![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've walked away from the discussion at the article. I'd still like to rescue the earlier article in some form, particularly seeing that we've now dropped all the way to 6 5 items on less than a page. To bounce an idea off you - would it be inappropriate to create a
List of stellar systems featured in fiction article? As a pure list article (and formatted as a list), presumably we'd avoid some of the angst at existence of fancruft, simply giving the 187 stellar systems and quick summary of works in which they are featured. Regards,
Tarl N. (
discuss)
23:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for fixing the problem, Lithopsian! :-) Cheers, SCHolar44 ( talk) 02:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian ( talk · contribs), I saw that you reverted the changes I made in the Lima Cathedral article. I tell you that I made the change because «Lima Cathedral» is the most common name used for this cathedral, in the same way it is found in its counterpart in Spanish « Catedral de Lima» and I do not know why you have discarded the change then, in the history you do not justify the transfer of information, you simply undid it. I suppose you thought it was a mistake or some kind of vandalism change, but on the contrary, it is a correction that deserves the article. I hope you take it into account for future opportunities. Greetings! Carlos Pozo ( talk) 18:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Lithopsian, Please You Make a Star Page named HE 0557-4840, Because I'm Adding These Metal-Poor Stars to The article named " list of oldest stars", Can you create them? CP -84 1219 ( talk) 01:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear Lithopsian,
I made a few edits on the locknuts page a while ago. I got a little bit ahead of myself changing the title and I agree that the title should be changed back. But there were many small edits I made before that, that were completely wiped out because the admin "Cambridgebayweather" chose to revert not from the title change but from the start of all my changes.
I have read that its not appropriate to revert edits without a reason, and I feel that those other edits were not given any reason behind their deletion. Are there any strategies so that one small edit doesn`t get all your previous edits deleted? Obviously I could wait a long time until someone else comes around to edit on the same page, before I make more edits.
Or perhaps its not regular to make lots of small edits on one page? Perhaps its not encouraged?
Kind Regards, Jayden Barnes.
On Humphreys et al 2020, Exploring the mass loss history of the red supergiants, I noticed that there is an unnamed star on the table regarding Stephenson 2, which lists down the properties of the cluster's members. Its name wasn't placed in the table, but for strange reasons its mass loss rate and several other properties were listed. It is on page 17. What could be this star?-- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 14:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Greetings Lithopsian. I see that you have reverted my bold edit to repurpose the Earendel redirect. I acknowledge that your actions are within your collegial right and am not averse to the steps you have taken. Before deciding where to commence discussion, I'd like to simply ask: are you opposed to repurposing the redirect or are you procedurally wanting to ensure that broken links are preemptively repaired before effecting such repurposing (which I thought I had done and apologize where I did not, and should have). Thank you and best regards.-- John Cline ( talk) 18:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
There's a lot that has happened in the past 15 years, including a NYT bestselling book...-- Pharos ( talk) 16:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Found a way around it. Concerned that a redirect from the wrong name though risks inaccuracy. There are plenty of wrong redirects already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In Vitrio ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I reverted your revert because I think the redirect to a page about an obscure artist with an album named "On Patrol" is less informative than a disambiguation page which mentions both the artist as well as the well-documented use of the term by United States Navy, among other Navies I might add. Ape89 ( talk) 19:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Supernova for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BloatedBun ( talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian,
You restored a redirect page I had recently disabled. This page redirected a query for BERNICE VERE to the page for Agnes Vernon. Agnes Vernon and Bernice Vere are separate actresses. Bernice Vere was a English actresses making her mark in Australian movies while Agnes (Brownie) Vernon was an American actresses also acting in Australian movie as her career was fading.
I enclosed my justification for disabling this page in the comments.
I am currently in the process of revising the Agnes Vernon page and hope to create a page on Bernice Vere in the future.
This redirect would create some difficulties.
