User talk:I am. furhan./Archive 1

Recent edit to BAT99-116
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. In particular, I don't see why you deleted what seems to be reasonable content. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 20:56, 1nm2 December 2014 (UTC)

List of most luminous known stars‎‎
I reverted an edit of yours because it removed content without an explanation and appeared at least accidental, at most mildly vandalous. My apologies if neither of those are the case. ~ Tom.Reding (talk&#124;contribs&#124;dgaf) 21:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Tom, i deleted BAT99-116 from the list because i didn't think that it should be on the list for a number of reasons (It is a binary which could result in improper measuring of the luminosity of the stars within it. Also, some of the luminosity is generated not by the stars themselves, but by colliding stellar winds resulting in a lower actual luminosity).I am just a new user to wikipedia and I am unfamiliar to its workings so I did not know that I had to make an explanation for deleting content. I apologize for any inconvenience.


 * I am. furhan. (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC) i am. furhan.


 * Hi, I moved your reply (above) from my talk page to here, to keep the whole conversation in one place (which is typically the same page that it started on).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk&#124;contribs&#124;dgaf) 19:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced additions
Hello there, I've recently reverted some of your edits as you provided no citations to back your statements. For example, on IC 1101 you give a figure of 2.8 Mly, for which I cannot find any reliable sources. Same for R136c; SIMBAD does not mention anything about binaries, and a (very) brief search yielded no concrete evidence of binary status, though I could certainly have missed something. The point is, any time you add material to an article, you must provide a citation to a reliable source. If you have any questions, please let me know. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I am a new user so I do not know exactly how to add references. But on a site (it is a reference on the R136c page) Paul crowther, the discoverer of R136c says (and I'm qoating here) "R136c is consistent with a colliding wind binary system". Also, on the list of largest known galaxies, it says that IC 1101 is 2.8 Mly across.


 * That's fine, I know you're new. Just look at how other citations are written in the edit page and you'll figure it out. It is pretty self explanatory. Regarding R136c, that isn't a statement of fact, just that the likelihood is strong. I believe the same paper goes on to suggest that any secondary star must have very little impact on the visually observable data for that system. For IC 1101, we cannot cite other Wikipedia articles (as they are anonymously edited thus not reliable), and it does not provide any citation for that 2.8 Mly figure either. Just remember: all facts stated in an article should be baked by a reliable source. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. i am. furhan.


 * Furhan, you are continuing to add unsourced material to articles, such as HD 269810. Stop doing this immediately. As I stated before, any material added must be explicitly supported by reliable sources. If this is a matter of you not knowing how to do this, please let me know. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I don't exactly know how to add references. I looked at some pages which had references on them and I still couldn't understand how to do references. I do have some sources to rely on on the case of HD 269810, I just don't know how to add them. So can you direct me to a page that shows me how to add references or can you show me yourself? --I am. furhan. (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC) i am. furhan.


 * Please read Citing sources, and in particular the section at WP:CITEFOOT. Don't worry too much about the citation formatting, just make sure that the URL is correct, and if you're citing a journal, provide a DOI or exact information about how to find the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , again, you failed to provide a source for your statement with this edit to IC 1101. You've been told repeatedly to not do this, so the next time will result in a block for a day. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Contents
Can anyone tell me how to create that small section on most pages saying Contents?--I am. furhan. (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC) i am. furhan.


 * The Contents menu is automatically generated based on the number of subsections in the page. It isn't anything you need to worry about adding yourself. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

So on the HD 269810 and R136c page will it appear?–i am. furhan.


 * Yes, once the page grows in lengths enough to warrant it. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppetry
It has been found that you have been using one or more accounts abusively or have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny. Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts or people to support you should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publically and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

At Lithopsian's talk page
Wait a minute first. What you did in Lithopsian's talk page is not so nice to me. First of all, next time you want to comment, create a new paragraph below a full comment, and not within a comment.

As far as you're concerned, me and Lithopsian have been working together for star articles. But that's not my point.

About R136a1, I know that. I've read the paragraph. But still, a luminosity of 7.4 million Sun is 73% of its Eddington limit, which would still make it a violent LBV. But it shows a Wolf–Rayet profile, which may make indication of being a binary.

About WR25, I know that. In fact I am the one who created the article and added that sentence. But it is unlikely. If WR25 is more luminous it would illuminate the Carina Nebula more than Eta Carinae does, which is not. And they are on the same distance.

