User talk:Fotaun

The fundamental principles of Wikipedia may be summarized in five “pillars”:		Shortcuts WP:5P1 WP:5P WP:PILLARS
	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
	It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are.
	Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view	Shortcut WP:5P2
	We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as “the truth” or “the best view”. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.
	Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute	Shortcut WP:5P3
	Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources. Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first.
	Editors should treat each other with respect and civility	Shortcut WP:5P4
	Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 6,845,827 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.
	Wikipedia has no firm rules	Shortcut WP:5P5
	Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.

Welcome!

Hello, Fotaun, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Thanks for your contribution to Palomar Observatory. There was already a list of other instruments, so I combined them.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad to help. Fotaun (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor revisions to your edits re:The Great Paris Telescope. It was not a catadioptric system and is the largest refracting telescope (although not a very successful one). Catadioptric is a combination of lenses and mirrors to form the Image-forming optical system. The siderostat used in front of the objective of the The Great Paris Telescope was not used to form the image, it was used to aim the telescope. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining that, I hope we can bring this clarity of thought to more articles. Fotaun (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on LightBuckets requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 19:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another user removed it because it was "..not an A7" Fotaun (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

creating that Earth's second moon article, as it has allowed me to keep the two hypothetical planet lists (the scientific and the non-scientific) separate. It could use a serious copyedit, but the content seems pretty solid. My only issue is that there really should be a disambig at the top pointing people to Lilith. I can tell you don't like that object much, but it's only fair to let people looking for Lilith know they're at the wrong article. Serendi^podous 09:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, at the moment related topics are mentioned in the "see also" section of that article. It is an interesting area, but in need of attention. Fotaun (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why is that asteroid worthy of mention? Just out of curiosity. :-) Serendi^podous 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to its size, technically, though it was only after looking at Astronomical naming conventions. Fotaun (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sounded snappy; I'm tired. I really do appreciate your help with this; I wouldn't have been able to carry on without someone to share the load. But I think we need to coordinate our efforts a bit. Right now there is little or no logic to how the list is being entered. I have been working towards a list of criteria that might be workable.

• The Sun and planets

• All known dwarf planets and dwarf planet candidates

• all named moons

• the 100 first asteroids and the largest of the rest

• Objects of particular scientific or historical interest (comets, first centaurs, first KBOs NEAs etc)

What else do you think should be included? Serendi^podous 22:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, I would add objects based on whatever is the largest, and then the next largest, and so on. However, there is a big problem finding accurate data and images. The question I wonder about is, "what is the largest solar system object that is missing?" Fotaun (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

was incomplete. The talk page for Tenth planet still links to Planets beyond Neptune. In truth I'm not sure it really needs its own disambig, particularly if "ninth planet" doesn't have one. And what is "eleventh planet"? Serendi^podous 19:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a work in progress... Fotaun (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

left a lot to clean up. Many of your paragraph moves left a lot of information out of chronological order. I've given it a once-over but there are probably a lot of other inconsistencies I haven't found yet. Also, you made a mistake on your added planet tables: The ancient Greek names for the Sun and Moon were Helios and Selene, not Phoebos and Artemis. You're also going to need to cite the mediaeval spellings of the planets you used in the table. You've done a lot of good work but please be more careful. Serendi^podous 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article needs a lot of work... Fotaun (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the dozen or so people who passed it for its Featured Article review. If you feel it needs a lot of work, you can't make such a determination by yourself. You should discuss the matter with its principal editors first. Serendi^podous 19:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a failure to communicate. It is a very good article and it needs a lot of work. Fotaun (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might want to look at this. Serendi^podous 23:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fotaun (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have a look at this page too. As you can see, the number of asteroids with radii of 50km+ does not significantly decrease until well into the 800s. We are never going to achieve a comprehensive list of objects down to 30 km, but we might be able, with the addition of the KBOs, to do so for objects down to 100 km. So we need to decide when to stop adding asteroids.Serendi^podous 10:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Active link for that PSI/IRAS data here. Fotaun (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is always good to see a new editor making many useful edits. I always wanted to write a "lost object" article and a "extinct comet" article, but I never got around to even stubbing the articles.