This is a copy of the justification I added to the redirection page when I submitted the change:
In the Australian film "Shadow of Lighting Ridge," the cast included
[1]
[2] -
Agnes Vernon as Dorothy Harden
Bernice Vere as Portuguese Annie
Michael Jannetta ( talk) 23:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
References
I see you're active on astronomy articles - this is about WR 42e (and relevant edit by me here). I can't check the source, don't know off the top of my head and Google isn't being very helpful - should that be 468.4 nm? 199.208.172.35 ( talk) 17:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I have no idea how I did that – absolutely not what I intended! Glad you intervened. Cheers DBaK ( talk) 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian, I am hoping you can answer a question about patrolling new pages about astronomical objects, since you've done a lot more of that than I have. What should be done with an article like HD 196775, which recently showed up in the New Pages Feed? It (barely) satisfies the naked-eye visibility criterion of WP:NASTCRIT, and has an HR Catalog number, so it clearly satisfies the astronomical object notability criteria. But all the article's references are to catalogs and papers that examined a large number of objects. I was unable to find a reference that dealt with this specific star in detail. So it probably fails WP:GNG. I marked the article as reviewed, but placed a tag on it indicating that it may not satisfy GNG. What would you do with an article like this one? PopePompus ( talk) 02:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I have advised @ Rgdem999: to restore the page at HMS Tyger which he blanked today, and to discuss the fate of the article on the talk page. I will participate in any discussion, but, as the creator and major contributor to that page, I wish to avoid any appearance of ownership of the article. - Donald Albury 22:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know, the reason I blanked page Gemma Oaten, was because the redirect was not related to the subject. I did actually explain this in the edit summary. You undid my edit without an explanation. I was also planning on requesting deletion for the article although didn’t get around to it before my edits were reverted. Can you please explain what I did here? I’d hate to make this mistake again in the future. Many thanks. Blanchey ( talk) 22:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I am not quite sure why you reverted a merge of two disambiguation pages. There is generally no need to keep the history on such a simple page. Anyway I shall rebert back. Inwind ( talk) 17:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian, a couple of years ago we had a discussion about the radius of NML Cygni (see /info/en/?search=Talk:NML_Cygni#Radius_1650_times_the_radius_of_the_sun). You basically said, that the Stefan–Boltzmann law is fundamental in determining the radius of a star.
In the article Westerlund 1-75 a note has been added, to explain how the radius of the star comes about using the Stefan–Boltzmann law. I think, adding this note is an excellent idea, unfortunately though, I couldn't reproduce the formula and the values used.
This is the formula from the note in the article Westerlund 1-75:
A)
Because I couldn't reproduce the formula A) and the value , I used one of the formulas in the article Stefan–Boltzmann law (I assume, the formula I've chosen is the right one) and the values, which I thought are appropriate to be used in the case of Westerlund 1-75:
B)
, , ,
Using the formula B) and the values given, the radius that I've calculated for Westerlund 1-75, is 670 , which is close enough to 668.
Now, I have a few questions and I would appreciate it very much, if you could answer them and correct me, where I'm wrong.
A) Did I use the right formula and is my calculation correct?
B) In the article Westerlund 1-75 the value for the luminosity is 68,000 in the article text (and 120,000 in the infobox). Why 68,000 instead of 120,000? With a value of 120,000 the radius would be 890 .
C) How does formula A) come about and where does the value come from?
Thanks -- Agentjoerg ( talk) 16:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian, thanks for your explanations. Now I can see, that 104.83 (= 67608) is close enough to 68000 to add up nicely. Then it's also easy to see, how formula A) is derived from formula B) and everything's fine. Pure harmony. As to the values 68000 versus 120000, I would prefer to have 68000 both in the article text and the infobox. The 120000 should be in the article text only, maybe with an explanatory note. But that's my humble opinion.
Other than that I agree with you on mixing values from two different sources is just too prone to error and also on we don't know all the different assumptions that were made in journal papers. But since there are different figures out there, all of them should be included in the article. I would also agree on Calculating a radius ourselves is just about OK, as long as the restrictions, that you've mentioned, are considered. Again, just my humble opinion.
Last but not least, the change that you made to the formula is certainly an improvement, compared with the previous version.
Best regards -- Agentjoerg ( talk) 07:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian, I have to come back to Westerlund 1-75 one more time. I've gone thru the articles by Fok and Arévalo and put together the different values, that I've found, in an overview on the talk page of Westerlund 1-75. You might take note, that especially for luminosity and radius, there are other values given by Arévalo than those used in the wiki-article. I'm not sure, if the other values calculated by Arévalo are of any significance (and maybe I have misunderstood the context they are calculated), so maybe you can check this out (I've given the page where the values are mentioned). It would seem to me, though, that picking one value over the other and leaving the rest out, is a little bit arbitrarily. Cheers. -- Agentjoerg ( talk) 05:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The IAU list of constellations was agreed at its inaugural General Assembly in 1922 and was published in the Transactions of the IAU, vol. 1, p. 158. The reason there are 89 names on the list rather than 88 is because they retained Argo as well as its three constituent parts, but that of course was superfluous. Skeptic2 ( talk) 10:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"Damn, they're quick."