But above all, please don't just appear like a bubble within someboy else's comment. SkyFlubbler (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@

Check the article The R136 cluster hosts several stars whose individual masses greatly exceed the accepted 150 stellar mass limit. On pages 12-13, it describes the possibility of R136a1 being a binary and they come to the conclusion that R136a1 is not probably a binary and is in fact a single star. Also, one of Wikipedia's main rules is Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You see it every time you edit a page. So even if you have proof, you still need to provide a reference to your material.

Eta carinae's eruption in the 1840's raised its luminosity to 50,000,000 which was past its Eddington limit. And although WR25 is a wolf rayet star, some wolf rayet stars have been known to undergo a LBV-like eruptions. But at the same time, you have a point. WR25 would light up its environment more than Eta carinae so its luminosity might be below 6.3 million so the astronomers could have measured it wrong. But there might be another possible explanation. Although WR25 is at the same distance than Eta carinae, it could have more dust extinction. For example; V4998 Sagittarii is virtually right next to the pistol star, yet suffers a greater extinction. But even then, WR25's luminosity can't be put lower than 6.3 million because it would contradict the reference and the content wouldn't be verifiable.

Also, I've noticed the articles that you've created so I think you would be a good person to expand this article; NGC 2363-V1. I've already provided the references you'll need. They're on my sandbox. Happy editing! --I am. furhan. (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.

Speedy deletion nomination of LBV G0.120-0.048


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on LBV G0.120-0.048 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. 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 request here. Snowstormer ( T • C) 21:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Animation of a O star.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Animation of a O star.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim 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 (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's in HD 269810. If it isn't, then someone must have deleted it.


 * Yes, it was removed from that article as it is non-free and of a strictly decorative nature (since it is so generic). Thus, it fails fair use criteria. Sorry. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok.--I am. furhan. (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LBV G0.120-0.048, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Absorption, Cluster and Wolf-Rayet. 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) 08:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:A survey image of the Quintuplet cluster region.png


A tag has been placed on File:A survey image of the Quintuplet cluster region.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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. Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: LBV G0.120-0.048 (February 8)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JHUbal27 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:LBV G0.120-0.048 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:I_am._furhan. Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JHUbal27&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:I_am._furhan. reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JHU bal  27  22:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:LBV G0.120-0.048


A tag has been placed on Draft:LBV G0.120-0.048 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBV_G0.120-0.048. 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 Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see 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. JHU bal  27  22:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

sandbox
I'm having trouble with the citations on my sandbox. I want to provide a ref linking to this page on SIMBAD http://http%2Csimbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=%5BNHS93%5D+22 but it's not linking! Also, I there is another ref that I want to put (and this is it. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785..120L) but even that's not linking! I used citation bot but something went wrong with it.

Speedy deletion nomination of Soccer 1 Academy


A tag has been placed on Soccer 1 Academy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. 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 request here. Jbh (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of GRB 790305b


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on GRB 790305b requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. 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 request here. -- Finngall  talk  22:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from GRB 790305b, 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 case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)



i DID leave a message on the talk page.I am. furhan. (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.

Edits from R136a1
First of all, I'm very sorry since today is summer vacation in the Philippines and I have no time to check my Wiki account.

Okay, so, in R136a1 I notice some weird details. What do you mean by "ultraviolet star"? A quick research on Google does not give me anything about "ultraviolet star", although I've seen someone in Yahoo! Answers who asked that, though none of the answers describe any "ultraviolet star", and Yahoo! Answers is invalid for Wikipedia. No arXiv paper gives anything about "ultraviolet star". It may seem understandable for some, but I think it is invalid. AS far as I can tell some early white dwarfs and pulsars emit ultraviolet light significantly. Next, Population III stars and quasi-stars states that "none have been detected so far in the observable universe". Then, what is this paper?:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02742

It says: "Population III Stars in I Zw 18". I understand that it was only nine days ago, however, the statement is well pretty odd.

Next, "the star loses mass at 3.21463821×1018 kg per second", with too many insignificant digits. Why not just "3.2 kg/sec"?

