User talk:Chesnok

Welcome!

Hello, Chesnok, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ragib 18:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Neujmin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you move a page, please check for double redirects, as outlined by the procedure insturctions. Your move caused 3 double redirects, which I have fixed. Please check for them next time. Thank you. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 13:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please send the circular about the monn to my email: mythbuster_alex@hotmail.com. I would be delighted if you did that. --81.224.46.39 07:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be very careful when renaming pages. Never copy and paste the contents, always use the move button to ensure the history is kept. If the name you want to rename to is a redirect or in use, request at WP:RM. Last but not least, please ensure the moves are discussed. Thanks. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check the magnitude difference for Orcus sat in the original IAUC? It appears unusually big compared to the primary. I’ve used a secondary source 90482 Orcus#Satellite. Thanks! Eurocommuter 11:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAUC 8812 full text. Chesnok 23:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Eurocommuter 07:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your help while I was struggling with the images not appearing properly in the portal spaceflight box. Another person thought to ask about the trouble Wikipedia:Village_pump (assistance)#image in a portal box. The answer given there points to a reasonable work-around, which I'm going to try. If the image still doesn't show up correctly ... I'm gonna' scream! (sdsds - talk) 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Horace Parnell Tuttle.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from this image, as it does not seem to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Lack of accuracy is not a valid reason. I suggest you take it to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion instead. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have such an offensive Userbox on your stupid userpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex1996Ne (talk • contribs) 01:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see that on Rigel, you changed the apparent magnitude with comment: visual magnitude from Hipparcos Catalogue, the most precise photometric catalogue.

However, the citation on apparent magnitude still points to Simbad. Please provide a replacement inline citation for your new source of 0.18 over the simbad 0.12 value. Also, can you give a cite which supports Hipporcos being more accurate than Simbad?

Thanks.

-William

The Hipparcos Catalogue is astrometric and photometric catalogue based on observations of satellite Hipparcos. Simbad is astronomical database which include information from many catalogs, including Hipparcos. Value 0.12 is taken from Yale Bright Star Catalogue version 5 (BSC5). But in Hipparcos catalogue there is 0.18 value. Both catalogs may be accessed from Simbad/VizieR. It is considered that Hipparcos is most precise in both photometry and astrometry, see for example Astrometric and photometric catalogs recommended by USNO. See also Comparison of recommended astrometric and photometric star catalogues. — Chesnok (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you leave a comment on the rationale of splitting Comet Lexell from Anders Johan Lexell? Leave a comment at Talk:Anders Johan Lexell. At present there is no information on the comet to be split out. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that each comet described in Wikipedia must have a separate page. — Chesnok (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know what you're doing with the List of periodic comets, so this change puzzles me: what did you mean by "De facto unnumbered short-periodic comets with P > 30 years have [a] "C" prefix."? That claim is patently false, as there are several P/ comets with periods in the 30 to 200 year range: 54 out of 416 in fact. They range from P/2002 CE10 to P/1937 D1. Please explain. Urhixidur (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both official (and most respectable) sources (Harvard Center for Astrophysics, NASA JPL Small-Body Browser) show C/2007 S2 (Lemmon) instead of P/2007 S2 (period is 44.4 years)^{[1] [2]}, C/2008 E1 (Catalina) instead of P/2008 E1 (period is 34.9 years)^{[3] [4]} C/2002 CE₁₀ (LINEAR) instead of P/2002 CE₁₀ (P is 30.8 years)^[5], C/1937 D1 (Wilk) instead of P/1937 D1^[6] (last two comets have no pages at CfA because they are not observable now).

However, P/2005 T4 SWAN (P is 28.6 years)^[7], P/1997 B1 (Kobayashi) (P is 25.2 years)^[8], etc. You can see 30-years-border in assigning "C" or "P" prefixes for unnumbered periodic comets.