~
noob
67.187.73.94 (
talk)
13:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, and I hope you don't find this as a nuisance. I just want to request if, given that your time allows so, to take a look and have a review on the List of largest galaxies. I am aware that you participated in the delete discussion of this article way back 2018, which had ended as a redirect. I revived the list just last week with new galaxies, a reliable source list, and more defined methods to measure it, which is hopefully better than the old list.
In particular, given your experience with regards to trivial calculations in the list of largest stars, I also want to ask if it would constitute WP:OR if I could also apply a simple multiplication process in this list. Most of the sizes quoted is in the section "Quick Look Angular and Physical Diameters", which uses different distances from other sources and hence may result in different sizes. Fortunately NED provides a scale (how many parsecs per arcminute) given the distance, based on redshift, which uses modern cosmological parameters. I suppose if the given scale can be multiplied to the angular diameters instead, to revise the sizes and update to modern values?
Anyway, if you also have further comments on the list, please don't hesitate to comment here if you can, and I would be obliged to answer back and respond to any suggestions you have. Feel free to send any thoughts you have. Thank you and I hope you have a good day. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 16:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Just in case you have pings disabled. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Did you read what I wrote in the description before my cancellation? It seems to me that this is an argument for breaking this redirect. Are you okay with the soccer world cup page under "player's club" referring to a baseball team? ZERTINHO ( talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Arjayay. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Antares have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk.
Please do not re-add spelling mistakes immediately after they have been corrected -
Arjayay (
talk)
14:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian. I am curious about why you reverted my most recent edit of the article on Deneb. I had moved all the reference definitions to the reference section near the end of the article. I routinely do that, because I think it is cumbersome to edit the main text section of an article if there are lengthy definitions embedded within the main text section (and the starbox). Do you disagree with that? Isn't it cleaner to have as little markup language as possible within a text block, so that it is more easily read when it is being edited? PopePompus ( talk) 13:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, seems like you reverted my edits. I realized that was too premature to create these pages by myself without consensus, and for that, I would like to apologize. The Account 2 ( talk) 16:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree on your removal of disambiguation link on Harmonization but I differ in opinion regarding Harmonize. It is difficult when searching for the Tanzanian artist. I'm open to your reasoning.. I might be wrong Volten001 ☎ 18:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes I mean on the redirect. Elaborate on that. I would suggest Harmonize redirects to the person's article since they are notable then add a disambiguation link on the page(I have added it already actually) Volten001 ☎ 18:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree on the hatnote on the redirect Volten001 ☎ 18:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Lithopsian
Thank you for reviewing MLEC.
User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Hi, I saw you reviewed this page. What does this page disambiguate? per WP:D
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Bruxton ( talk) 21:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to create a new page for my village Madhura but you redirected it to Another page Madu and latter also deleted my page Please stop it guys. it's my humble request don't do this Iamkraza786 ( talk) 05:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I notice you've reverted yet another change made by User:Power Hacks. I reverted others. Quite literally, every single edit they have made outside of their own pages has been harmful. Partly poor grammar (evidently English is not their primary language), but also a complete inability to provide citations for the factoids they introduce. Is it time for something more than simply adding messages on their talk page? Tarl N. ( discuss) 18:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
FYI: wp:EWN#User:Volkan1881 reported by User:Pppery (Result: ) Cheers Adakiko ( talk) 20:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm looking for the discussion area on this page?
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
R Tauri and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 22#R Tauri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
PopePompus (
talk)
20:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I’m at a complete loss as to why you reverted my edit using WP:COMMONNAME as your justification. I didn’t change an article title, so what the heck does that have to do with me? I was simply adding the name of a nebula into the name table section on the List of planetary nebulae… so please, fully explain your thought process behind your decision to revert my edit.
Thank you.
