User talk:Parejkoj

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your constructive edits on astronomical topics. -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm posting this to the correct place. Regarding your response on my thread in the Quasar discussion page;   Ok, but that's my whole point. The "size" of the black hole is it's (singular) Schwarzschild Radius. Unless I'm really retarded or something, it's my understanding that an object can't have more than one Schwarzschild Radius. The term 10-10,000 Radii for one object is meaningless. Right??? 24.18.213.116 (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've replied at talk:Quasar. - Parejkoj (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with clarifying this matter. I've come up with a wording you might agree with on the quasar discussion page. 24.18.213.116 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU for your assistance! 24.18.213.116 (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. Article: Redshift Quantization
I'd be grateful if you specify where in section 5 of SDSS/7DR it responds directly to the following paper. Thanks in advance!

Bell, M. B.; McDiarmid, D. (2006). "Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model". Astrophysical Journal. 648 (1): 140. arXiv:astro-ph/0603169Freely accessible. Bibcode:2006ApJ...648..140B. doi:10.1086/503792. Watchman21 (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Just search for Bell: it's in the 4th paragraph of that section. "Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Fig. 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006)." - Parejkoj (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I was reading the latest DR, not the fifth edition. Watchman21 (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As a note, you're certainly never going to see any further mention of Bell&McDiarmid in an SDSS quasar paper after that one. One of the co-authors told me that they almost didn't say anything, since it's a rather self-evident point. - Parejkoj (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Orphadeus
He's at his last straw with me. I've only seen in him an inability to understand cooperation and basic research principles. If he was any help to the site I'd consider going to WP:RFC/U, but I'm about ready to just go to the administrators the next time he bucks consensus, deliberately introduces incorrect info, etc. Thoughts? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Go for it. I'll back you up. Some slight amount of his/her edits might be useful, but they are so full of inaccuracies that I don't think it's worth it. I'm not that familiar with the various wikipedia procedures for dealing with such things, so if you want to take the lead there, please do. - Parejkoj (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ...And he's just camping on the talk pages. After your's and my final speeches, with 2/0 apparently giving up on him as well, once Modest Genius learns he's not worth bothering he may quit.  Or he may start introducing bad content into the articles again, and we can get on him. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Astrology in astronomy articles
I want to bring to your attention this development:. They are planning to bring astrology portal template tags to many more articles about stars and supernovae, apparently thinking that this brings these articles under the scope of astrology, which then sets the stage for them to add sizeable astrology sections and links. You may also want to have a look at this WP article: Robert_Currey. He didn't make it a secret that he created his own biography page on WP, but instead of bringing it to WP standards he is more interested in telling us how to improve astronomy articles. I think we should notify the broader Wikiproject Astronomy, rather than just the astronomical objects. What do you think? MakeSense64 (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea: Done! Also, I think that Richard Currey page should be posted to WP:AfD, as it's clearly self-promotion. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Let's see if anybody comes out of vacation on WP:AST.
 * I have been cleaning up and tagging a lot of astrology articles, and a lot of them are in terrible condition. Robert_Currey is not even the worst case I have seen.
 * By the way, User:Zachariel has submitted the Algol article to the NPOV noticeboard. He notified me on my Talk page and I answered that he should notify all involved editors. Doesn't look like he has picked up on it, so here is the link:
 * It looks like WP:BAITING to me. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Lambda-CDM model pie chart
Would you recommend removing the pie chart for now? It's a useful graphic but inconsistent with the article and therefore may confuse the reader. No registered users have commented on this on the discussion page (see Talk:Lambda-CDM_model), which is why I'm bugging you. :)

Maybe you (or someone expert in the field) could encourage the author to correct the chart. Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've posted to Talk:Lambda-CDM_model. I'm not volunteering to make a new pie chart, but one should probably be made... - Parejkoj (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've left a message on the author's Talk page requesting he consider correcting the chart. It's probably best not to remove it; it's a useful and informative graphic, and the inconsistencies with the text are readily apparent (but those with the table perhaps less so). Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Tired light
Thanks for your help in Tired light. I added the ScienceNow citation you found to the end of the article. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(",)

 * Thank you for your contributions to Talk:Storms of My Grandchildren.  Please see wp:Tea.  99.181.155.9 (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I'm thinking of proposing an AfD for this erroneous redirect. Please weigh in on the talk page with your thoughts on yes or no, and whether one of us ought to propose AfD now, or wait a while longer. Cheers. N2e   N2e (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology
I did some work on the page, but have a feeling that people may or may not appreciate it. Your thoughts on the subject would be warmly welcomed. Goodsheard1 (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fourth and higher dimensions
Perhaps I should start by mentioning that I am only a retired meteorologist - although during my years in the UAE I was allocated the responsibility of answering astronomical queries, which then led to writing articles on the topic for the local Press (plus a few which were published outside the country), and delivering lectures.

