The fundamental principles of Wikipedia may be summarized in five “pillars”:		Shortcuts WP:5P1WP:5P1 WP:5PWP:5P WP:PILLARSWP:PILLARS
	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
	It combines many features of general and specializedencyclopedias,almanacs, andgazetteers.Wikipedia is not asoapbox, anadvertising platform, avanity press, an experiment inanarchy ordemocracy, anindiscriminate collection of information, or a webdirectory. It is not adictionary, anewspaper, or a collection ofsource documents, although some of itsfellow Wikimedia projects are.
	Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view	Shortcut WP:5P2WP:5P2
	We strive for articles thatdocument and explain major points of view, givingdue 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”. Allarticles must strive forverifiable accuracy, citingreliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is onliving persons. Editors'personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.
	Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute	Shortcut WP:5P3WP:5P3
	Since all editorsfreely license their work to the public, no editorowns an article and any contributions can and will bemercilessly edited andredistributed. Respectcopyright laws, and neverplagiarize from sources. Borrowingnon-free media is sometimes allowed asfair use, but strive to find free alternatives first.
	Editors should treat each other with respect and civility	Shortcut WP:5P4WP:5P4
	Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipediaetiquette, and don't engage inpersonal attacks. Seekconsensus, avoidedit wars, andnever disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, andassume good faith on the part of others. Be open andwelcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriatetalk pages, followdispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 7,081,259 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.
	Wikipedia has no firm rules	Shortcut WP:5P5WP:5P5
	Wikipedia haspolicies 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 notreckless in updating articles. Anddo not agonize over making mistakes:every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.

Welcome!

Hello, Fotaun, andwelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour 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 aWikipedian! Pleasesign your messages ondiscussion pages using fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia: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 toPalomar 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 acatadioptric system andis the largestrefracting telescope (although not a very successful one). Catadioptric is a combination of lenses and mirrors to form theImage-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 onLightBuckets requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done undersection 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 thecriteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Pleasesee 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}} tothe top ofthe page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note onthe talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged forspeedy 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 contactone of these admins to request that theyuserfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ←Signed:→←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 thatEarth'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^podous09:36, 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^podous21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to its size, technically, though it was only after looking atAstronomical 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^podous22:20, 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 toPlanets 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^podous19:42, 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^podous17:58, 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^podous19:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a failure to communicate. It is a very good articleand 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^podous23:24, 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^podous10:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Active link for that PSI/IRAS datahere.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 add1995 SN55 tolost 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 toList 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 thelost 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^podous19:15, 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 for55576 Amycus because I think your reference is only aprediction 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 foryour article. I've done some copy edits to make it a little more an English wiki article acc to theManual 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^podous08:30, 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 aplanet outright, I am not sure we want/need the wordclassical, when we say, "This definition excluded Pluto as a classical planet" in the lead. I think it only complicates the reading sincedwarf planets are notplanets. --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, likeList of Solar System objects by size, but featured articles, likePlanet andPluto, 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^podous20:36, 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^podous21:06, 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]

OnMarch 20, 2009,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleExtinct comet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid 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 thatHassocks5489 helped write the hook from the article you created. I'm going over to histalk 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 forDid You Know?.21:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you made a lot of edits to a few featured articles (Pluto andTitan (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 thatFA criteria (criterion 2c) requires consistent formatting of citations and references in featured articles as described inWP: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 isWP: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 onTitan (moon) article could have been avoided if you had familiarized yourself withW: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 andWP: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 asList 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) toList of largest optical reflecting telescopes. Again that list is full of redundancies such as including space telescopes (there already is aList of space telescopes). You may want to have a look atList of optical telescopes (which again was a redundant list toList 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 new20th century telescopes page will not need updating with new telescopes.Fotaun (talk)14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would really suggest takingthis to a project page. Lists are not for non-encyclopedic dumping or "overflow", parameter "Famous" isWP:NPOV, ant the list is "Optical telescopes", not just reflectors. (see alsoWP: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 ameniscus telescope with him inventing theMaksutov telescope. They are two very different optical systems and aMaksutov telescope has a very distinct encyclopedic description. And you may want to avoid turning an article into a series of conflicting statements like you didhere. 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 nominatedList of manned mars mission plans in the 20th century, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on theMain Page as part ofWikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the articlehere, where you can improve it if you see fit.Bruce1ee^talk11:00, 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 toList 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]