Sykoskit ( talk) 13:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The source given by you for the distance to R Aqr is an automatic generated result, which is based on the assumption that R aqr is a single star. But this is not the case for R Aqr, because the components move, the red giant is extended, and circumstellar emission interferes with the determination of the star's position. That's why the GAIA distance isn't correct, and this value certainly can't simply be adopted. The distance should be taken from a different paper like: Accurate parallax measurement toward the symbiotic star R Aquarii, where they taken into account that the target is a symbotic star. 51.154.43.165 ( talk) 10:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not a test (Originally it was.) But an error happened and I lost all the links from the WWII combat vehicle page so im re-doing it.
Sorry for the inconvenience, im working as fast as possible! Gun Nut perk ( talk) 15:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
In May of 2022, there was an edit war regarding St2-18. You stated that the reason why St2-18 was not on the list from September 2021 to May 2022 was due to the main edit warrior wanting it gone. Primefac incorrectly thought that I was the edit warrior, but He thought this because my username and SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer's usernames are similar. I am sorry for what wrong I may have done during that edit war, and I am sorry for my disruptive edits during 2020.-- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 11:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
A sock had left this message on your talk page the other day. It was removed under WP:EVADE, but do you think that those stars should be made into articles, or is it just nonsense/not necessary? Among Us for POTUS ( talk) 17:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I notice that you’ve removed my contribution to the above page with the comment “a chart would be good, but not this one, as discussed”. There is no such discussion on the Talk page. Could you link me to it please? Alternatively, in the future, it would be nice if you actually fixed the issue (in this case: the chart) instead of unceremoniously deleting and destroying other people’s work. Thank you! — Timwi ( talk) 20:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I was doing a little tidying at the Supernova article, and I saw that a few charts had been tagged as needing references. It looks like you made the comparative light curve plot back in 2012, and it is missing pointers to data from which it can be constructed. You wouldn't happen to have formulae/references to numbers at hand, would you? The only other image tagged as needing a reference is a qualitative plot for which a decent citation can't be hard to find (and probably exists somewhere in the article already). XOR'easter ( talk) 16:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the cut and paste move. I didn't know that wasn't allowed. I did the same for DeepL. Coldbolt ( talk) 15:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why do you think the following is not grammatical: "The source of energy that can maintain the optical supernova glow for months has been originally a puzzle"? I wrote it in the same style as I write scientific papers which is a little different from how I speak but it seems a pretty good sentence to me. The one I changed was IMHO stylistically jarring in a scientific text, even a popular one. Friendly Neighbour ( talk) 16:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I want to move Trito (Proto-Indo-European mythology) to Trito. What's the appropriate way to do it? Nothing links to Trito to refer to Lake Tritonis. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, as an active New Page Patroller, I wanted to make sure you were aware of an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation project to improve the PageTriage extension. We recently published results of user interviews, and have some findings that we would value patrollers' opinions on. If you haven't yet, please consider adding the project page to your watchlist to stay up to date with our progress! Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 13:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I have revered your revert on the article algebra extension, since the redirect is wrong; the redirect to the unrelated topic. Until the move discussion is concluded, it should be fine to have some content, which is not wrong anyway. I have also added a ref. —— Taku ( talk) 17:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian. Thank you for making {[diff2|1143552366|this}} change, I forgot about that until I saw your edit. Can you by any chance point me to a relevant bit of MOS or policy so that I can add it to my bookmarks? Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I am unsure why you undid my edit about Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd.
1. The company is a separate entity to the TV Channel (Use Channel 4 & ITV as comparisons) as the TV Channel is one division of the company.
2. Furthermore, the page had already been created, it was just set up as a redirect, and I simply gave it content. While I admit, I hadn't got round to correctly crediting the original author, of some of the content, this did not justify deleting everything.