There is a question which I have been mulling over for some years: (our discussion about Halton Arp prompted me to try contacting you - any answers or comments you may have will be well received).

Various astronomers and cosmologists have constructed or suggested models to describe or explain the development and structure of the universe.

Occasionally, one reads about the possibility that the Universe might extend into higher physical dimensions (i.e., which are quite separate from treating Time as a fourth dimension).

If that^ is indeed true, then it could presumably mean that there are comparatively simple explanations for puzzling phenomena like Dark Matter - [and maybe even Dark Energy]. Indeed, Hoyle alludes to such a possibility in his autobiography: i.e., gravitational effects from mass which occupies a fourth dimension might well be capable of acting on (and constraining) stars in a spinning galaxy.

Have any cosmologists tried to think along those lines, do you know? --DLMcN (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of periodic table
File:Most Recent Periodic Table of Elements.jpg is actually on commons not en.wp itself, so you'll need to nominate it for deletion there (commons:commons:DR) not here locally. Let me know if you need help with it. DMacks (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * erg... thanks (that was quick!). Not sure it's worth the bother: I noticed it linked in the gallery of Alternative_periodic_tables, and deleted it from there. It now has no links pointing to it. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I suspect a licensing problem on all of his uploads, so I'll COM:DR the lot. They don't care about FRINGE on commons, so that alone wouldn't be a cause for deletion there. Thanks for noticing the problem with its use here! DMacks (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

About NGC 6251
I see what you want to claim, but there are references stating that NGC 6251 has the diameter of 10 million light years. One of them is this:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1978A%26A....66L...1W

It says NGC 6251 has a 3 Mpc diameter. You must not challenge your own self-expressions to reliable sources written by experts. Johndric Valdez (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

For you to be able to be more convinced, let me state it in live mathematical terms. We are able to get the object's size through its angular size and distance, stated by the formula below derived from the article Angular diameter:


 * $$d \equiv 2 D \tan \left( \frac{\delta}{2} \right)$$.

where d is the object's size, D is angular size, and δ is the distance.

For NGC 6251, D = 1.8° (as stated in the paper) and δ = 340 Mly. From Google calculator, I've get that d = 10,682,293.6 light years. So how come you've get 50 kiloparsecs? Johndric Valdez (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, we'll have the conversation here. And I do know how to do the math (check my user page. ;-).
 * Willis, Wilson & Strom (1978) is about the extended radio emission in NGC 6251. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the stellar light, and is an extremely misleading thing to cite when discussing a galaxy's "size", since it likely was produced by radio jets from a central supermassive black hole. The actual physical extent of the galaxy, as measured in visible light, is around 2' (as I noted on your talk page), giving a size of ~50kpc. A measurement of its diffuse stellar halo would be somewhat bigger than that, but I don't know if that's been done. It's very unlikely to be larger than IC 1101 (whose article has its own problems, as I noted in that talk).
 * Though it doesn't matter as much in this particular case, be very careful when citing distances from old papers. Our understanding of the redshift/distance relation has changed a lot in the last couple decades. The discovery of dark energy and the stabilizing of H0 measurements around ~70 mean that distances from old papers need to be recomputed before they are used in calculations.
 * Also, quoting excessive significant figures isn't worth the bother: our distance metric to this galaxy is probably only good to 5% (from scatter in the TF relation). - Parejkoj (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep. J1420-0545, Like NGC 6251 has radio jets as well. It is 15 million Ly or maybe 25 million Ly across. But that is the size of the radio jets which Parejkoi already said Should NOT BE CONSIDERED. People have already claimed it as the largest galaxy, when in actuality that is the size of the radio jets which should NOT be considered.What do we say to those people claiming J1420-0545 as the largest galaxy??? THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Million-light-year-galaxy problem?
So assuming you're right, that means some famous galaxies whose reported sizes ranging millions of light years were not really at that size?

Like NGC 262. It was claimed in 1987 to have the diameter of 1.3 Mly. Taking the distance, 300 Mly, plus angular size data from SIMBAD, gives me 80,000 light years, very small.

