User talk:Saros136

This user may have left Wikipedia. Saros136 has not edited Wikipedia since 23 May 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Okay, this is my talk page, if anyone wants to talk. I'll add to this later.

Please feel free to add metric mmeasurements where they are lacking but please do not remove English/traditional/customary measurements when you do so. Rmhermen 05:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is a ball foul if it lands in foul territory, touching no part of the foul line, but a portion of the ball is above the foul line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billt4 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the phallic related volcano page, I was just about to do that myself. When are people ever going to growup. I wish I could just message the thanks instead of writing to your page

You're welcome:) I've got Volcano on my watchlist, and I check the list fairly often when I'm online...so I'll be back. Saros136 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saros, thanks for fixing those dates and stats on the asteroid pages. I notice you are using a different formula for the mean orbital speed than good old ${\displaystyle {\frac {2\pi a}{T}}}$, and obtain consistently slightly slower speeds. Do you know what the reason is? Does the standard formula we've been using require a correction? If so, the article Orbital speed eagerly awaits an update! Deuar 12:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The formula you cited calculates the circumference of a circle with a given semimajor axis, and divides by the orbital period. But the circumference of an ellipse is less than that of a circle with the same semi. The greater e is, the smaller it will be.

I'm using the first formula listed in the circumference section of ellipse . I'm using two more terms, for good measure (big overkill!). I get the elements from JPL Horizons...the telnet version, which will email the results. Then I copy and paste it to my spreadsheet, and I've set it up to calculate it.

I don't know how to write math in wikipedia, but here's what I use in Excel: 2*PI()*a*(1-(e/2)^2-((1*3)/(2*4))^2*(e^4)/3-(1*3*5)/(2*4*6)^2*(e^6)/5)-((1*3*5*7)/(2*4*6*8))^2*(e^8)/7-((1*3*5*7*9)/(2*4*6*8*10))^2*(e^10)/9

Thanks for asking, and I'm glad to help

Great! That's very useful. By the way, if you're interested, math is written in a simplified LaTeX format enabled by tags like this: <math> the expression </math>. Details at Help:Formula. Deuar 19:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your change of "determinators" to "determinaters" at Earth. It's often a good idea, when attempt to correct spelling, to check a dictionary first. Merriam-Webster Online (U.S. English) agrees with the original author in "determinator"; Cambridge Dictionaries Online (UK English) doesn't even have a version of this word. Your implication that "-er" is the sole correct suffix for "one who determines" (in the edit summary) is inaccurate. Many nouns that represent "one who does" use "-or" (e.g., actor, distributor), although "-er" is common as well (flier, singer). I agree that "determinator" sounds awkward in this context, as "-or" words (as far as I can recall) always imply a person, whereas the Earth sentence was talking about inanimate objects (ocean currents). I rendered the issue moot by replacing this awkward word with "determiners". (It's a pet peeve of mine that English speakers have this irrational need to -ate everything.) Just to be sure, I verified "determiner" with Webster's before making the change. (Cambridge, which despite its large collection of references tends to miss a lot of words, had "determiner", but only mentioned its narrower grammatical sense.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had checked onelook, before editing.(The definition is from a 1913 edition; I should have searched more.) It said only "one who determines" for the "-or" version, and since(as you said) the sentence refers to an inanimate object, I changed it. It's good that you changed it, though.

With regard to your note: no contractions in encyclopedia Contractions are a normal part of formal English, and there is nothing against them in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Ordinary Person 09:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The style guide says, "In general, formal writing is preferred. Therefore, avoid the use of contractions — such as don’t, can’t, won’t, would’ve, they’d, and so on — unless they occur in a quotation.", from the style guide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Contractions Saros136 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Thank you for that correction. Ordinary Person 01:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saros136! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 22:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Thanks for noticing the insulting text. I've looked at the history and discovered that a whole bunch of bizarre edits were made a week ago by an anon. I've reverted them all. Colin°^Talk 22:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. And thanks for the great editing job.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons: Autoblock of 152.163.100.71 lifted. Sorry for the trouble! Request handled by: Luna Santin 06:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong to revert. I saw a word that got added that looked like "talia", a name this vandal keeps adding. I rushed too much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saros136 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, keep up the good work (and don't forget to sign your talk page posts with the old four squiggly things ~~~~ — Matt Crypto 02:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popups undoes multiple edits if you use the page history and revert to your target version from there. --Neurophyre^(talk) 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. And good work by you, I see. Saros136 06:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Saros136! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop lying to the public! The Earth did not just "form". GOD CREATED IT! Switchfo0t813

