EW and note that there is a special sanctions regime in place for India-related articles so the amount of slack you get may not be that great. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, sanctions?!PNSMurthy (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi PNSMurthy! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Malfunctioning transclution, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay MunnibotPNSMurthy (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts

Hi! PNSMurthy, thank you for volunteering to be a host at the Teahouse. We really appreciate your willingness to help! However, we see that you are pretty new around here and have not edited very much in mainspace yet. It takes a lot of time, background knowledge and patience to answer new editors' questions effectively. So you should probably edit for a while longer before you sign up to be a host. That said, you're still very welcome to answer those questions that you can, and we hope you continue to participate and spread the word about the Teahouse to other new Wikipedians. Come back soon! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


Sure Nick Moyes, though, like I said, i have spent a lot of time learning about WP. That's why I volunteered, but I get what you're saying.PNSMurthy (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Trumpler 27-1-- please rethink

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Trumpler 27-1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dtt1Talk 09:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It has links, it was a mistake. See the article now, there are two references. Please rethink this.PNSMurthy (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Stephenson 2 merge

Did you really want to merge St2-18? Or at least discuss merging? If so, you need to tag both articles, using the {{merge from}} and {{merge to}} templates. Ideally, create a discussion section so people can see why you want to merge. This will also prompt responses from other editors instead of them just shrugging their shoulders and moving on. By default, this would be on the merge to page, but you can use the discuss field in the templates to put it elsewhere. Lithopsian (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, done and done, am planning to do the same for the RSGC1 stars too!PNSMurthy (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

?????- VY Canis Majoris

Is VY Canis Majoris only 1,160 solar radii? this is unusual for an extreme star. Is this True !?!?!?

I am currently working that out myself. See VY Canis Majoris, and you will see it's luminosity is 179,000L. Using the Stephan Boltzman law, I gained 1,160. But Nussun05 says the luminosity is not in the ref given by the above mentioned article. I will go and clarify this - than get back to you.

Thanks!PNSMurthy (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

from Nussun05's talk page - transclude

Hi Nussun 05,

As you may have seen in the above section, along with the above topic on this page, VY Canis Majoris' article shows Lbol of 178,000. I used this to calculate the radius, then, referencing the reference from the article, I added the size to the New List. But you seemed to have undone my edit. I have re-done this edit, and before you undo it again, check the article again and on Vizier.

Thanks!

Please cite that article and the article where the temperature comes from. Both at the same time. Nussun05 (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A luminosity of 178,000 for VY Canis Majoris was derived from [1] this. It stated so in this namesake discussion's article.PNSMurthy (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC) That article does not give a temperature, you’re gonna have to cite the ref that gives the temperature (from 2012) too. Nussun05 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

See the WP article for VYCma, and see the starbox catalogue for temperature. This source is from there. I haven't actually gone through the source. If there is no temperature, the article is wrong, or someone has provided the wrong source,PNSMurthy (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Davies, Ben; Beasor, Emma R. (March 2020). "The `red supergiant problem': the upper luminosity boundary of Type II supernova progenitors". MNRAS. 493 (1): 468–476. arXiv:2001.06020. Bibcode:2020MNRAS.493..468D. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa174.

As you may have seen from the above section, I have addressed Nussun05, and now will undo his edit. For any further questions, please address Nussun05, because, if the above mentioned article is correct, than Nussun05 must have misjudged. If it is wrong, and he persists, come back to me and I will try to work things out.PNSMurthy (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems I misjudged actually ... I took temperature from a different source to the one with the new luminosity, going against WP:Synthesis. Never mind what I did!PNSMurthy (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Lol. Even though Stephenson 2-18 is my favorite star since it is the Largest When I see a well known star Get downgraded I absolutely Care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talkcontribs) 04:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw your List of largest Galaxies

I saw your list of largest galaxies, and Its okay. At least you did not put Markarian 501's 12,581,000 ly size- It turns out It was calculated from an apparent size of 94.86 arcminutes , Which was confused with arcseconds. So, the quoted size is inaccurate, and it isn't that large. BTW, The 832,000 ly estimate for UGC 2885 was based on an older distance, newer distances give lower distances, so UGC 2885 is not that huge. the actual largest spiral is Malin 1. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmf, okay. I know that mistake. When I found that stat on Markarian 501 I decided to take a look at its reference. I found that mistake. Was about to downsize it myself when someone else did. Really? I'll have a look at UGC 2885, see if I can find a size in the article, and, if the size if lower than the one I assumed, then, I'll figure things out:)PNSMurthy (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have corrected UGC 2885's size!PNSMurthy (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks:) THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Welp, With Markarian 501 being downsized, It looks like IC 1101 is back on track. Also, IC 1101’s black hole at 40 Billion solar masses is MUCH Larger and More Massive than Markarian 501’s black hole which is only 900 million solar masses. THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add a statement saying Malin 1 is the largest spiral or barred spiral. THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You can add it if you wish - actually -  Done!!!PNSMurthy (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Could I edit Your List? --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

SurePNSMurthy (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I will Not vandalize It. I saw some things that I have to correct.--THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

1.) None of your personal opinions please.