Whilst I do believe that this was incorrect move on your part, I am happy to discuss it before I revert it to my edit as I do not want to get into an edit war over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandos1 ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear Lithopsian. WP:RM may not solve problem. Let me explain. According to ECP website, "According to the Delimitation of Constituencies Act, 1974, the constituencies for elections to the National and Provincial Assemblies are to be delimited after every census." Now you revert current constituency, which is officially created after 2017 Census of Pakistan, to older one that was created 1998 Census of Pakistan. Both have different areas. I am living in this area so I can understand this. This is not problem of move. Page was wrongly redirect. I am reverting your edit, hope you will not mind. Ameen Akbar ( talk) 16:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello . Hope you're doing well. I have seen recently that an account named User:امین_اکبر is messing with articles of Muzaffargarh District of Punjab, Pakistan. He is reverting articles without any reason. I request you to please stop him for doing that. Regards User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan Saad Ali Khan Pakistan ( talk) 18:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
EXor has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § EXor until a consensus is reached. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
09:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm here if you'd like to discuss the WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT edits I have done to Super Pang. Thanks! — Flicky1984 ( talk) 19:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
V361 Hydrae has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 28 § V361 Hydrae until a consensus is reached. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
01:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Which part of the reference to the unseen ca1900 Milky Way supernova do you consider to not be a reference?
If there were no advances in telescope technology between Kepler's 1604 supernova observations and 1900, you have a hell of a lot of revision to do. By 1900 there were extensive photographic records being made, surveys for high proper motion, variable stars (the Cepheids were being studied, if not understood) were a subject of research, including supernovae, and stellar catalogues were reaching the millions. Yet with that effort, a supernova in the Milky Way WAS missed. My bet is that, between ca1900 and today there are other supernovae that we have missed, and still haven't found SNRs for. You are propagating an over-optimistic expression of hope, at considerable variance with the observed facts - which I referenced. AKarley ( talk) 17:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I respectfully invite you to stop interfering with the edit to Pentax 67. You are badly mistaken to treat the 6x7 and the 67 as the same camera. It is not. One is Asahi Pentax. The other is a Pentax. Two separate companies made them hence the name change to distinguish them. The two companies are separate legal entities and must be treated as such. Only a qualified lawyer would understand and appreciate the importance of "legal entities"
The cameras are the same series of 6x7cm cameras but stand alone products. One replaced the other. Some parts like the film counter, film advance assembly and shutter cocking mechanism is not backwards compatible.
The appearance of the 6x7 and 67 is totally different. I will arrange photography and insert them. Only the silhouette is similar. It is this that causes confusion. Opcouk ( talk) 21:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian, I am a PhD candidate in communication studies at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). My research focuses on amateur astronomers who process data from Space Telescopes and share their pictures online. I noticed you contributed to the WR140 page at the same time that an amateur published a picture of it on Twitter that got a lot of attention. I'm investigating the flow of information related to this image and I wondered if you would be willing to discuss your contribution with me. Let me know DeChamberland ( talk) 19:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your unilateral move of this topic: you had plenty of opportunity to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#DO Dra or YY Dra? Yet you chose not to do so. Why is that? Praemonitus ( talk) 00:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Why did you revert my edits? There is the article and why it needs to be redirected? Salazarov (chat) 14:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey there. Congrats on being a very active new page patroller this month. You're doing great. If you want to hang out with other NPPs, consider joining us on the NPP Discord. Discord is text chat/chat room/instant message software that can be really fun. If not no worries. Thanks and see you around :) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, still new (after many year) to wiki editing. Don't understand your removal of the Red Zone edit in regards to Canadian government and politics as not linking to other pages while keeping several other entries that likewise have no links to other pages. Scotthutcheon ( talk) 17:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I am wondering your view point, if you do not mind supplying of such thinking? M0YVE ( talk) 23:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey, while I appreciate you backing me up as far as the validity of the {{ Sources exist}} tag on Don Ramon, IMO it’s not worth the effort to edit war such a tag over the initial editors’ objections—my intent through the tag is to notify editors who worked on the article that it isn’t up to standards so that they don’t get the wrong idea going forward, and to make my NPP assessment of the article clear in the page’s history so that it’s clear I did my due diligence as a reviewer. If the initial editor wants to act defensive or disregard the notice that’s their prerogative—we can save the more heavy handed enforcement for when they’re actually adding content that breaks guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 19:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian. Just reaching out as you recently marked the KIKS TYO article as a potential copyright violation.
However, this article is not in violation of any copyright. It is a modification of the original KIKS TYO Wikipedia article which was soft deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIKS TYO. Undeletion of the article was requested in order to add sources, it was draftified to Draft:KIKS TYO to give one time to improve the article at 10:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC). Please see here Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#c-UtherSRG-20230706105000-Yakiton-20230706093500
NOTE: The Kiks Tyo Wikipedia article was first created on 14 September 2007. All other sources on the web that may be similar, including but not limited to https://alchetron.com/KIKS-TYO seem to have taken their content from various iterations of the Kiks Tyo Wikipedia article since that time.