Should we add 1995 SN55 to lost asteroid (even though it is technically a centaur)? I think we should since it is a lost fairly large object. I see you have already added it to List of Solar System objects by size. -- Kheider (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad to help. I added the lost centaur to both pages for the time being. Fotaun (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the opening line of the lost asteroid article we have "Most of these were rediscovered in 1980s and 1990s, and by 2003 none remained." Shouldn't we remove the "and by 2003 none remained" part? -- Kheider (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that was just referring to a certain group of lost asteroids. Fotaun (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My definition of "irregular" is "having too little mass for its gravity to round it into a spheroid shape." Your definition appears to be more general than that. The issue with the shape is whether or not, under certain circumstances, an object could qualify as a planet or dwarf planet. As such there is a certain mass point (usually defined as around 200 km radius) at which an object begins to round under its own gravity. Certain types of object, particularly warm icy objects, may assume that state more readily than others, so the precise boundary is not known, but below 100 km in radius, gravitational rounding is pretty much impossible. Serendi^podous 19:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not paying much attention to this category, but your analysis seems reasonable. Perhaps we could eventually use the shape category for smaller objects for something else, like length, width, & height dimensions. Fotaun (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited your occultation data for 55576 Amycus because I think your reference is only a prediction of a low probability (Rank:0) event. It does not appear to be actual results? -- Kheider (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was being used as a citation in another article, but I misunderstood its nature. Fotaun (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your article. I've done some copy edits to make it a little more an English wiki article acc to the Manual of Style. Nice work, more ;-) Thanks. -- Sebastian scha. (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problem. Fotaun (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did a couple things that are not done at all on Wikipedia and should avoid in future.

First, you put "Pluto" in the subsection titles. Wikipedia style guides do not allow putting the title of the article into subsections, since it is seen as redundant.

Second, you put hatnotes at the bottom of sections. They belong on the top.

More individually, I think you over-section. There is no need to put a section over every single sentence. This is an article, not a list. Also, your placing dates in the subsection titles is confusing; "Discovery (1930)" implies that Pluto was discovered again at some other date. Your "Cultural History" section could be reintroduced, I think, but it needs to make a clear distinction between the science and the cultural issues. Planet X is a scientific issue and belongs up top.

Look, I'm sorry to come across as a jerk, but we're going to have to work together and it would be nice if you would discuss your changes before making them, particularly to featured articles.Serendi^podous 08:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have some good feed back, and I intend to incorporate your suggestions. However, reverting was not appropriate, as most of the changes were small corrections. Fotaun (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have only had a quick look due to the number of changes, but I certainly did like including the discovery years in the moon table. I think it is always good to give the reader a quick perspective, ie: 1930, 1978, 2005. On the other hand Pluto was removed as a planet outright, I am not sure we want/need the word classical, when we say, "This definition excluded Pluto as a classical planet" in the lead. I think it only complicates the reading since dwarf planets are not planets. -- Kheider (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On examination, the phrase "classical planet" has more implications then I realized. Fotaun (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've enjoyed working with you too. You've breathed life into some of my moribund projects, like the lists. But you need to learn Wiki-decorum. The kinds of radical edits you make are great for articles that are still under construction, like List of Solar System objects by size, but featured articles, like Planet and Pluto, have undergone years of editing and weeks of peer review by dozens of experienced editors and are deemed complete; to revise them as extensively as you have without prior discussion is considered extremely impolite, particularly to those people, like myself, who spent no small time and effort getting them to that level. You are perfectly free to disagree with a featured article's content and layout, but, unless your edits are reasonably minor, please confine your disagreements to the article's talk page until you have achieved consensus for alteration. Serendi^podous 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is you who should have had a consensus for removing the LPI image, as it was the work of a professional science organization. Fotaun (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not alter the article; you did. However reputable its source, that image was factually inaccurate and so did not belong on the page. Serendi^podous 21:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion about the image; there is no source I can find that says the LSI image is "factually inaccurate". Fotaun (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed the notability tag at this article without comment[3]. You should leave comment when removing such tags as to why you think they don't apply, or better yet, open discussion on it giving your opinion. I have re-instated the tag with comment on the talk page as to what the problems are. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed, because it did not meet the requirements you stated in your initial claims. Fotaun (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Extinct comet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write the hook for this DYK? If so, I really enjoyed it. Nice job. Viriditas (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but that is great! Fotaun (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I just found out that Hassocks5489 helped write the hook from the article you created. I'm going over to his talk page right now to thank him. Please feel free to join me over there. :) Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, see you there and thanks for stopping by! Fotaun (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Thanks for your message, Fotaun, and you're welcome—it was a well-cited and nicely written new article, hence ideal for Did You Know?. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you made a lot of edits to a few featured articles (Pluto and Titan (moon)). I appreciate your desire to improve them, however I noticed a few problems:

1. When you add new references, you do not use citation templates and do not provide full information about the sources such as authors, publisher, dates etc. I want to point your attention that FA criteria (criterion 2c) requires consistent formatting of citations and references in featured articles as described in WP:CIT#How to format citations. So, may I ask you in the future to use citation templates and provide full information about sources that you cite?
2. The are various style guidelines in Wikipedia. One of them is WP:LAYOUT, which in the section 'Section templates and summary style' explains where the hatnotes should be placed (immediately after the section heading). The FA criterion 2 actually says that featured articles should follow style guidelines. So the recent edit war on Titan (moon) article could have been avoided if you had familiarized yourself with W:LAYOUT before you started reverting.
3. One of the FA criteria is actually 3e—the article should be stable and not subject to edit wars in order to remain featured (this also applies to Pluto).

So my conclusion is: featured articles should be edited cautiously with due regard to the FA criteria and WP:MOS. Edit wars should be avoided and controversial edits should be discussed on the talk page. This important because FA articles that do not satisfy the criteria may be lose their status. Regards, Ruslik (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! Fotaun (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted on this articles talk page[4] the these changes[5] have made the article (list) contradict its title. Needs some cleanup. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will check it out. Fotaun (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you are continuing to make redundant lists, such as List of largest optical telescopes in the 20th century, or why you keep re-adding a list of small telescopes (Selected large telescopes below 1.9 m) to List of largest optical reflecting telescopes. Again that list is full of redundancies such as including space telescopes (there already is a List of space telescopes). You may want to have a look at List of optical telescopes (which again was a redundant list to List of largest optical reflecting telescopes) and see what already exists (at least what I have found). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason is to (hopefully) migrate to pages with less need for updating (and somewhat less redundancy). For example, the new 20th century telescopes page will not need updating with new telescopes. Fotaun (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would really suggest taking this to a project page. Lists are not for non-encyclopedic dumping or "overflow", parameter "Famous" is WP:NPOV, ant the list is "Optical telescopes", not just reflectors. (see also WP:Source list). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up or reverted a whole series of edits you made on these relating articles. I think you are confusing Albert Bouwers invention of a meniscus telescope with him inventing the Maksutov telescope. They are two very different optical systems and a Maksutov telescope has a very distinct encyclopedic description. And you may want to avoid turning an article into a series of conflicting statements like you did here. Please use the telk pages. MrFloatingIP (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information comes from sources, and indeed the real world sources conflict about the issue. Fotaun (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading the sources. Both Woodruff[6] and King[7] describe the invention of the meniscus corrector. Yes - Bouwers was an early inventor of the meniscus telescope, but the Maksutov telescope is a sub type of the meniscus telescope using an auto-chromatic corrector[8]. MrFloatingIP (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to explain this sort of detail, and if you can believe it, I understand your line of thinking on this. However, this is a very technical viewpoint and other sources don't always reflect this. What the article needs, is just what you explained to me, and to explain that some don't believe this. Fotaun (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you know, that your 'small' template delete the articles in the stub category? I think, it's more important to list them there than to have a new nice colored thingi at the bottom of a page. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really it is for articles that have outgrown "stub", but they can be kept in the stub category with the new template anyway. Fotaun (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Ok, it includes that category now, or it could be given a new category. Fotaun (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is okay (by wiki guidelines) to create this kind of tag. I only noticed this because I try to watch Hamburg related articles and noticed that the stub category was deleted by your first version. Even to remove a 'not stub' article from the category is okay, if it's long enough. Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the idea was to have something to migrate the Hamburg articles to when they are large enough, rather then have no tag at all. Perhaps "medium article" would be better so it is not so redundant. Fotaun (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, ah, I can follow your idea. Maybe somehing in the {{WP Germany}} template, sorting Hamburg task force or Wiki Project Hamburg articles by class, yes this would be nice. Sebastian scha. (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated List of manned mars mission plans in the 20th century, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Bruce1ee^talk 11:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The hook looks fine, though the article itself needs some improvement. Fotaun (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to List of space shuttle missions. I did this because it is pointless to have two lists of the same thing in one article. The list that was already there has lots of detail and in my opinion looks much better.--Navy blue84 (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of manned Mars mission plans in the 20th century, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Grutness...wha? 23:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and a happy New Year to you too- hope we can collaborate again soon. Serendi^podous 18:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, thank you! Fotaun (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fotaun. It is always good to be appreciated. I often enjoy working on some of the lesser known solar system objects simply because I know that a lot of them will not get much coverage, and whatever info I track down about them will probably remain in the article for quite some time. I am glad to see that you still drop by Wikipedia from time to time. :) -- Kheider (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I hear you, there are a lot of solar system objects and they really need more coverage. Hopefully with Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, there will be a lot more new data on the smaller objects to compare with older IRAS and Spitzer figures. Fotaun (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: do you oppose replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}} in this article? --bender235 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't oppose. Fotaun (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would consider Wasp-3c to be a possible planetary candidate, not a planet, until it has been detected and confirmed, either photometrically or spectroscopically. The researchers themselves realise that this is just one interpretation that fits their limited data.