A2261-BCG, claimed to have a million light year diameter, yet solving the figure gives 360,400 light years.

So is it possible that most of the "huge" galaxies widespread on the Internet were really given the wrong sizes? Johndric Valdez (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I find that quite likely, yes. The usual definition for the "size" of a galaxy in astronomy involves just the stellar component. Popular media often conflates various sizes (e.g., cold HI gas, radio jets, hot X-ray gas halo) so you have to be careful about this. Plus, changing H0 from 50 (commonly used 30+ years ago)->73 has a sizable change, too.
 * That said, it would help to have the literature citations for the sizes of those galaxies, to clarify whether the sizes were the diffuse stellar light or something else. The most massive Bright Cluster Galaxies (like IC 1101) can certainly have a very large stellar halo, but whether that's a reasonable thing to call the galaxy's "size" is a good question. - Parejkoj (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Those emissions outside the visible light were not considered to be included in the galaxy. Also, maybe a lot has mistaken measuring the intracluster medium as part of the galaxy, as the intracluster medium releases X-rays and infrared waves. Learned something new. Johndric Valdez (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

HFLS3 – Largest Galaxy Known?
I'm going here to introduce to you a galaxy named HFLS3, a starburst galaxy found at redshift 6. But I'm not bringing it here because of its high redshift, but because of its size. Reference 2 in its article says it is 10 to 30 times larger than normal galaxies today. Assuming they took the Milky Way as comparison scale, this equates 1 to 3 million light years, larger than IC 1101.

I came here to ask for help. I am not able to equate its size. NED does not know the object (if they do, its on a stupid designation of SDSS). SIMBAD does know the object, however, they did not gave its angular size. Knowing you as a prof. cosmologist, can you equate its size? Leave a message in my talk page if you have answers. Johndric Valdez (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In that particular case, the "size" referred to is its mass, not its radius, and it's in comparison to other galaxies at that time in the Universe, not now (per the |preprint version of the Nature paper). The term "size" is not a very helpful one, and in press releases can mean many different things. I've updated that page. Remember, "size" can mean many different things. You usually have to look at the original source to know which meaning is correct. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Black Holes or MECOs?
I see that your areas of expertise include many of the topics pertinent to a meaningful discussion of the "Black Holes or something else?" question, and I appreciate that you have an interest in the topic Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object. I do hope you have some meaningful comment to share, about what content might or might not be appropriate to include in an encyclopedia entry on this subject, beyond 'it probably should have been deleted' or 'this sounds like original research.' I assure you, I have hewn close to what was said in press releases or the popular press, but I have also done due diligence to go back to the original sources, and their cited sources as well. However; I also read between the lines and acknowledge the politics present in Science. I got to hear some of the top physicists alive speak at FFP11, but my own presentation was about busting the 'silos' of information that separate people and disciplines, in order to foster needed cooperation in Physics. The keynote speech by Gerard 't Hooft at FFP10 (the previous year) stated that important discoveries in Physics will never be made, unless an unprecedented level of cross-disciplinary collaboration and cooperation can me made to happen. And this topic requires expertise in multiple disciplines, to sort out.

My own focus is on theoretical Physics. Like Gerard; I am now of the opinion that Quantum Mechanics is not fundamental (though I once strongly believed that was true), but rather emerges from a deeper theory in the limit. So I have been studying how natural law is emergent from a unified state in the high energy regime, at the universe's inception. But my central area of research is highly speculative, dealing with how Physics derives from patterns in pure Math, but the article on MECOs is not my original research. Instead; it is my best attempt to document what has already been said on the topic, and what is being said about topics I think are related, but mostly in my own words. I can include more inline citations, if you think it looks like I am going out on a limb with speculation or injecting too much of my own point of view. The fact is; that while the term MECOs has not been adopted, evidence has been accumulating and theorists have reconsidered their position, such that the claims of MECO proponents - a magnetic field, no event horizon, no central singularity - all now seem reasonable to top experts. It is true that not all the experts have changed their mind, or believe the standard Black Hole picture is flawed. But if new evidence and theory is favorable to the MECO predictions, why make believe they are not validated?

Now I'm wondering what experts I might persuade to give an opinion on the veracity and neutrality of what is presented.