OnSeptember 25, 2009,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleList 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 toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid 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 atWikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meetWikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained atWikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments atWP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first atWikipedia: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^podous18:50, 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 toGreat refractor and other telescope-related articles. Please note myWP: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]

On13 September 2010,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleCraig 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 toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid 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 Ithink 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 followreference, 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 areoptical engineers, not opticians. It looks to me like we need to change some links, defs, add some hatnotes, delete them out ofCategory:Opticians, and rewrite that cat def. Looking for input before I start that job. I left a note about thishere if we want to generate acomment 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 atOptician based onWikipedia:GOOGLETEST. I keep hitting specific legal defs that are medical and regional, cited some. I noticed the listScientific 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 toList 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^podous00:21, 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^podous23:07, 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 movecleanup 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 fromIncandescence. 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 theedit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has beenreverted. Take a look at thewelcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. 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 correctedVeil Nebula. I propose to revert your edits toCygnus 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 myuser 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 foryour contributions toWikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide anedit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit toSpace shuttle. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken forvandalism). 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 inthis 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-referencehere.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 savethe article, it was redirected toextended periodic table. I was a bit too late to mention about the continuity of articles, but I think that withTemplate:Compact extended periodic table, we can do quite a bit of article-hopping (even fromhydrogen tounbihexium, 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 articleList of launch vehicle plans has beenproposed 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 bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.The Bushranger_{One ping only}18:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleList of launch vehicle plans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia: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 atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.Pichpich (talk)00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. InReligion in space, you recently added a link to the disambiguation pageTweeted (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-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 todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

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

added a link pointing toRepower

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

added a link pointing toSergey Volkov

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-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 todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

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

added a link pointing toKameyama

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

added a link pointing toDiscovery

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

Hello, Fotaun. You have new messages atTalk:Germany in 2011.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—FromNorthamerica1000^(talk)13:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited2011 in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRepower (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-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 atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.  _{(previously GW)}10:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedList of proposed space observatories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSPACE (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-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 atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.Pichpich (talk)02:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a troublesome image atTalk: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]

Ireverted your edit because the reference you used was invalid; seehere. 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 editedList of tallest mountains in the Solar System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMercury (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedMars atmospheric entry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSemaphore (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedEnzmann starship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDon 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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-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 andCuriosity 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 atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.The Bushranger_{One ping only}04:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should dislike to challenge your edit toTemplate: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 todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

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

added a link pointing toSchiaparelli

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

added a link pointing toPDT

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

Hey Fotaun.

I believe youmake 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 toMars 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 (perWP: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 atWikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see thediscussion 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 editedTRAPPIST, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMakemake (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-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 editedOuter space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCallisto (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creatingSubstellar companion, Fotaun!

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

nice with illustration

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

Learn more aboutpage curation.

The articleList of battery powered space probes has beenproposed 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 bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.  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* ForThe Mars Star andThe 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 theList of Solar System objects by size. :)Serendi^podous09:41, 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]

Cool barnstars BTW. Didn't know they existed!. Happy New Year!Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk)03:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I selected those fromWikipedia:Barnstars, congratulations!Fotaun (talk)18:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedList of examples of lengths, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pagePinhead (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recent barnstar you presented me with. I appreciate it. I endeavor to simply make some improvement to Wikipedia at themargin; so it is cool when someone notices and takes the time to say so. Cheers.N2e (talk)21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orion's ISS missions were scrapped years ago, there are currently no plans to send Orion to the ISS. In the future please do more research.--Craigboy (talk)05:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Orion's web page at NASA, "Capability to be a backup system for International Space Station cargo and crew delivery"[9]Fotaun (talk)05:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedBolide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageImpactor (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Russianmeteorche.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on thefile description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry atthe discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe!17:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:ISS034-E-032377annotated.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set ofimage copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag fromthis list, click onthis 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 onWikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk)03:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I usually edit on the French Wikipedia. Today, I created a set of templates and used much of yourTemplate:Ngc20,Template:Ngc10, etc., which gavePalette NGC 1500 à 1999,Palette NGC 500 à 999, etc. Thank you very much !