Thank you! Please leave a message on my talk page if you have questions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute, you seem to be confusing the issue. Does the show said anything about "ultraviolet star"? It may say that as stars get hotter, their greatest power becomes ultraviolet. But it never says "ultraviolet star". Think about it, are there any "infrared stars", "gamma ray stars", "X ray stars", etc? No! Even arXiv, which is probably the greatest reference site for Wiki, does not say any "ultraviolet star". I think it must be a "star with the greatest power output is in the ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum" statement but not "ultraviolet star". In my study of astronomy for eight years, I never heard anything about "ultraviolet star" or something like that. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

UY Scuti
Oh, the reason why I removed such a large content is because the article contains a lot of unreferenced statements. Example, about the UY Scuti nebula, which is not been detected by HST in its picture. Another is " Were it not for the dust extinction the star would appear as a 5th magnitude object visible to the naked eye", which I don't think is pretty clear since I have no idea about the extinction factor of the Cygnus Rift. Next, the statement that "UY Scuti is a hypergiant." is unclear. Next, we cannot predict its fate. This type of star is very special, and follows a zigzag pattern in the H-R diagram before ending as a supernova. The quoted previous statement is for a 30 solar mass star, but current constraints place it less than 15 solar mass, actually 7 or 10 if I am not mistaken. That's it. I want it to be reliable, yet pretty simple and amazing for readers. But we must be careful at handling those kinds of info since UY Scuti is a large traffic in Wiki and is one of the hottest topics of astronomy in the web. If we put some odd statements in it surely those others will follow since they only rely on Wiki. That's all. SkyFlubbler (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi I am. furhan.! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 21:11, Thursday, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WR 102, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sagittarius. 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) 09:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mount Buchanan, Prince Edward Island


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. 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 request here. Spyder212 (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SN 1961i


The article SN 1961i has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Not visible to the naked eye, not in a catalogue of note, not discovered before 1850, and no significant coverage in studies.

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 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 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. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of SN 1961i for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SN 1961i 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 Articles for deletion/SN 1961i 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. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

R136a1
First stop has to be WP:NOR. No Own Research. That means anything more complicated than πr2! No working out what someone might have meant when they wrote about the Eddington Limit in a blog. Data, and anything more controversial than "the sky is blue" needs to be confirmed by a reference (technically it only needs to be "verifiable", but better by far to actually have the verification right there so there are no awkward questions later).

Second stop is which sources are good. A web page, even one written by a renowned astrophysicist, isn't a great source. It isn't peer-reviewed, it could just be idle speculation. If it hasn't been published formally, maybe it is rubbish? If it has been published, then use that as the reference instead. Same applies to blogs, press releases, and astro-porn, half of which is probably copied from Wikipedia anyway.

I may or may not edit R136a1 in the future, but I don't have time to do a good job on it at the moment. Hence is just quickly rook out stuff that is plain wrong. I don't have time to proof-read twenty edits a day. I don't have time to write sections on demand. You have to be responsible for what you write. If you don't understand it, don't write it. Even if you understand it, double-check. All the good ideas in the world count for nothing if you write a handful things that are just flat wrong.

A word of advice on page ratings. I haven't seen an official policy on this, but tend try to avoid rating articles that I have heavily edited, or at least rate them conservatively. Over-rating doesn't help anyone. Almost by definition, you think your own articles are good or you would edit them some more. It takes someone else to see if there are problems.

The UY Sct article is OK, reasonably well written but containing some uncited claims and could certainly be expanded. Note that it is class C, which seems about right. Compare the articles given as examples on the documentation pages for class C and class B, you might be surprised how comprehensive they are. Or think that a class B article should be a potential good article candidate. Anything that would be tirn to shreds in a good article review probably isn't class B.

Last stop is WP:NOR :) Lithopsian (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I want to reiterate something that Lithopsian wrote. "You have to be responsible for what you write. If you don't understand it, don't write it." I cannot overemphasize this enough. If you are not willing to be responsible for everything you write, then do not write it. You can have all the best intentions, but throwing words into an article and expecting someone else to fix everything for you is, quite frankly, unconscionable. If this is how you expect to operate, then you should also expect your additions and changes to be reverted. Editors are not here to babysit. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fundación Galileo Galilei


A tag has been placed on Fundación Galileo Galilei requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

v
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis

File:56,000 K blackbody color.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:56,000 K blackbody color.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the 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. Eeekster (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:56,000 K blackbody color.gif
Thanks for uploading File:56,000 K blackbody color.gif. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)