Cheers --Gmoney484 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your many contributions to Great refractor and other telescope-related articles. Please note my WP:MOS-related cleanup, removing spaces preceding <ref> or <ref name>. Per the convention or policy, the citation should immediately follow the preceding text or punctuation. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out and making the corrections. Fotaun (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Craig telescope, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry for a bit of a spam message to the editors who deal with these topics but I think I see something that needs changing across the board. If a reader follows the "Optician" link (or category link) in articles about optical designers they are told the subject was "a health care practitioner". That definition of Optician seems to follow reference, although there are some refs that seem to to imply that "Optician" was formally a name given to optical designers and doesn't mean that anymore, it now pretty much refers to the health care practitioner. I think we mean the people who design telescopes and other optical devices are optical engineers, not opticians. It looks to me like we need to change some links, defs, add some hatnotes, delete them out of Category:Opticians, and rewrite that cat def. Looking for input before I start that job. I left a note about this here if we want to generate a comment trail. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on trying to find defs and cleaning up the related articles. I did some more cleanup at Optician based on Wikipedia:GOOGLETEST. I keep hitting specific legal defs that are medical and regional, cited some. I noticed the list Scientific equipment optician, it seems to have no valid def and should probably be inter-linked or rolled into the Category:Optical engineers you created, or moved to List of optical engineers, my vote anyway ;). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am glad you took note of the issue. Worlds collide here it seems.. what are we to to do? Hopefully it is better off then before. Fotaun (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help finding the formulae for calculating the various attributes, you can find them on my userpage. Serendi^podous 00:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for filling in the figures. Fotaun (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do realise Fotaun that someone will have to find outside sources for all of your added information? The previous pattern of our relationship suggests that someone will be me, and I REALLY don't want to do it. This list is meant to be considered for FL; it can't be as long as most of its information is unsourced. Serendi^podous 23:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the page needs a great deal of sources, and I have added what I can. I seriously hope that the task does not fall to you, because I think your time is better spent elsewhere and the quantity of work is immense. At a minimum, we should for wait new, more accurate figures for diameter. Fotaun (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move cleanup maintenance tags to the bottom of the article. As per consensus, the Manual of Style, and long-standing practice on Wikipedia is to have them at the very top. -- œ^™ 00:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Incandescence. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Smjg (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Facts on File reference is simply incorrect, as recourse to a good star atlas or any of the several online databases will show. I've already corrected Veil Nebula. I propose to revert your edits to Cygnus Loop, as the previous version is more accurate. -- Elphion (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, feel free to add sources and corrections as you see fit. Fotaun (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you for editing nebula articles. Fotaun (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly welcome to edit the Pioneer 10 article all you wish but I wanted to let you know I am currently in the process of standardizing all of the unmanned space craft pages. Many of your edits are straying greatly from this standardized form, which is partially adapted from press briefings the NASA delivers. See my user page for more details about the standardization. --Xession (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for working on the unmanned space craft pages. Fotaun (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Space shuttle. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Nat682 (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was content to leave "Orbiter vehicle: add-ons" and "Orbiter vehicle" as my edit summaries. Fotaun (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've discovered a strange-looking ref which you had added in this edit. Was that a mistake? Even the names of the authors are distorted. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by; no it is not a mistake but it does have a formatting error. Cross-reference here. Fotaun (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I wasn't trying to suggest that the addition of the ref itself was a mistake, but its distorted look. Thanks for the cross-reference. Why don't you add the link and convert the ref to conform to the Wikipedia standard? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I made some improvements. Fotaun (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your attempts to save the article, it was redirected to extended periodic table. I was a bit too late to mention about the continuity of articles, but I think that with Template:Compact extended periodic table, we can do quite a bit of article-hopping (even from hydrogen to unbihexium, if one so wishes). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want to restart it, there are some sources out there that discuss its theoretical properties. Fotaun (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of launch vehicle plans has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Indiscriminate list. Much better as a category than a list.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of launch vehicle plans 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/List of launch vehicle plans 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:IRAS, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Religion in space, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Tweeted (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Germany in 2011 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Repower