Cantons-de-l'Est (talk)02:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISEPC J222623.05+044003.9 andWikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical_objects#Action on WISE object notability. I question whether Hekerui is acting in the projects best interest. --Kheider (talk)02:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creatingList of examples of lengths, Fotaun!

Wikipedia editorJayadevp13 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good work!

To reply, leave a comment on Jayadevp13'stalk page.

Learn more aboutpage curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedList of brown dwarfs discovered by WISE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSanta clause (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)19:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cubesats2012 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion atthe template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  18:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit to511 Davida may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• <ref name=aug>http://www.asteroidoccultation.com/2013_08/0805_511_30745.htm Asteroid Occultations]</ref> The event is visible over Argentina and Chile, with Davida at magnitude 11.7 and the star at

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)23:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hibernating spacecraft, 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 atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.DexDor (talk)05:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, 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 atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.postdlf (talk)01:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toMelville Island (Australia) may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=81847 Fires around Darwin, Australia August 21, 2013]</ref>]]

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toTimor Sea may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=81847 Fires around Darwin, Australia August 21, 2013]</ref>]]

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)21:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toKosmos 2261 may have broken thesyntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• v=onepage&q=Kosmos%202261&f=false N. Busch - No End in Sight (2004) - Page 97] (Google Books link)]</ref> and reentered destructively on December 31, 2012.<ref name=renentry/> (the early morning of

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)20:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fotaun. I'm contacting you because you're involved in theArticle Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, justdrop them at the talkpage. Thanks!Okeyes (WMF)22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I couldn't help but notice you've been adding a lot of very large images to a number of pages. For good reason, theWikipedia:Manual of Style/Images states that "as a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default". Such large images cause a number of problems (please seeWikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnail sizes). If you could reduce the size of those images it would return those pages to their former readability. Thanks.Richard Apple (talk)00:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:ISS031-E-123071.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on itscopyright status and itssource. Wikipedia takescopyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to theimage use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page oncopyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing theimage description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make arequest for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here isa list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.02:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Fotaun, thanks for creatingList of heaviest spacecraft!

I've just tagged the page, using ourpage curation tools, as having some issues to fix. /

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment onmy talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers atthe Teahouse.Sulfurboy (talk)02:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toLandsat 5 may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• phttp://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/landsat_bday.html Earth-Observing Landsat 5 Turns 25]</ref> It use the extra fuel to lower its orbit so the Shuttle did not have to go as high.<ref name=

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)22:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fotaun, I removed your comment "Sometimes the title "most distant galaxy" is reused for items at lower redshift than previously announced items" from the articlez8_GND_5296. Though I can certainly sympathize with your frustration with the 'hyped' nature of university press releases, you seem to be well aware ofUDFy-38135539, which does appear to have a larger redshift. I made some temporary more-neutral revisions, but I noted that the author's did not claim that z8_GND_5296 is the 'farthest ever found' in their manuscript, only that it is the galaxy with the greatest detected redshift of the Lyman-α line. From your many efforts, I assume that you're more familiar with this than I am -- I'd appreciate if you could look over the article again when you have a minute. Cheers,Supasheep (talk)23:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fotaun. I noticed you added a section on Laser communication to theLADEE article today. Good on ya. Then I observed that the article already had some info on those laser tests in a different part of the article. I think where you put your material is probably the more logical place to put info on those demonstration tests.