I disgree. And the Earth article is about scientific findings, not religious claims. Saros136 20:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the discussion to Talk:Eclipse cycle; please see my answer there. Tom Peters 13:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing United States from all the entries. This is a global encyclopedia and according to the correct way of writing articles, that has to stay. If you don't believe me, check out FA Detroit which has US State right in the first sentence. Thanks.--Kranar drogin 11:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to tell you I responded to you comment on Derek Balsam's talk page. If you would like to read it (assuming you don't have it on your watchlist) just click here : Derek's talk page . Have a nice day. Gloern 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saros136,

Thanks for your discussion with Gloern on my talk page. I appreciate your help in maintaining the quality of wikipedia. Please see further discussion on my talk page as well. Thanks, Derek Balsam^(talk) 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the right revert - apparently I almost missed the second vandalism the anon did in a row and reverted back to that. ;) --Ubardak (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Saros136 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, 16 August 2008 lunar eclipse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16 August 2008 lunar eclipse. Thank you. --CWY2190^TC 00:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I probably overwrote a modification you made. If I did, it was inadvertently, we just happened to be on the same page at the same time. Please redo the modification as needed. I still have to add the illustrations to the page, I will do it in a second time, so please leave alone the "insertion points" that now looks like unrelated lines, but eventually will become the notes to the illustrations. To have an idea of the illustrations, you can refer to the Italian page:

[1]

--SUSSI (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I finally got a start on a lunar eclipse database, tested some new static tables in list of lunar eclipses which can be converted to templates for substitution into varied formats. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my sort of log/project page at: User:SockPuppetForTomruen/saros_project

I have reverted your "edits" on this page. You removed citations/sourced material and then inexplicably moved the information regarding A. Schneider. Please do not do this, it is important information. It came mighty close to being vandalism. Dapi89 (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't know what happened. Something got accidentally deleted, when I was editing. I think I had it in Word. Check my contributions, and you'll see that a lot of my edits are reverting vandalism. Saros136 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the error on the transit of Venus, which appears to have been a case of "close, but no cigar". I imagine that older books based this on it being the second of the "pair" that comes along every hundred years or so. Mandsford (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My change to the Watling Street article was simply to identify where, in terms of their present-day counties, these unfamiliar Roman place names were located. I'd call that a "constructive" improvement to the text. I'd call your flagrant effacement to be "less than constructive". I am restoring my work, and, in future, I will thank you for exercising more prudence and care. 70.127.93.5 (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I've been reverting tons of vandalism tonight. Every once in a while I blow one. Saros136 (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of warning was automatically made by the program. I didn't know I called it that. Saros136 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering, why did you revert my edit to the IPod page? I was just reverting vandalism. Reliable Forever^talk 19:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked my program, Huggle. I reverted 68.253.222.9, it says "(Reverted 2 edits by Reliableforever and 68.253.222.9 to last revision by Saros136 (HG))" I don't know why it included yours, I see yours was valid. But when I edited, you fail at life was present from 68.253.222.9. Sometimes reverts accidentally leave in vandalism. Sometimes, though, perfectly good reverts get undone when a few people are reverting on the same page at nearly the same time. I've done it, and it's happened to me.But now that I'm using Huggle, it won't happen much. The good news is that the current version of Ipod is clean. Saros136 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saros, I'm currently doing a lot of work on this article; I'm hoping to get it up to good article status. You've made more than a few edits there so I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping out.