Regards, JonathanD (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place to push your views on a topic. If you think the MECO idea deserves a better showing, you need to publish papers in the peer reviewed literature that are good enough to be cited by other researchers. Then wikipedia will have something to cite in an article about the topic. Otherwise, you're just doing Original Research and Synthesis, which is not allowed. - Parejkoj (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree strongly with your first sentence. This is why I chose to edit on the MECOs page in the first place. It was obvious to me that other Wikians had used that entry to push their own view on the topic, and I felt it necessary to correct the slanted views of those who sought to use that article as an opportunity to discredit Robertson, Schild, and Leiter, and their work, seemingly for their support of the prior ideas of Mitra. It is misleading to say that these ideas have been disproved, without such proof appearing in peer-reviewed literature good enough to be cited by other researchers.

As for your second sentence; I strongly disagree, as it would be COI if I had done so. As luck would have it; I was invited a couple of years back by Dr. Christian Corda to co-author a paper on a related topic, which would have included some individuals referenced in the MECO article, and I declined. I clearly would have to recuse myself from any Wikipedia editing on that entry, if I had accepted the offer then. But the key point here is that I remain on the fence! I do not wish to push my personal viewpoint, but neither do I want to see Wikipedia as a platform for slander of researchers whom I respect.

So I am not the person trying to push my views here. Being neutral means that you are not convinced of a proposition or its opposite, and MECOs are not disproved yet. Have you published a rebuttal of the MECO model? Are you saying there are published papers from peer-reviewed journals that disprove the assertions of the MECO proponents? If not; then it may be that you are the person trying to prosecute your opinion on the Wiki, or that you support the improper agendas of those who consider themselves gatekeepers of the truth. However; Wikipedia is not a place to push your views on a topic. JonathanD (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC) JonathanD (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A generational issue? - I raise the question on the article's talk page "is the Black Holes vs MECOs dispute a generational issue?" When I first learned about Black Holes in College, they were still viewed as a theoretical possibility, unproved but with a compelling mathematical basis. But most of today's students are taught to assume Black Holes exist, and to memorize their characteristics, rather than being encouraged to examine the evidence pro and con. This is perhaps why I regard the adversarial attitude toward MECOs on Wikipedia to be unfair.

I'm in my 50s, and a lot of the researchers I've been in touch with are older still. My guess is that issues with the MECOs concept arise mainly because the approach in Education has flipped; because when I was in school Black Holes were NOT assumed to exist, which left the door open for other possible explanations, while today students are taught that Black Holes DO EXIST, which puts the onus on anyone with an alternate explanation to prove otherwise. I am old enough to see this as an open question still. Given my background; I cannot view this predisposition against MECOs as fair or neutral treatment of the topic. JonathanD (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Parejkoj, you need mind your language and stop following biased views. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your deletions
In the past you had deleted the information on size of IC 1101 when everyone knows it's the largest galaxy. Now I see that you've deleted an entire table in "list of galaxies by size" because, according to you, the information is wrong. Just wondering, don't you think it's better to at least leave the possible inacurate data there rather than removing the whole thing? You must know better than me that studying galaxies is hard, and the knowledge we have of them is always estimates (distance, number of stars, size etc). So you might as well just delete everything. Idk PM ME URANUS (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

IC 1101
Just curious, but why this edit when the image was taken during the second SDSS? — Huntster (t @ c) 01:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. It's never referred to as "the second SDSS", but rather SDSS-II. 2. SDSS Imaging references generally just refer to SDSS as a whole, because the I/II divide is a rather fuzzy line; a small imaging area was completed in SDSS-II and released in DR7, but SDSS-II was mostly focused on SEGUE and the supernova survey. 3. Are you sure the imaging of that region was taken in SDSS-II? Because the Explore page gives a March 2002 date, which is well within SDSS-I. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, good enough for me. It was under the SDSS-II layer on Wikisky.org, so I thought that was accurate. I suppose they pulled DR7 and given the timeframe assumed it was all SDSS-II, or something like that. Thanks again. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Redshift quantization
Nice work on the "fringe" statement. Many fringe topics are patrolled by zealots who don't allow anything nice to be said about them. IMHO, that's a blot on the encyclopedia. Your statement told it like it is (as far as I can tell). Lou Sander (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Quasar
Quick reply for you with 2 x quick questions - thanks. FT2 (Talk 09:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Saturn
Hi Parejkoj, about your revert here, I was basing that off of the first sentence in this source (duplicate file description here ). According to it, the image is Cassini's highest resolution natural color depiction of the entire planet and its rings, all in one image. However if the image is not suitable for the article, so be it. Thanks and cheers. Bammesk (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Bammesk: I'll reply at your Talk page, along with Fcrary. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

