User talk:PlanetStar/Archive 8

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

Love song (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Heavy metal, Love Me Tender, Fantasy (song), I Want You and Heartbreak

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

X star systems with planets....

Hey Planetstar, are there any exoplanet catalogues that categorise by constellation? I need to get a ref that says Musca has three systems with planets...would also be useful for filling out redlinks as I move from constellation to constellation....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go to http://wikisky.org and type in star name, then the star you're looking for is in the center of the square, hover it to make the data box appear which includes constellation. Or you could use http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/vizier/VizieR/constellations.htx, then submit the star at the bottom of the page. PlanetStar 02:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting links - though neither helpful in this case, I wanted a ref for a summary list. Thanks anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exoplanets discovered in 2014

There are a few more planets that you can ad to the list.

  • Kepler-25d
  • Kepler-48d and e
  • Kepler-93b and c
  • Kepler-94b and c
  • Kepler-95b
  • Kepler-96b
  • Kepler-97b and c
  • Kepler-98b
  • Kepler-99b
  • Kepler-100b, c and d
  • Kepler-102b, c, d, e and f
  • Kepler-103b and c
  • Kepler-106b, c, d and e
  • Kepler-109b and c
  • Kepler-113b and c
  • Kepler-131b and c
  • Kepler-406b and c
  • Kepler-407b (and maybe c)
  • Kepler-408b
  • Kepler-409b

I wonder if Kepler-51 star deserves its own article now that the densities of planets around that star were confirmed to be extremely low. --Artman40 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Love songs

You don't appear to be aware that the above category is up for speedy deletion as a recreation. Just tipping you the wink, so to speak. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you created the category , you were confronted with a prominent red notice telling you that it had been deleted several times before. It also told you that it had been deleted as a result of consensus at a deletion discussion. Nevertheless, you chose to ignore that, and re-created the category page. Please don't try to unilaterally overturn the outcome of discussions by ignoring them and going ahead anyway. Naturally, the category has been deleted again. You chose to add a huge number of articles to the category, and those will now have to be removed. Since this will entail a considerable amount of work, and since you voluntarily created the need for that work, can you please do the job of removing them? Thank you in advance for your cooperation. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that the number of articles to remove from the category is 429. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I wanted to tell you, PlanetStar, that you have added the category "love songs" to several articles. It has been since red-linked. Do not add unauthorized categories to any article, since that is an act of disruptive editing. If you do it again, you will be reported to an administrator and possibly blocked from editing. IPadPerson (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ignored it because I was going to create this category before I got stung to learn that the category was deleted thrice before. Due to surprise feeling but I'm confident about the category, I decided to go ahead since it had been at least five years since it was last time it deleted, thus there was discussion as long ago as in 2006. I say it should have this category since it is the popular song form and should deserve to have category in my opinion. I learned that it can't have category because it is too broad, but so what. I spent all the time adding category to many articles, and the time will be wasted. PlanetStar 23:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

==Disambiguation link notification for February 1==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We 

noticed though that when you edited World Scum, you added a link

pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the [[User:DPL bot/Dablink notification FAQ|FAQ]] • Join us at the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|DPL WikiProject]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, PlanetStar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that you have just edited Alpha Centauri Bb, adding an external link with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to add information about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the linked site. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mirokado (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to my Wikia pages to attract more readers; but now I know that Wikipedia does not allow to link to such sites created by users. Those articles I linked contain wild speculations about those planets, did you look? PlanetStar 01:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Certainly speculative. I hope you will enjoy both editing here and your walk on the wild side. --Mirokado (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presence of the phrase 'walk on the wild side' made your quote fantastic!! PlanetStar 23:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eye for an Eye (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Four-string guitar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the very late reply

I was just clearing up my talk page and I found this message from you. Well, I think one of two things might have happened: (1) I made a mistake and confused two things, or maybe (2) sources disagree and I remembered both versions at two different times. I can't really remember exactly which it was, though. I think the article would be safer to use now, because it is probably cited: whereas my comments on your talk page earlier last year weren't. Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coimetrophobia
added a link pointing to Horror
Ecclesiophobia
added a link pointing to Church
Kleptophobia
added a link pointing to Isolation
List of phobias
added a link pointing to Church
Siderodromophobia
added a link pointing to Subway

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your phobia entries

Hi. Most of these phobias seem to be made-up words that only appear in word lists, and are not discussed in medical literature — yet you are writing unverified details about their causes and effects. Please stop this since it's very misleading. Wikipedia needs to contain accurate information about real things! 86.130.41.222 (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make up these phobias, every phobia articles I created came from sources, like Phobia Source (e.g. Cathisophobia), FearOfStuff.com, and Common Phobias (e.g. Virgivitiphobia). I last created a phobia page in mid July. PlanetStar 07:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't believe everything you read online. Not all sources are equally valid. We prefer reliable sources.--Srleffler (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Phobia Source is completely and utterly unacceptable as a source: "If you happen to come across a phobia that we have not listed please contact us and we will be sure to include it." [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as for Common Phobias, it is utter garbage, and frankly I'm at a loss as how anyone remotely familiar with Wikipedia policy concerning reliable sources could even consider using it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see these phobia sites contain plenty of details which can be used as citations, I believe in them, and they seemed reliable to me. They're Phobia sites and I thought it is OK to include as sources for Wikipedia. PlanetStar 08:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever actually read WP:RS? If so can you explain why you have been citing ezinearticles.com, a blacklisted website for user-generated articles, as a source? Didn't the fact that it was blacklisted give you a clue that you shouldn't be using it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read some of it on Thursday night, but I only took a sneak peek into it prior. PlanetStar 02:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Virginitiphobia

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

Article topic is a neologism, not appropriate content for Wikipedia

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Srleffler (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cathisophobia

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

The sole source cited isn't even remotely acceptable as WP:MEDRS, or even WP:RS: "If you happen to come across a phobia that we have not listed please contact us and we will be sure to include it." [2]

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Siderodromophobia

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

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

A tag has been placed on Siderodromophobia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://phobias.about.com/od/phobiaslist/a/siderodromophobia.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fear of daylight

The article Fear of daylight has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable phobia. No evidence of in depth coverage in reliable sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sophophobia

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

Non-notable phobia. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the refs meet WP:MEDRS.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virginitiphobia article, and other phobia articles created by PlanetStar

Hello fellow Wikipedian, Just letting you know that at the above section of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine some of the articles you have created are being discussed, and many of them are proposed for deletion. NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And please be sure that no one questions your good faith or intentions. NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing

There appears to be some close paraphrasing in the article.

For example you have "as prescribed by a doctor or written on a label" which is exactly the same as [3]

Other thing is that this source is not really any good. Please read WP:MEDRS. Textbooks which you can find via google books are better. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cathisophobia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cathisophobia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathisophobia 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. Srleffler (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sophophobia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sophophobia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophophobia 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. Srleffler (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fear of daylight for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fear of daylight is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fear of daylight 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. Srleffler (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bibliophobia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bibliophobia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliophobia 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. Srleffler (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Harpaxophobia

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

Does not cite any reliable sources. It's not clear that this is a real medical condition, and not just a made-up word.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Srleffler (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Harpaxophobia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harpaxophobia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harpaxophobia 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. Srleffler (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kosmikophobia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kosmikophobia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosmikophobia (2nd nomination) 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.

Thanks for trying to get rid of this article by "proposed deletion". Another editor contested it, so we have to do it the hard way.--Srleffler (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]