Cheers, Reyk _YO! 10:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Solar system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

The proper link now to the review! HarryAlffa (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saros136! I've been expanding the lunar eclipse articles, across 1950-2050 for graphics, still working on template tables. I've added a few outside, like central total eclipses, including May_2069_lunar_eclipse whic was recently nominated for deletion. Anyway, if you have an opinion and want to look at my work, I'd be glad! I've expanded a lot on related eclipse cycles. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You wrote '"The low inclination of the orbit allows frequent transits, where the inner planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars can appear to cross the Sun. Earth did this in January 2009, and will also do it in 2012, 2016, and 2020." This makes no sense in the context of this article. Did you mean that Toutatis transits in those years, rather than the Earth? If so a better citation will be needed - we can't expect readers to run a program in order to check the facts!. Regards. andy (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the Earth appears to transit the Sun, as seen from Toutatis, in those years. And SOLEX has been used as a source widely in Wikipedia. One case is the articles on the transits of planets as seen from planets other than Earth. Also, it made the calculations both of close approaches of Venus and Mercury to the Earth. There's a lot close approach calculations for asteroids. I've done all of those things. Kheider has used it for other, more advanced calculations involving the long term evolution of certain asteroids. Still others have used programs too.

Probably the main problem here is that I've neglected to post the output online. This would provide all the source needed for checking. Saros136 (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post the results. Saros136 (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the relevance of this information - it doesn't tell us anything at all about Toutatis. It's simply a quirk of orbital mechanics that Toutatis orbits in the plane of the ecliptic so transits are possible. Plenty of other objects have low inclination orbits too and there must be transits pretty much every day. andy (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even with a high inclination it would be possible to see transits. Just not as often, all else equal.

To your point...true it does not say anything about the asteroid, just some events. It's low in importance. Just a matter of interest to those who like quirks. Saros136 (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting point that could be added to Astronomical transit but I think it's confusing in 4179 Toutatis and should be removed, IMHO. andy (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I guess I thought I was helping the first sentence by saying something like: A sister is a female sibling. My roommate agrees with you. My intuition is wrong I guess. Seems like is and refers link differently. My spelling isn't much better either. Thanks for the fix. --Dgroseth (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't officially filed for retirement, making him a free agent in the eyes of Major League Baseball. One two three... 01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My compromise was meant to avoid the issue of whether he is a current player or not. It doesn't matter that he is a free agent if teams refuse to hire him. That has been the case for the last two years and according to his agent will not change. According to the article he is a current MLB player but ended his career in 2007. Saros136 (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you yourself appear to refer to Bonds as a free agent, as it seems to be in your last post, why don't you want the article to reflect this? One two three... 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine for the page to inform the reader he is eligible to sign a contract, but because no one offers him a contract, he is not able to play. It would be more accurate to not consider him a current player. We've almost certainly seen the last of him as a player. I don't think he will formally retire-his agent contends he was run out of the game, he did not retire. So will he then be a player until he dies? Saros136 (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert the addition that Neptune is 2,700,000,000 miles from the Sun, as dubious and unsourced? I would oppose it because it is not metric, but conversions do not need sources. Saros136 (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own the article, if you believe that the edit was productive, revert me do not ask me for stupid reverts. Also the same user were reverted at Uranus, and you should read his/her talkpage. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I oppose Honesty First's edit...but not because it was unsourced or dubious, your reasons. To be helpful, I just let you know that's not a problem. Saros136 (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean lack of sources are not a problem with a conversion. Saros136 (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote in a discussion about alleged anti-Americanism in that article that Hiroshima wasn't important enough to get bombed earlier. However, as the opening paragraph of the article puts it, "the target of Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance, containing Japan's Second Army Headquarters, as well as being a communications center and storage depot." The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not been bombed because the US wanted to see the effects of the new weapon on undestroyed cities. This was agreed with Churchill. <<There had been four cities chosen as possible targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata (...). The cities were chosen because they had been relatively untouched during the war. The Target Committee wanted the first bomb to be "sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it was released.">> (Kurzman, Day of the Bomb 394.) Furthermore, as J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, writes: "The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it." Knopffabrik (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saros136. You have new messages at RobertMfromLI's talk page.
Message added 21:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mr. French looking at me22.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't specific to improving that article, but I appreciate your comment and I thought I'd return the favor. I think comparisons to Earth are interesting in astronomy articles, but not really useful as measurements. Speaking for myself, I grasp the concept of thousands of miles (or kilometers) better than I understand the diameter of the Earth. I know the moon is roughly a quarter of a million miles (four hundred thousand kilometers) away from the Earth, but I'd have to stop and calculate the number of Earths that represents. Or how many of either fit into an AU. Thanks again for joining in. I'll leave a note for you and Ckatz once I find a good forum. Celestra (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been attempting a merge of 11th millennium and beyond with Timeline of the far future. Since the latter is referenced and the former is not, I have been tracking the sources used for the information. It seems that all the information on future transits came from the book "Transits" by Jean Meeus, which is sited in the various individual transit pages. However, page numbers are not included. I was wondering if you could provide me with the missing page numbers, as you appear to be the main contributor to the planetary transit articles. Thank you. Serendi^podous 12:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this. I'll get back soon. Saros136 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you're too busy to take this on. If so I understand, but I need to know to keep looking. Thanks. Serendi^podous 14:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rushed and didn't read carefully. The answer is simple: all of the distant predictions I added were by Solex. I was very conservative, in that they all agreed with different starting positions (from different JPL ephemerides). But Transits by Meeus doesn't list anything past a 3931 transit of Jupiter from Uranus. Saros136 (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comment that "The next pass to come within 1 Gm will not take place until 2189" from the 4581 Asclepius article because on 2189-Mar-24 JPL Horizons shows the asteroid as being 1.9AU from the Earth. I did run the simulation in Solex11 and got your result of 0.966197Gm on 2189/03/24. The multiple close approaches are confusing Solex, and JPL is using a more recent orbital solution. JPL shows a close approach on 2051-Mar-24 of 0.0122 AU (1,830,000 km; 1,130,000 mi), Solex is showing a close approach of 1.788Gm on 2189/03/24. Due to many close approaches to Earth and Venus that increase the uncertainty region, neither JPL or NEODyS list close approaches after 2127. JPL shows that the asteroid could pass anywhere from 0.06 AU to 0.24 AU from the Earth in 2127. -- Kheider (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I won't contest the removal. I thought I had been careful. Using the clone function of Solex supported it. (So did the twin library feature). Removal of the perturbing asteroids didn't change it. And it held up over a fair range of step-sizes, and regardless of the integration order.