New message from Rmharman
I'm thinking that we may need to request Temporary Extended Confirmed Protection to allow time for that "free trade section" to be edited in good faith by people interested in elucidating Krugman's attitudes on the politics of trade, rather than people interested in trying to mine his writing for quotations that sound like they contradict each other when taken out of context. Rmharman (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Is Markarian 501 the largest galaxy discovered ?
On the Wikipedia page for Markarian 501, I saw that its size 12,581,000 light years. Is this correct ? User 122.2.30.162


 * That number is certainly incorrect. I don't know where a user got the "94.86 arcmin" apparent size that went into that, and the reference link in the sidebar is broken. I'm guessing someone found a maximum size for the jet, which is not correct for the size of the galaxy. The correct apparent size is more like 1 arcmin. This is a problem with a lot of galaxy sizes on Wikipedia: someone picked an apparent size that is not the "galaxy" size. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone confused arcminutes and arcseconds when they calculated the size, so it was off by a factor of 60. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sure it is that IP user. THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Are there any Nebulae larger Than the Tarantula Nebula ???
I am sure that there are Nebulae larger Than the Tarantula Nebula. It is the largest within the Local Group, But its logical to assume that there are Nebulae larger than The Tarantula Nebula out there... Pls enumerate them. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking this question on my Talk page? I haven't edited that article. Also, "its logical to assume" - this is not how wikipedia works, we use reliable sources. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the Milky Way 258,000 ly across?
I saw people claiming the Milky Way is bigger than Andromeda. I know the Milky Way is more massive, but is the quoted diameter correct? THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Observable Universe
Hi Parejkoj - I note you reversed my request for a reference. My reason for seeking it was because there is considerable debate around the validity of the "dark matter" hypothesis. The sentence includes reference to dark matter and I believe it would be appropriate to put the source the sentence was based on. NealeWellington (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "considerable debate around the validity of the "dark matter" hypothesis" - not in the astronomy and physics literature there isn't. Dark Matter is also mostly irrelevant to that paragraph: it's based on the observed acceleration. Try reading the wikipedia articles linked from the paragraph. - Parejkoj (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In support of what I said I cite Testing the Strong Equivalence Principle: Detection of the External Field Effect in Rotationally Supported Galaxies from The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 904, Number 1, Novemver 2020. I am not challenging the paragraph or existence or otherwise of dark matter. I don't think it is unreasonable for a reference to be given as per Citing sources to cover dark matter unless one of the references in paragraph references does that. In which case it may just be a case of relocating the reference. NealeWellington (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, the paragraph you put a CN tag on is unrelated to dark matter. If you want to discuss this more, I suggest bringing it to the talk page of that article. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Parejkoj NealeWellington (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Redshift distances
Hi, the locations of redshift lines/circles were calculated assuming a Hubble Constant of 72 km/s/Mpc by Selden Ball (University of Cornell). What is the misleading? --Piquito veloz (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Placing redshift lines on a plot of CMB data is combining two very different things. The entire CMB is at z~1100, so those redshift lines aren't associated with the background image at all. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Circles that appear in pic is since z=0.01 to z=9, z=20 and z=1000,  CMB is located in z=1089. I have reviewed the addon many occasions, even when placing distant galaxies gn-z11 appear just between z=9 and z=20.  Please download celestia and apply the addon and you can see it.  --Piquito veloz (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Circles appear without comoving distance (expansion of the universe) and near to edge density of lines always increase because the past is more dense than now. --Piquito veloz (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I ve adjusted the data of CMB to 13.6996x109 light years (without comovig distance) and looks near to z=1100 line in the addon. --Piquito veloz (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if placed some addon about 13.7x109 looks outside 370.000 light years away.--Piquito veloz (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for review
Hello there. I hope you don't find this message as a nuisance.

I would like to kindly ask if you could share some insights about my proposed draft here: Draft:List of largest galaxies. This is an attempt of mine to revive the list that laid dormant and got deleted back in 2018, with some expansions, and hopefully more elaborate detailing of the methods being used. This is also a completely new list with mostly cD ellipticals or lenticulars, which I probably think is the thing that should be expected for the largest galaxies, I guess.

One of my main concerns is that if NED is reliable enough per se to constitute a list, which as far as I'm aware (as a reason in my mind) is the only repository available for a large amount of galaxies. Inn this case I am attempting if we can bridge the gap and fully use NED, sice not a lot of galaxies with detailed diameter data is available in the literature. Also of concern is whether any particular method (which is in the draft sections) is superior over the other and should be used. Given that you are an astrophysicist who has an experience with SDSS, I suppose you could provide some insight regarding this, which is badly needed.