2.) I will go through your changes myself, and see if I think they’re accurate and well sources.

Okay?PNSMurthy (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Ok. I will put none of my personal opinions. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I noticed something again, the 218,000 Ly stellar diameter might be a radius since the 424,000 ly stellar diameter has a radius of 212,000 Ly. Pls Correct this. THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 1.) Which galaxy? 2.) In the first sentence, you mentioned a 218,000 Ly stellar diameter, and the second time around you mention 420 and 212,000. Please clarify.PNSMurthy (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about IC 1101. I think the effective diameter of 218,000 Light Years Is just a Radius because it is close to the 212,000 Light Year estimate of the effective radius of IC 1101. They have a difference of just 6,000 Light Years which makes me think that both are related. THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I will edit my list.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes...you were right. Thank you.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, Your welcome ! Please don't take my sandbox as an Article. it is So full of my opinions.BTW, It has alot of Images, Right?--THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it does. I don't take sandboxes for articles. I respect them for the experimentation they are.PNSMurthy (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Should I also edit your list of largest stars? I have Somethings to point out. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest not, because that's my opinion, but sure, you can. But I might be undoing your edits if I don't like it.PNSMurthy (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi PNSMurthy! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Semi-Protection, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi PNSMurthy! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Images, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi PNSMurthy! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Archives, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

Hello, PNSMurthy

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 proposed an article that you started, IRC +10414, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

  1. Edit the page
  2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lithopsian}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

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

Lithopsian (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lithopsian:, I was not aware of the fact that the two articles in question, do not in fact, discuss a synonymous object. If this object does indeed fall short of the notability guideline, I have no qualms :)PNSMurthy (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You probably looked already, but Simbad shows an AGB star in Aquila, vs a supergiant in Scutum. If it was notable, it could maybe go in List of stars in Aquila and we could keep the redirect, but I think it probably isn't notable based on the Simbad reference list. Lithopsian (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, there you go. Can't PROD a redirect, so it will get discussed in full. Or briefly, redirects tend to rapidly go one way or the other. Lithopsian (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
@Lithopsian: Yeah, okay.PNSMurthy (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to comment on the deletion. The discussion has been relisted to allow more comments, there is no clear consensus so far. Except nobody really wants to keep it as is. Lithopsian (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

The articles you created (and I just checked) also need to be fixed for random capitalization, and possibly other problems. --5.173.105.219 (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I will check and correct them. Please do not interfere in subjects you are not sure about or don't know. Many of them, might, be properly capitalised.PNSMurthy (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 DonePNSMurthy (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

"Orange hypergiant" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Orange hypergiant. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 9#Orange hypergiant until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure.PNSMurthy (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, PNSMurthy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Theropod Trackmakers in Asturias".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. If needed, I will follow the procedures required to appeal for it to be un-terminated.PNSMurthy (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

...So without me there would have only been 999,997,500 edits. *A bit more than that now.PNSMurthy (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

Too many notificationsPNSMurthy (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Space Barnstar
For maintaining the list of largest stars and your significant contributions to articles on supergiant stars! Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 05:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks man!PNSMurthy (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. I've also added the {{Archives}} box, so it'll list your archives. --rchard2scout (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry for the late reply, i have been offline lately.PNSMurthy (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

Notice

The article WOH G17 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:NASTRO. The only reason this article exists is because of a very unreliable luminosity estimate that leads to a ridiculous radius.

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. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of WOH G17 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WOH G17 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/WOH G17 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 until the discussion has finished.

Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

Notice

The article SP77 31-18 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:NASTRO due to not having in-depth studies. It is only a large and extremely obscure red supergiant, only mentioned in large-scale surveys.

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. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 14:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of SP77 31-18 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SP77 31-18 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/SP77 31-18 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 until the discussion has finished.

SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 14:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice

The article SP77 46-44 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem to meet WP:NASTRO due to it not having significant coverage and only being mentioned in large-scale surveys. The only thing ‘notable’ about it is its potential very high luminosity, however, this star has not been properly claimed in scientific papers to be significant or notable.

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. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice

The article WOH S281 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only relies on a single source and does not meet WP:NASTRO due to only having coverage in large-scale surveys.

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. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice

The article WOH S279 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While it does possibly have somewhat extreme basic properties like it’s luminosity and radius, it does not meet WP:NASTRO because it is only mentioned in large scale surveys.

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. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of WOH S281 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WOH S281 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/WOH S281 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 until the discussion has finished.

SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of WOH S279 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WOH S279 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/WOH S279 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 until the discussion has finished.

SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of SP77 46-44 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SP77 46-44 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/SP77 46-44 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 until the discussion has finished.

SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

Nomination of IRAS 04509-6922 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IRAS 04509-6922 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/IRAS 04509-6922 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 until the discussion has finished.

SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 18:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

The Signpost: 2 March 2024