Further, in the "references" portion of the article at the supposed content owner website https://alchetron.com/KIKS-TYO, it clearly cites, lists and links to what was the original KIKS TYO wikipedia article.
Please see the bottom of the page on https://alchetron.com/KIKS-TYO where it says:
"References KIKS TYO Wikipedia" (Text) CC BY-SA
Lastly the https://alchetron.com/ domain was not in existence until 2013-08-05. Again, the original KIKS TYO Wikipedia article is from 2007. Here is a link to the KIKS TYO Wikipedia article as archived on 2012-7-1 prior to the https://alchetron.com/ domain's creation which proves that the https://alchetron.com/ site took its KIKS TYO content from Wikipedia: https://web.archive.org/web/20120701234005/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIKS_TYO
As per the above evidence, and without a doubt, the copyright status of the text of the current Kikz Tyo Wikipedia page has been clarified. The text that has been modified is originally from Wikipedia, nowhere else. All content of the Kiks Tyo page should be restored and some type of notice left so that this issue does not come up again. Thank you! -- Yakiton ( talk) 03:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, Lithopsian. I am curious, how can I start writing about competence without it being in the context of human resources. The competence page seems to be hijacked by disambiguation links and the formal disambiguation page is a redirect. Looking forward to hearing from you. Infogiraffic ( talk) 11:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Dear Lithopsian, the star M33-013406.63 merits well, just by sheer luminosity, its own page (“one of the most luminous stars in the Local Group”, it's in a neighbouring galaxy). The estimates in the lead paragraph (between 3 and 10 million Suns) give a broad range, that seems OK, since quite some modelling enters here, and the issue single vs double star is probably still under discussion. I checked Ref M33-013406.63#cite ref-kournioitis2018 2-0 which discusses the possibility that the star is a binary, giving the estimate log L/L_Sun = 6.67, i.e. 4.68 million Suns, for the primary star. The temperature is assigned with the words “... we exceptionally fixed its temperature at T_eff = 30000 K, in agreement with the late-O spectral type of the star from the literature." In List of most luminous stars, the luminosity is given as 4.677 million Suns, that's the same number within rounding errors.
So just to put the numbers in the "starbox" to the latest values, I suggest to cite Kourniotis2018 rather than M33-013406.63#cite ref-humphreys 3-0, quote the luminosity 4.68 million Suns, and for the radius estimate quote the formula sqrt((5772/30000)**4 * 4.677e6) = 80.06 rounded to 80 R_Sun (Notę a). That way, the number of significant digits seems OK. No need to provide three lines to bracket the result, I would say. That's what I did in the last edit. DieHenkels ( talk) 21:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Good to put the data for both components. But the Stefan-Boltzmann formula gives, when I evaluated a radius of about 210 sun radii for the B component ... quite amazing. A typo in the calculation leading to about 40 sun radii? DieHenkels ( talk) 21:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Why did you delete the subspecies article, bruh? I thought it would be allowed the same way as the panther tigris tigris article one, bruh. KungfuMantis ( talk) 11:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
can you help me get that entry on track? The journalist has that name, and should be findable under that. I understand someone else used that name also, among various pen names. Hundnase ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
King of the United Kingdom has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § King of the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached. . This listing also covers
Queen of the United Kingdom. You are being notified because you have contributed to one or both of these pages in the past by changing or setting the redirect target. Thank you!