If this list becomes a full-fledged article, with your advise we can detail out the plan and methods on how to collect the data needed. Otherwise if this list is not really feasible, I would be more than happy to canncel this draft and just store it for my sandbox, regardless.

Hope you would be able to share some ideas. Best of luck. SkyFlubbler (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Hubble Deep Field
The JWST Deep Field is 'one of the first' images, not 'the first' image. The Webb's First Deep Field page states that Deep Field is 'the first operational image'. What's the problem?

Samuel Johnson (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The "deep field" released as one of the early JWST images is not of any Hubble deep field, neither HDF, UDF, or XDF, but rather of SMACS 0723. It has nothing to do with the Hubble Deep Field, which is a specific region of sky, nor with the proposal cited in the stsci link you are removing which is to observe the UDF with MIRI. - Parejkoj (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: Accretion disk
I think they are making this description much more difficult than it is.. I think it's a fairly simple issue, but my comment was removed without.. comment.

I'm brand new to Wikipedia should I put it back?

--- Sorry I don't have that much time to log in: As a sphere rotates.. it's generally going to bulge at the equator, as the material attempts to form a flat plane. As the mass collects at the equator, it increases the gravitational force, in a disk shape plane, which is where debris will settle.

--- Extrapolating from that you might be able to identify non-rotating bodies.. such as our moon and perhaps bodies of different consistencies..!

Twitter: @cygniusv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.36.32 (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygnius (talk • contribs)


 * See my comment when I reverted your edit. What specific changes are you suggesting to the article? Do you have reliable sources? It sounds like you're looking for a forum to chat on: might I suggest Cosmoquest? Also, our moon is absolutely a rotating body. - Parejkoj (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Redshift
You reverted a new section on the article ‘Redshift’. You said you wasn’t sure about it. Please don’t revert a user’s hard work because you are unsure about it. Please revert only non-compliant edits. The oracle 2015 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * When considering multiple reverts of good faith edits, please note Wikipedia’s policies: three-revert rule, edit warring and reverting. The oracle 2015 (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Your reverting
Hi. You reverted my edit. Please notice that, from the grammatical point of view, the caption is a non-sentence phrase; because every phrase that apparently has a verb (or has verbs), necessarily isn't a complete sentence. So, the caption doesn't need a full stop, and my edit is correct. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * That's fair: it's a bit odd to have three captions at the end of the article, with two of them being non-sentences. I think I'd prefer they be turned into proper sentences, but could go either way. - Parejkoj (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * So, you may look at the first pic's caption too. In a correct way, it hasn't a full stop too. Anyway, we can either forget about all the subject. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Too recent and not notable
Dear Parejkoj, thank you for your comment. I would be grateful if you could tell me why "too recent" is a criterion to reject a peer-review reference in a very active topic (i.e. the Hubble tension). From my experience in climate and meteorological sciences, it is usual to add new information about active storms. On the other hand, what is "not notable"? This paper has been noticed in press   Vigi (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * See WP:RECENT and WP:NOTABLE. For scientific articles, notability is generally determined by either significant press coverage (the one English language article you linked looked like a press release, the others are Spanish and thus not relevant for English wikipedia), or citations in the scientific literature. As far as I can tell, that article has no citations. There are a huge number of papers regularly published that claim to resolve the Hubble tension; most end up ignored because they're wrong. Until that paper is cited and critiqued in the scientific literature, it's probably not worth linking here. Many of our cosmology articles need some work to clean up links like this, too. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Theory of everything
No, it's not "just a press release on a meme website", it's an actual theory: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43348-2 https://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041040 https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gravity-quantum-mechanics-physics-theory https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/dec/new-theory-seeks-unite-einsteins-gravity-quantum-mechanics Hipporoo (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Ross McKitrick
WP:3O requested. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Apology notice
Dear Parejkoj, I'm deeply sorry for randomly creating articles that are not notable. I'm also sorry for creating confusion of distinguishing research papers between a specific subject and general objects even through I really want to improve on editing these articles. After reflecting on my actions, I realized I do have talent in contributing Wikipedia, but have poor taste in selecting objects to create articles since I don't have clear concept about them. Can you possibly recommend me articles that are significantly covered? Eg: 3C 445? Thanks. Galaxybeing (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)