But it turns out that Horizons differs. The difference is not due to the model. Entering the Solex elements (from Sep 3, 1995) into Horizons gave a close approach at 20:09 TT March 24, 2189 , at 0.982  Gm, close to what I had.

Putting the Horizons elements into Solex confirmed the likeness again. Here's the close approach list using both the JPL elements and the Solex ones. Notice the 2051 Earth approaches agree to about 2%, and the 2055 Venus approaches to much better than 1%. The close agreement ends there. Saros136 (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saros136, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(52340) 1992 SY whether the article (52340) 1992 SY should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving (52340) 1992 SY, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 06:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article (162416) 2000 EH26 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/(162416) 2000 EH26 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Gsingh (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saros136, You recently received a message about either "Nomination for deletion" or "Proposed deletion" of an article you created. I'd like to ask you a few quick questions:

1. Was the message helpful? Were the instructions clear and easy to follow?
2. If not, how do you think the message could be improved?
3. What do you think about the deletion process in general? Do you understand how to contest a deletion?

You can feel free to answer on my talk page or send me your response by email (mpinchukwikimedia.org). (I won't quote you or link your answers to your username if you don't feel comfortable with that.) Your feedback is incredibly useful for improving the content of deletion notifications, so please take a minute to think about and answer these questions. Thank you! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saros136. You have new messages at Soham's talk page.
Message added 12:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Soham 12:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Babe Ruth may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• – August 16, 1948), nicknamed "'''the Bambino'''" and "'''the Sultan of Swat'''", was an American ] [[outfielder]] and [[pitcher]] who played 22 seasons in [[Major League Baseball]] (MLB), from 1914
• September 14, 1999|work=ESPN SportsCentury|publisher=ESPN.com|accessdate=February 5, 2013}}</ref>)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Earth's orbit may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of J2000 to increase 360&nbsp;degrees), given the rate of change of that longitude at J2000). Such an [[orbit]] relative to the stars is called a sidereal year.</ref> This motion gives an

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Venus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Anon 09:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles titled "Transit of X from Y", of which you have authored one or more, are 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/Transit of Venus from Uranus until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Primefac (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saros136. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]