Dylnuge (
Talk •
Edits)
23:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Manchester City (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
A disambiguation page is not required. All these entries are covered by a hatnote at the primary topic article.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
08:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The two movies are way different and should not be referred to each other Savolya ( talk) Savolya ( talk) 17:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I just created the redirect Christianity in Georgia (U.S. state), so it would not longer be red on the dab. If you are against the dab, the only other option would be to move Christianity in Georgia (country) over the redirect and use a hatnote (i.e., make the country the primary topic). Right now, the base name is WP:MISPLACED. Mdewman6 ( talk) 19:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This still has the Afd tag on the article. That is one of the Afd closes I've seen. You should reopen it and let an admin close it properly. scope_creep Talk 00:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I took your requests not at face value, but in spirit. Please double check what I've done. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what was problematic regarding this edit. Redlinks are good! They prepare the encyclopedia to incorporate future articles without those articles getting lost as orphans, and spur the creation of articles too. They shouldn't really require explanation; "foreground halo star" sounds like something that should be an article, and that the text should link to there; therefore it should be a wikilink, red or not. Do you disagree? Bernanke's Crossbow ( talk) 16:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm not sure if you noticed this, but I wanted to let you know that this redirect you patrolled had been G5'd twice in the past, and this time was re-created by the same sock-puppeteer as the last time. Utopes ( talk / cont) 06:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Pleiades has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian, I have noticed that you have recently reviewed and improved many of my newly created astronomy articles. I appreciate the help, but could you please tell me where you find the Gaia DR3 data for the stars? (Including luminosity, mass, parallax, radius, spectral type, etc.) I am curious for the source and it could significantly help me use better and more official sources in my future article creations. Thank you, and I hope to be beneficial to the astronomical community on Wikipedia! 2003 LN6 ( talk) 05:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Understood, thank you. 2003 LN6 ( talk) 23:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've walked away from the discussion at the article. I'd still like to rescue the earlier article in some form, particularly seeing that we've now dropped all the way to 6 5 items on less than a page. To bounce an idea off you - would it be inappropriate to create a
List of stellar systems featured in fiction article? As a pure list article (and formatted as a list), presumably we'd avoid some of the angst at existence of fancruft, simply giving the 187 stellar systems and quick summary of works in which they are featured. Regards,
Tarl N. (
discuss)
23:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for fixing the problem, Lithopsian! :-) Cheers, SCHolar44 ( talk) 02:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian ( talk · contribs), I saw that you reverted the changes I made in the Lima Cathedral article. I tell you that I made the change because «Lima Cathedral» is the most common name used for this cathedral, in the same way it is found in its counterpart in Spanish « Catedral de Lima» and I do not know why you have discarded the change then, in the history you do not justify the transfer of information, you simply undid it. I suppose you thought it was a mistake or some kind of vandalism change, but on the contrary, it is a correction that deserves the article. I hope you take it into account for future opportunities. Greetings! Carlos Pozo ( talk) 18:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Lithopsian, Please You Make a Star Page named HE 0557-4840, Because I'm Adding These Metal-Poor Stars to The article named " list of oldest stars", Can you create them? CP -84 1219 ( talk) 01:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear Lithopsian,
I made a few edits on the locknuts page a while ago. I got a little bit ahead of myself changing the title and I agree that the title should be changed back. But there were many small edits I made before that, that were completely wiped out because the admin "Cambridgebayweather" chose to revert not from the title change but from the start of all my changes.
I have read that its not appropriate to revert edits without a reason, and I feel that those other edits were not given any reason behind their deletion. Are there any strategies so that one small edit doesn`t get all your previous edits deleted? Obviously I could wait a long time until someone else comes around to edit on the same page, before I make more edits.
Or perhaps its not regular to make lots of small edits on one page? Perhaps its not encouraged?
Kind Regards, Jayden Barnes.
On Humphreys et al 2020, Exploring the mass loss history of the red supergiants, I noticed that there is an unnamed star on the table regarding Stephenson 2, which lists down the properties of the cluster's members. Its name wasn't placed in the table, but for strange reasons its mass loss rate and several other properties were listed. It is on page 17. What could be this star?-- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 14:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Greetings Lithopsian. I see that you have reverted my bold edit to repurpose the Earendel redirect. I acknowledge that your actions are within your collegial right and am not averse to the steps you have taken. Before deciding where to commence discussion, I'd like to simply ask: are you opposed to repurposing the redirect or are you procedurally wanting to ensure that broken links are preemptively repaired before effecting such repurposing (which I thought I had done and apologize where I did not, and should have). Thank you and best regards.-- John Cline ( talk) 18:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
There's a lot that has happened in the past 15 years, including a NYT bestselling book...-- Pharos ( talk) 16:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Found a way around it. Concerned that a redirect from the wrong name though risks inaccuracy. There are plenty of wrong redirects already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In Vitrio ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I reverted your revert because I think the redirect to a page about an obscure artist with an album named "On Patrol" is less informative than a disambiguation page which mentions both the artist as well as the well-documented use of the term by United States Navy, among other Navies I might add. Ape89 ( talk) 19:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Supernova for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BloatedBun ( talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian,
You restored a redirect page I had recently disabled. This page redirected a query for BERNICE VERE to the page for Agnes Vernon. Agnes Vernon and Bernice Vere are separate actresses. Bernice Vere was a English actresses making her mark in Australian movies while Agnes (Brownie) Vernon was an American actresses also acting in Australian movie as her career was fading.