Space station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sergey Volkov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Solar power in 2011 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kameyama

Space exploration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Discovery

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—From Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited 2011 in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Repower (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ROSAT, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 10:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of proposed space observatories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SPACE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cosmic background, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a troublesome image at Talk:Phobos_monolith, which you seem to have some knowledge of. Could you comment? Thanks, Hyarmendacil (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure. Thanks for stopping by.Fotaun (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because the reference you used was invalid; see here. I didn't really look at the specifics other than that the page was broken. Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the reference was left out by mistake. I will return it with that source. Fotaun (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like your new article, but most of the material will be outdated in a few weeks after the Roskosmos Esa talks about the future of the mission and the reorganization of the Pasteur-payload. Good Luck! --Stone (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is a credit to the many contributors of that article. If the present is the future's history, it should reflect that. Fotaun (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of tallest mountains in the Solar System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Mars atmospheric entry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Semaphore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Enzmann starship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don Dixon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Here is an aknowledgement to your dedication and diligence while developing and successfuly managing the two most edited articles in Wikipedia for 2 days in a row: Mars Science Laboratory and Curiosity rover. Thankyou! BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Battery! It has been a lot a fun! Fotaun (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Juno Jupiter Mission, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should dislike to challenge your edit to Template:Mars spacecraft, but I don't understand why you removed the italic text, representing mission failures. Is the usage of this italic text a deviation from the manual of style (not rhetorical - I actually don't know)? I just don't see how the removal of these italics was an improvement, sorry. Could you please explain.

On another note, fine job with the rest. Changing the image of Mars, to images of Mars spacecraft was a good idea, as it is obviously more relevant. JamesDouch (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Someone said the italics were hard to read. Determining failure/success can also be difficult. Fotaun (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Yes it has crossed my mind that failure/success can be open to interpretation. Defining failure, and then deciding how to organise these failures is getting a bit tedious. I should have found the discussion there earlier. JamesDouch (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Classical albedo features on Mars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Schiaparelli

Mars atmospheric entry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to PDT

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fotaun.

I believe you make many good additions to the encyclopedia, but you frequently make major edits to articles, changing other editors edits, without comment in either edit summaries or on the article Talk page.

In recent days, you have made a large number of edits to Mars Science Laboratory. Today, I reverted two of your major edits to that article, with the edit comment "Undid two edits by Fotaun (talk); revert uncommented major edit; feel free to discuss it on the Talk page if you would like (per WP:BRD)". Without any response, in an edit summary or on the Talk page, you reverted that edit, restoring your major edit, and continued on making additional large edits with no edit summary comment as to why.

Can you help me understand your edits, as constructive contributions to the encyclopedia, and showing that you understand the Wikipedia is a community effort (thus, engaging with other editors is often necessary, but always appropriate, when making major edits)? Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been fixing errors such as "HazCam" to "Hazcam" and adding refs. Fotaun (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Something is amiss. As I just looked at that edit I reverted, it was of a pretty significant edit by you. And when you reverted it, there was still no comment by you as to what you were doing, or why your reversion should be seen as not a major edit with no comments. N2e (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fotaun, I've recreated the article with entirely new text and sources after it was deleted. Wasn't sure if there were any other sources you might know about. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will check it out! Fotaun (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Curiofront.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited TRAPPIST, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Makemake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Outer space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Callisto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Substellar companion, Fotaun!

Wikipedia editor Modern.Jewelry.Historian just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

nice with illustration

To reply, leave a comment on Modern.Jewelry.Historian's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

The article List of battery powered space probes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fairly useless cross-categorisation. All spacecraft are powered by some extent by batteries, so this might as well be a complete list of spacecraft.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. W. D. Graham 23:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is relaxing and stimulating at the same time. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year man!!! Fotaun (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fotaun! -- Kheider (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fotaun - Wow! - Thank You *Very Much* For The Mars Star and The Space Barnstar - They're *Very Much* Appreciated - I Wish You A Great 2013, And Success In Editing, As Well - Thanks Again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the List of Solar System objects by size. :) Serendi^podous 09:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the barnstars you awarded me today - it's nice to be appreciated, and it meant a lot! :-) SalopianJames (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Happy new year!! Fotaun (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]