So, for now, I just moved the older statements on the laser tests, from the other part of the article to adjacent to your added text. The edits will still need to be cleaned up for redundancy, as now some of the info is repeated. But I did take the first step, and thought I should let you know. Cheers.N2e (talk)02:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articleMothers in space has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not aWP:NOTABLE concept

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Boleyn (talk)17:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleMothers in space is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mothers in space 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.Boleyn (talk)18:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toOpportunity (rover) may have broken thesyntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• about 4 billion years ago, and may provide some science suprises by Christmas.<ref name=rayl>[http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/space-missions/mer-updates/2013/10-mer-update-
• Mars Exploration Rovers Update: Opportunity Gets Back to the Past at Winter Site : Sols 3444 - 3473[</ref> The team is hunting for "juicy" slopes of 5 to 20 degrees for more power.<ref name=rayl/>

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)21:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toSuper-Jupiter may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In comparison, somewhat lighter planets than Jupiter can be larger, so-called "[[puffy planet]]s"(gas giants with a large diameter but low density.<ref name=chang>{{cite news| url=http://www.

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)22:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir, I want to know what do you mean by keVlight inthat contribution? --MarioBros6565 (talk)20:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, kiloelectron-volts. You can use wavelength to describe light, but also frequency, or energy. This is common for the higher energy light like x-rays and gamma-rays.Fotaun (talk)22:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This entry at hyperphysics gives an overview:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems3.html (Hosted by Georgia State University)Fotaun (talk)22:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know about electron-volts, but what I am searching to understand is the signification of "light" in keV light. Does it mean that the electron-volts produce light or does it mean that it is electron-volts per light? The sources that you have put does not talk about electron-volts light but only about energy. --MarioBros6565 (talk)23:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, if I am contacting the right person. The wiki articles of Spirit and Opportinity have been lately heavily restructured by user MoreInput. The new structure is really terrible. I see, that you are one of the contributors of these articles. Please check these articles and if necessary, revert it to their earlier states.Mmichalsk (talk)17:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fotaun congrats on successfully defending the article. Since this article is really your baby, so to speak, would you be interested in renaming it as women in space, per the final comment in the AfD? That would seem more inclusive and make it very difficult to renominate for deletion since there are of course many unambiguous sources on that topic and Wikipedia needs an article on it anyway, and motherhood in space would fall within that topic. --Green Cardamom (talk)18:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fotaun,

you've reverted my edit toBrown dwarf where I removed: "Many brown dwarfs would likely appear magenta to the human eye according to A. J. Burgasser". I know he said it, so technically you are correct to revert, but he actually made a mistake - magenta is the colour brown dwarfs can look if they are seen in a false colour IR image, not what they would appear like to the naked eye. Should wikipedia knowingly repeat things which are wrong, just because they are cited, or should we ignore stuff we know to be wrong?Aarghdvaark (talk)04:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedEarth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageAmerica (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in space, 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 atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)00:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toOrigin of the Moon may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)22:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toComa (cometary) may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.[reply]

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• coma comes from the Greek "kome", in Greek written as κόμη, and can be translated as "hair".<ref>[[http://lifeng.lamost.org/courses/astrotoday/CHAISSON/AT314/HTML/AT31402.HTM Comet appearance and

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)15:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On theUshkovsky page,your edit caused amissing references list(help |help with group references). (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

Earth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toCeres

Venus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toCeres

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Extraterrestrial landers, 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 atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.NickSt (talk)23:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedEarth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageLogarithmic (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)08:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Curator Barnstar
		ty for the stars and the trips into telescope history, Happy New YearFountains of Bryn Mawr (talk)16:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and happy new year to you also, and happy editing as well.Fotaun (talk)14:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	HappyNew Year!
	Hello Fotaun: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyableNew Year! Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk)16:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toNorth Face (Everest) may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• false The Other Side of Everest: Climbing the North Face Through the Killer Storm By Matt Dickinson]</ref> George Mallory's body was found on the North face.<ref name=book/> A place where one author

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)17:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toMars flyby may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• //www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/01/to-mars-by-flyby-landing-excursion-mode-flem-1966/ W.I.R.E.D.]</ref>