Are you convinced now? Excuse my English. — Chesnok (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite: http://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/comet_data/periodic_comets.html has P/2007 S2 (Lemmon 1), P/2008 E1 (Catalina 9), P/2002 CE10 (LINEAR 34), P/1937 D1 (Wilk 1). The Planetary Data System (PDS) is just as reliable as CfA or JPL SSD, so one can only assume this is a matter of update/refresh time. Urhixidur (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried rephrasing what you explained, with links. Take a look. Urhixidur (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it appears more correctly. — Chesnok (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) I removed Category:Kreutz Sungrazers from Sungrazing comet article because such a categorization is misleading. Not all sungrazing comets are Kreutz Sungrazers. Therefore Sungrazing comet article should not be a part of that category.

2) Regarding two article about Kreutz Sungrazers comets, which I removed from Category:Comets, I should explain that I tried only to make categorization consistent. All other Kreutz Sungrazers except those two do not belong to the Comets category. So if you think that the Kreutz comets should be in both categories, please add Comets category to all other Kreutz Sungrazers articles, otherwise the categorization is illogical.

Ruslik (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

While I agree that it is not of Wikipedia's resort to "clean up" software, astronomical or other, I do believe that it was informative to write in the article about Comet 85P/Boethin that StarryNights software wrongly lists it as Boethin (85P), as it shows people the proper way to refer to the comet (or to any other).

I was a corrector for an astronomy book a few years ago, and the author was using the wrong way to refer to comets (a mumbo-jumbo of Halley (1P), Halley/1P and 1/P Halley for example). Being an amateur astronomer and not a professional, he did not know better, just because he never came across any reliable source of information saying that comets are designated by a sequential number; a one-letter code for whether they are periodic (P), one-time visitors (C), disappeared (D) or destroyed (X); a forward slash; and either their common name if any, or the year-letter-number code of their discovery date.

I believe that Wikipedia, while not currently seen as a reliable source by many, should endeavor to become the most reliable source there is.

But that is just my opinion. I'd like to know yours.

CielProfond (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. It is disgusting to look on such erroneous writings. I reverted my edit. — Chesnok (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well, I didn't necessarily mean for you to revert your edit, but just for your opinion about that issue, and maybe we could have worked out a possible alternate solution. It might only be a matter of time before someone else does the same edit again anyway... CielProfond (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered why you reverted my addition of the pronunciation file until I checked the edit. I accidentally forgot to enter the right file information when I copied the template code. I've corrected my mistake. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chesnok, I just granted DirlBot a flag on the Dutch wikipedia. Regards, Annabel (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Chesnok (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing a CSD tag after it has been rejected by a patrolling admin is not an acceptable practice. Don't do it. WilyD 16:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot status was granted for DirlBot on Romanian Wikipedia. Razvan Socol (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Chesnok (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop running your bot until you get a botflag. Your bot is filing the recent changes page without flag! THX --Seha (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. — Chesnok (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot status on bs.wiki granted. Best regards!--CERminator (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot status was granted for DirlBot on Slovak Wikipedia. Best regards! --Jano spoza mláky (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have change the category twice. At first it was a edit of your bot you revert and at second a edit of silvonenbot. Can i know the reason? Please answer here. --Seha (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don´t need to be so loud like: Please learn astrology... The edit was requested here because the Kupier quadrangle and Kupierov pojas means the same just translated! It seams to me there is a problem of false category at our wiki. No need for such comments! --Seha (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I saw it´s a not existing category on en wiki: Category:Kupier belt. Now your edit has a sence even for one who is not an astronomer. :) Write a comment when you change so we don´t need to revert by vandalism. --Seha (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don´t know the subject I asked you as you can see above. For me, who don´t have any knowlage of astrology and astronomy, it was be the same. That´s why I asked for an answer. There is no reason for such erruptions from your side. But as a sysop of bs.wiki there is a reason enough for me, to find out why someone change this interwiki twice and more witout any explanation. As you can see there is a summary line down under and if you use it, on a foreign wiki, we (the sysops without knowlage) can know why you have done it. Regards --Seha (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I've unlocked your bot since there is a description on it's user page. Our policy regarding global bots has changed recently. It seem the tool you indicates me is not up-to-date. Please make a request for bot flag at wuu:Wikipedia:机器人 (you can run your bot before he receive the flag, there's no problem with that).