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)16:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedRhine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageReichenau (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedList of light sources, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSpark (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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)08:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In recent weeks/months you have saturated many planet articles with images that are either too large, highly redundant, or of little educational value to the average reader. Please in the future read and follow the image use policy, try not to indiscriminately saturate articles with so many images, limit large image sizes, and be more discerning in terms of which images are of immediate value to the article and which are not. Thank you very much.Cadiomals (talk)07:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toMount Sinabung may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:Sinabung oli 2013158.jpg|thumb|330px|<center>Sinabung on June 7, 2013<ref>[http://
• [[File:Sinabung ali 2014037 (1).jpg|thumb|330px|<center>Sinabung on February 6, 2014<ref>[http://

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toDiscovery Program may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• net/Summary/7]</ref> Alladin<ref name=finalists/>, Deep Impact<ref name=finalists/>, Osiris,<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/oct/HQ_06342_Discovery_AO.html</reF> and Vesper.<ref name=

Thanks,BracketBot (talk)23:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toDiscovery Program may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *EXOMOON, ''in situ'' investigation on Earth's Moon.<Ref>[http://www.ri.cmu.edu/publication_view.html?pub_id=6129</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)21:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is great to see you adding references to a number of articles. As well as providing confirmation of facts, good references can also lead the reader to more detailed material on the subject matter. However, adding references in any of these three forms often leads to problems:

• <ref>[http://www.example.com/]</ref>
• <ref>http://www.example.com/</ref>
• <ref>[http://www.example.com/ Some article title]</ref>

These three examples^{[example 1][example 2][example 3]}render as follows

in the references section of an article, e.g. like theseseen here and give the reader little or no clue where clicking the link will take them. Additionally, should the link stop working, the lack of detailed information about the resource (e.g. author(s), publisher, publication date, etc) limits the possiblity of finding a replacement URL.

References with additional information are much more useful and it is now possible to add that data by using one of the various{{cite}} templates. Using these templates is actively encouraged, hence this note. The basic template looks something like this:

• <ref name="">{{cite web | url= | title= | last= | first= | work= | publisher= | date= | deadurl=no | archiveurl= | archivedate= }}</ref>

The official documentation for these templates looks complicated, but in essence all that needs to be done is to make up a name for the reference, then fill in as many of the other parameters as you can, especially the URL and title but also the author, publisher and publication date, where known. The site software will format the reference when it is shown on the page.

It is also useful to archive reference URLs using an archiving service and then add the archived URL and the archive date on the end of the reference using the|archiveurl= and|archivedate= parameters. If at some time in the future the original URL no longer works, the previously saved copy can be viewed instead.

In the cite template, the word "web" can be changed to "news", "journal" or various other options depending on the type of resource being referenced. There are many other parameters detailed in the{{cite}} documentation and these can be looked at as you become more experienced in their use. Thispage may be a good example to follow as it has a selection of different types of reference.

If you have any questions about using the various citation templates, post them here, as I will endeavour to come back in a few days to see if you need any help. --109.176.163.196 (talk)18:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pages containing bare or incomplete references such as those detailed above should be marked with the{{linkrot}} template at the earliest opportunity. This will flag the page as needing attention. Use a tool such asReflinks to fill in more detail within each reference. Sometimes this will be a considerable amount of work such asshown here. Many references on that page are still in need of further attention, especially details for the various PDF documents. -86.144.189.4 (talk)17:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you continue to add bare references to articles can I simply assume you haven't seen the original message? The offer to help you gain better understanding of referencing still stands. --109.176.220.208 (talk)18:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toSample Collection for Investigation of Mars may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Stardust'' and ''Genesis'' sample return missions.<ref name=scim/> SCIM was studied by the[Mars Scout Program,<ref name="USRA-2008"/> and it achieved finalist status in a mission selection

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)20:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toOSIRIS-REx may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• marsconcepts2012/pdf/4017.pdf OSIRIS-REx II to Mars - Mars Sample Return from Phobos and Deimos]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)21:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toBaden-Württemberg 1 may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• q=%22Baden-W%C3%BCrttemberg%201%22%20moon&f=false Lunar Settlements (Page 476)] (Google Books link)]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)23:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The "Lunar sample return from the South Pole–Aitken basin" mission was a proposal in the late 1990s. Any reason we should include it as a viable [recent] proposal for the next Discovery mission? Thank for your help. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk)12:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I started the list I made it as generic as possible, since we don't actually know who will actually make proposals. Aitken return plans seem relatively common= there is also one for future new frontiers[10][11] I moved the list to its own section so we can be more flexible, if that is ok. Thanks for stopping by.Fotaun (talk)15:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticedan article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

(This even applies for infoboxes.)