Regards

--Hercule (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please apply for bot status? --Hercule (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please apply for bot-status lb:Wikipedia:Bot#Ufro_fir_nei_Botten on lb-wikipedia. Best regards from rainy Luxembourg lb:User:Robby --LURobby (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot-status granted on lb-wikipedia lb:User:Robby --LURobby (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,thank for you sharing the website for me.Lkt1126 (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. look I go to U of A i am a student of astronomy. It is suspected this meteor will destroy part of Mexicos yucatan peninsula. right now as far we can tell 36% chance of impact. do not think you are smarter than me, my own brain is practically an encyclopedia. i have won several awards for my contributions, scientific researches in the field of astronomy. if you revert my edit again, i am going to come down on you with the fullest extent of the LAW and AUTHORITIES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.176.205 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable sources. — Chesnok (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you shouldn't be doing 'cosmetic changes' with your both on fiwiki. The bot moves e.g. {{Link FA}} templates where they shouldn't be. I hope this will be fixed in pywikipediabot some day. — str4nd ⇌ 18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that wikipedias and wiktionaries have very different rules. Could you cancel your changes on Мордвин‎ on the Russian wiktionary? I tried, but was not very successful... Lmaltier (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chesnok. If Hale-Bopp came to perihelion in 1997 and has an orbital period of 2520 to 2533 years, how did you calculate the next perihelion being near 4390? I see 1997+2533=~4530. I know that in March 1997 it was shown to have an orbital period of 2380 years, but the comet had not even come to perihelion yet, so that calculation lacked the follow-up observations. -- Kheider (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Solar System is not a two-body system. The gravitational perturbations from Giant planets will lead to changing (shortening in our case) of semi-major axis and therefore the period of comet Hale-Bopp. The next apparition of the comet, especially long-period comet, cannot be calculated from a momentary value of orbital period. The time of previous and the next apparitions can be estimated using an "original" and "future" 1/a values that are often given with an orbital elements. — Chesnok (talk • contribs) 07:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have loaded Hale-Bopp into Solex 10 and produced an estimated year of 4385. -- Kheider (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Dutch wikipedia (nl:) you recently edited numerous articles of Messier objects like here where you removed the "Messier0034" catsort. This has resulted in the objects no longer appearing in their correct order in the categories they are listed in. For instance Messier 100 now sorts ahead of Messier 34. Could you please double check your edits on nl:wiki and repair the catsort where needed? Thank you, --Kalsermar (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm in the middle of an FAC for Halley's Comet and the image review has tagged one of your uploads. Specifically, it claims that it "needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. For self-made images, this would be an explicit assertion of authorship. Source for the orbital information should also be provided." If you could provide that information as soon as possible I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Serendi^podous 16:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please make your Bot not add content to empty pages. An empty page may be empty because it has been vandalized (as was the case in fo:10. mai), otherwise empty pages should not be created by bots unless there is a _good_ reason. br. ℚuackor 08:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Pywikipedia bot it is not possible not to edit blanked pages. — Chesnok (talk • contribs) 08:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that you moved this one. Per WP:COMMONNAME, I am not sure that was correct - on her blog she even refers to herself as "Amy". – ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The move has been reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chesnok. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Comet de vico, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Redirects from wrong capitalisation are cheap and may be useful; and R3 requires "recently created". Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For information, DirlBot (talk · contribs) lost ]] here. Cordialement - Drongou (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chesnok, please see meta:Steward requests/Bot status#Removal of global bot status. Thank you! --UV (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chesnok,

I noticed that your bot User:DirlBot on zh.wikipedia has been inactive for more than a year. Do you still need it?

If you wish to keep its bot flag, please let me know. If you no longer need it, or there is no reply in a month, the bot flag will be removed by local bureaucrat.

Regards, --Ben.MQ (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chesnok, I have removed your bot flag. Thank you very much for your past contribution. --Ben.MQ (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Bosanski) Želim da vas obavijestim da je se na bs.wiki donijela odluka da se uklone bot zastavice kod neaktivnih i/ili interwiki botova. Vaš bot spada u najmanje jednu od ove dvije kategorije. Ova odluka je donešena zbog zbivanja oko Wikidata koje je dovelo do toga da su interwiki botovi postali nepotrebni. Ako želite da zadržite vašu bot zastavicu onda možete podnijeti taj zahtjev ovdje sa dodatnim informacijama o poslovima koje bi bot obavljao i na koji nacin. Imajte na umu da ovo treba da bude konkretan i koristan posao za zajednicu da bi se zastavica zadržala. Ako imate bilo kakvih pitanja kontaktirajte me na mojoj stranici za razgovor. Ukoliko ne reagujete na ovu poruku će se uklanjanje zastavice izvršiti nakon nekoliko sedmica. Međutim, uvijek ste dobrodošli da podnesete novi zahtjev za bot zastavicu.

(English) I want to inform you that on bs.wiki there has been a voting that resulted in accepting the removal of bot flags for inactive and/or interwiki bots. Your bot has been identified to meet at least one of these criteria. This decision has been made due to the new developments with Wikidata by which all interwiki bots have become unnecessary. If you want to keep your bot flag, then please report that here by indicating what new task your bot will be performing and how this will be done. Note however that this has to be a concrete and useful task for the community before it will be accepted. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. In case of no response, the removal of the bot flag will be performed within a few weeks from now. However, after that period you are always welcome to file a new request for a bot flag.

-- Edin^(r) 01:23, 27 april 2013 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinwiki (talk • contribs)

Bonjour Chesnok,

J’ai constaté que ton bot DirlBot n’a pas fait de modification sur FR:Wikipédia depuis de nombreux mois et j'ai proposé de le retirer de ce groupe. Si tu souhaites commenter cette décision, merci de te rendre ici. Sans réponse de ta part le flag devrait être retiré dans un mois. Merci pour les contributions de ton bot à la Wikipédia en français.

Bonne continuation. Bub's (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chesnok,

I noted that your bot DirlBot hasn’t altered FR:Wikipédia for months and I have suggested to remove it’s bot flag. I you whish to comment on that proposal, please go there to do so (you can write in English). By default the flag should be removed in a month. Thank you for your bot's contribution to the French Wikipédia.

Best regards, Bub's (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot flag removed. Litlok (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chesnokさん、こんにちは。

ウィキペディア日本語版であなたの管理するBotが1年間以上稼働していません。

もし、Botフラグを維持されたいのであれば1か月以内に最低1度だけBotを動かしてください。このまま1か月稼働しなければあなたのBotはフラグ除去申請が提出されます。

Hi Chesnok,

I noticed that your bot on japanese Wikipedia has been inactive for more than a year. If you wish to keep its bot flag, please use once within a month. If you no longer need it, the bot flag will be removed.

Regards, -- Banku on ja.wikipedia 05:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chesnok, see [9].--6AND5 (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

As a bureaucrat on Latvian Wikipedia (lvwiki), I was checking the activity of the bots, and noticed that yours had been inactive from at least September 2013. It is not reasonable that an unmonitored account keeps a bot flag, as it may be more easily hacked. If you have any future plans for bot running or want to keep this flag for some other reasons, please make a note at this table. You can also contact me directly via my user talk at User talk:Edgars2007.

If you have no objections or we won't receive any response for a month, we will remove bot flag. Thanks a lot for your previous contributions! --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear,

Your bot account hasn't made any edits on the Dutch Wikipedia for at least three years. In accordance with the local bot policy the bot flag will be removed in three months. To avoid losing the bot flag, you can confirm you want to retain the bot flag by going to this page.

With kind regards, Kippenvlees1 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]