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony(talk)14:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On theOpportunity (rover) page,your edit caused acite error(help). (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haveconverted all of the references in this article to use a template. However, there are numerous places where the publisher or the publication date still need to be filled in some time.

I have also fixed a couple of dead links by linking to an archive copy. Hope this helps you out a bit. --79.67.241.76 (talk)12:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Germany in space, 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 atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.Tim! (talk)10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Switzerland in space, 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 atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.Tim! (talk)10:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Austria and space, 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 atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.Tim! (talk)10:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toPlants in space may have broken thesyntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Lettuce and [[Cinnamon basil]]<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/pgig003.html A Plant Growth Chamber 01.30.08[</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)16:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toCinnamon basil may have broken thesyntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• basil was taken into space and grown in an experiment in Earth orbit on [[STS-118]]. <ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/pgig003.html A Plant Growth Chamber 01.30.08[</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)16:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toSaturn's hexagon may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:Saturn North Pole 2013-07-22.jpg|thumb|550px|left|<center>''Saturn's north pole''</center><
• </center><ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/cassini/saturn-moons-holiday-20131223.html#.UriH2NKsiSo NASA}</ref>]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)16:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a significant contributor to that article, you are invited to participatein a discussion about its title. All input welcome. Thank you,^walkvictor falk^talk14:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Water and Mars, which you created, has been nominated for renaming toCategory:Water on Mars. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you. --Black Falcon^(talk)00:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Sand Dunes in Har Nuur.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see thediscussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.Latebird (talk)21:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight#Retirement of project member WD Graham. WD Graham, formerly operating under the editor name of GW Simulations, has retired from Wikipedia. Please pop on over to offer a remembrance, or thanks, or ... (...maybe talk him in to giving it another go.) Thanks.N2e (talk)06:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up N2e!Fotaun (talk)13:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. More than a year ago, you createdEnduring Quests and Daring Visions but likely forgot about it. You never added a project tag to the talk page, so the wider community wasn't made aware of it (adding a project tag adds it to several queues, including a category). You also neglected to mention that it was a NASA roadmap. Will you be returning to it?Viriditas (talk)08:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedGalileo (spacecraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageNew Horizon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Vestacropped.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described in thecriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.JCP(a.k.a.John Carlo Pagcaliwagan)08:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have rather crudely lifted much of your section, refs and all, into the rather sensationally-titledGreat Pyramid of Ceres article (which may well be retitled as soon as it is officially named, thoughMount Sharp stuck.)

Point being, I want to thank you for the work you did on this section, and I invite you to check the transplanted clone section and article as a whole for any errors, or additions you see fit to add. Humanity at large did not even know of this mountain feature 48 hours ago, and needless to say the huge, steep mountain is an unexpected discovery. My own first guess is that it is some sort of ice volcano. Of course, we will hopefully know more in the coming weeks and months as Dawn gets still closer. Exciting stuff!

Thanks again for your work,Jusdafax10:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing and glad to experience the discovery of Ceres as a community! Thank you also and good luck.Fotaun (talk)11:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for your edit to the article! Ceres and the Pluto system discoveries have me agog. Thrilling times for those interested in our solar system.Jusdafax12:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On theMount Everest page,your edit caused abroken reference name(help). (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On theList of 20th-century summiters of Mount Everest page,your edit caused acite error(help). (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toSeven Summits may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Aconcagua, Everest, Elbrus, Kilimanjaro, McKinley, Kosciuszko, Vinson (the "Bass version")<Ref>[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777282.html infoplease)</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)00:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toSeven Summits may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *Caribbean Plate - [[Pico Duarte]] (3,098 m 10,164 ft))

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)18:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I appreciate all the work you've been doing lately on various mountaneering articles. I'm not sure if you know this, but if you're using the same reference multiple times, what you can do is give it a defining name that you then reference later. Per Wikipedia's own help page:

A footnote used multiple times may be defined with a name:

<ref name="foo-bar">{{cite web|url=web address|title=page title}}</ref>

To invoke a named footnote:

<ref name="foo-bar" />

When I edit your stuff and tag summaries as "ref cleaning", that's usually all I'm doing. Once again, thank you and keep it up!NekoKatsun (talk)16:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedMount Everest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageNational Geographic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)18:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your efforts in setting up theList of Mount Everest summiters by number of times to the summitQwrk (talk)14:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am glad to show off the hard work collected over many years by the many editors here and "out there" which really makes it easier to assemble this list. It really has just been very fun!! Happy editing to you.Fotaun (talk)15:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fotaun,

I wanted to let you know that I just taggedList of Mount Everest guides for deletion, because it seems to bepromotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you cancontest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note onmy talk page if you have questions.ubiquity (talk)14:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedMount Everest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageLincoln Hall. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedList of Mount Everest expeditions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDavid Sharp. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	Your tireless work on theMount Everest article is very much appreciated; if anyone deserves this, it's you!NekoKatsun (talk)00:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Neko!!Fotaun (talk)00:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fotaun,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Wendy Albano should be deleted. Your comments are welcome atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Albano.

If you're new to the process,articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide onhow to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,TheLongTone (talk)13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this works as an AFD under "not news". Maybe you caught it before I finished the state department stuff but even still this already almost 3 years ago.Fotaun (talk)14:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Fotaun If you will try to do the source citations properly, I'll see if I can find time to take a close look, and perhaps help out.E.M.Gregory (talk)03:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for stopping by Greg and any help is appreciated. Honestly, I usually leave a lot of the citation work to other editors (I have not had a problem with that) but what I am hoping for is more sources so this does not have be a tough-luck case. There was so many articles about this I did not expect the AFD, and would probably not have bothered if I thought so. After a few days there is just one weak delete so I really don't think there is much opinion either way. Thanks again!Fotaun (talk)17:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I undid your edit onMount Everest where you added "(ex-McKinley)" after most instances of Denali, and I wanted to clarify my thoughts a little further. Denali's been referred to by both names on most of its pages here for a long time, so I don't think calling it just Denali will cause any confusion at this point. On the off chance anyoneis confused, it takes merely a single click onDenali to clear that up. What do you think? OK with you?NekoKatsun (talk)01:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for stopping and appreciate the sugar. The issues aside I am glad we are forming some semblance of civilized community around this article. Anyway, I can't say I totally disagree with all this but I do have mixed feelings about removingevery mention of McKinley just one day after the announcement. Its fun to have something new happen, but as an encyclopedia its OK to be historical and make little notes- my 2 cents. ThanksFotaun (talk)12:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Itis nice, I feel like we have a pretty decent rapport going on here.User:Apuldram added McKinley to the first instance of Denali (summary: "as the name change is so recent, the first mention of Denali should carry the note, to make it unnecessary for readers to use the link to identify the mountain"), which is perfectly fine by me. Sound good?NekoKatsun (talk)20:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, thanks again and happy editing to you.Fotaun (talk)20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedMount Everest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCho La. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedTAU (spacecraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageNew Frontiers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should stop editing theInterstellar probe article for a while. Give it a breakHuritisho17:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iclicked the wrong button and I wasn't able to write an edit summary for my revert onCassini-Huygens. I reverted you because the text is terribly written. Also, what the hell is a Geyser moon? Is it the name of a moon of Saturn? Last but not least, please write edit summaries. I've told you that already. If you're trying to sneakily add content, you won't succeed. Ceers,Huritisho17:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you don't have to add an image in every edit you make. The Rhea flyby and the Hyperion flyby sections are really short and you can't fit an image next to each one of them. Don't flood the articles with images, pleaseHuritisho18:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedList of Explorers program missions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageIUE. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedWhipple (spacecraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageLogarithmic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)14:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been admiring the pictures on your user page. But Mars a dwarf planet? Now that's controversial! Cheers,Rothorpe (talk)23:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Jean-Luc Margot, we can clearly state thatMars is major planet. :) --Kheider (talk)23:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On theEris (dwarf planet) page,your edit caused abroken reference name(help). (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fotaun,

I wanted to let you know that I just taggedMauna Kea Hui for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you cancontest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note onmy talk page if you have questions.Arthistorian1977 (talk)14:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mauna Kea Hui has no other article, and is not even mentioned on the article you said is a duplicate.Fotaun (talk)14:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed aspeedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says:Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your caseon the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.Arthistorian1977 (talk)14:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fotaun,I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results!https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship

Wuqi333444 (talk)05:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Dry lightning —has beenproposed formerging with another article. If you are interested, please participate inthe merger discussion. Thank you.Pierre cb (talk)05:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre cb (talk)05:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of Mauna Kea Hui, in its original form, appears to be an attack page as defined bypolicy and appears to have been created in bad faith with several potentially libelous claims that have been removed. You could be blocked if an administrator feels the criteria is met for immediate blocking per policy.--Mark Miller (talk)23:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedDavid Sharp (mountaineer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageAndrew Irvine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominatedVenus for afeatured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meetsfeatured 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 arehere.Anon09:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up!Fotaun (talk)14:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minor planets discovered in 2001, 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 atthe category's entry on theCategories for discussion page. Thank you.   ~  04:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedToshio Yamamoto (mountaineer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageToshio Yamamoto. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)14:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedAnatoli Boukreev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageScott Fisher. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedList of 20th-century summiters of Mount Everest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMark Tucker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

Mount Everest

added a link pointing toBill Burke

Shriya Shah-Klorfine

added a link pointing toBottleneck

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the2014 Mount Everest ice avalanche page,your edit caused abroken reference name(help). (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

David Sharp (mountaineer)

added a link pointing toLincoln Hall

Mount Everest

added a link pointing toHypoxia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you foryour contributions toWikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!Dawnseeker200020:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedGheorghe Dijmărescu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDavid Sharp. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

Kangshung Face

added a link pointing toLincoln Hall

List of Mount Everest guides

added a link pointing toPorter

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedMount Everest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMedivac. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Asteroids named as an award, which you created, has been nominated fordeletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk)01:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedList of surface features of Mars seen by Opportunity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCape York. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fotaun. Voting in the2016 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.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please reviewthe candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fotaun. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started,List of Hubble anniversary images, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this:{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also,be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or onthe article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note onmy talk page if you have questions.Meatsgains (talk)16:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On theCarina Nebula page,your edit caused abroken reference name(help). (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page,Sunshield (JWST). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page –James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Sunshield_protection. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged forspeedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out atJames_Webb_Space_Telescope#Sunshield_protection – you might like to discuss new information atthe article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a requesthere. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest thearticle creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.Domdeparis (talk)16:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleGas giant (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gas giant (disambiguation) 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. —Gorthian (talk)03:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gorth, I admire your interest in housekeeping here and I really did not have a problem leaving this page as a redirect. Of course there is only two items. However, I don't think its a good idea to delete it, its just come across as make-work. Also, it serves a useful function in that it stops the dab page from being made after they see that is has already been done. In fact, I would not have made this dab in the first place had I seen a discussion like this.Fotaun (talk)03:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed aspeedy deletion tag fromSunshield (JWST), a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says:Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your caseon thetalk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.Domdeparis (talk)08:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page,Sunshield (JWST). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page –James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Sunshield_protection. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged forspeedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out atJames_Webb_Space_Telescope#Sunshield_protection – you might like to discuss new information atthe article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you maycontest the nomination byvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a requesthere. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest thearticle creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.Domdeparis (talk)08:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On theSpace Shuttle retirement page,your edit caused abroken reference name(help). (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On theList of heaviest spacecraft page,your edit caused abroken reference name(help). (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- Your unencyclopedic, error-ridden additions to theHI-SEAS article serve only to generate a lot of maintenance work for other editors. I gave good reasons in my edit summaries for reverting your edits. The fact that you don't leave edit summaries is yet another way you make more work for the rest of us. I will take the matter to some other editors.Eric^talk00:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]