I enclosed my justification for disabling this page in the comments.
I am currently in the process of revising the Agnes Vernon page and hope to create a page on Bernice Vere in the future.
This redirect would create some difficulties.
This is a copy of the justification I added to the redirection page when I submitted the change:
In the Australian film "Shadow of Lighting Ridge," the cast included
[1]
[2] -
Agnes Vernon as Dorothy Harden
Bernice Vere as Portuguese Annie
Michael Jannetta ( talk) 23:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
References
I see you're active on astronomy articles - this is about WR 42e (and relevant edit by me here). I can't check the source, don't know off the top of my head and Google isn't being very helpful - should that be 468.4 nm? 199.208.172.35 ( talk) 17:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I have no idea how I did that – absolutely not what I intended! Glad you intervened. Cheers DBaK ( talk) 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian, I am hoping you can answer a question about patrolling new pages about astronomical objects, since you've done a lot more of that than I have. What should be done with an article like HD 196775, which recently showed up in the New Pages Feed? It (barely) satisfies the naked-eye visibility criterion of WP:NASTCRIT, and has an HR Catalog number, so it clearly satisfies the astronomical object notability criteria. But all the article's references are to catalogs and papers that examined a large number of objects. I was unable to find a reference that dealt with this specific star in detail. So it probably fails WP:GNG. I marked the article as reviewed, but placed a tag on it indicating that it may not satisfy GNG. What would you do with an article like this one? PopePompus ( talk) 02:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I have advised @ Rgdem999: to restore the page at HMS Tyger which he blanked today, and to discuss the fate of the article on the talk page. I will participate in any discussion, but, as the creator and major contributor to that page, I wish to avoid any appearance of ownership of the article. - Donald Albury 22:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know, the reason I blanked page Gemma Oaten, was because the redirect was not related to the subject. I did actually explain this in the edit summary. You undid my edit without an explanation. I was also planning on requesting deletion for the article although didn’t get around to it before my edits were reverted. Can you please explain what I did here? I’d hate to make this mistake again in the future. Many thanks. Blanchey ( talk) 22:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I am not quite sure why you reverted a merge of two disambiguation pages. There is generally no need to keep the history on such a simple page. Anyway I shall rebert back. Inwind ( talk) 17:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian, a couple of years ago we had a discussion about the radius of NML Cygni (see /info/en/?search=Talk:NML_Cygni#Radius_1650_times_the_radius_of_the_sun). You basically said, that the Stefan–Boltzmann law is fundamental in determining the radius of a star.
In the article Westerlund 1-75 a note has been added, to explain how the radius of the star comes about using the Stefan–Boltzmann law. I think, adding this note is an excellent idea, unfortunately though, I couldn't reproduce the formula and the values used.
This is the formula from the note in the article Westerlund 1-75:
A)
Because I couldn't reproduce the formula A) and the value , I used one of the formulas in the article Stefan–Boltzmann law (I assume, the formula I've chosen is the right one) and the values, which I thought are appropriate to be used in the case of Westerlund 1-75:
B)
, , ,
Using the formula B) and the values given, the radius that I've calculated for Westerlund 1-75, is 670 , which is close enough to 668.
Now, I have a few questions and I would appreciate it very much, if you could answer them and correct me, where I'm wrong.
A) Did I use the right formula and is my calculation correct?
B) In the article Westerlund 1-75 the value for the luminosity is 68,000 in the article text (and 120,000 in the infobox). Why 68,000 instead of 120,000? With a value of 120,000 the radius would be 890 .
C) How does formula A) come about and where does the value come from?
Thanks -- Agentjoerg ( talk) 16:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian, thanks for your explanations. Now I can see, that 104.83 (= 67608) is close enough to 68000 to add up nicely. Then it's also easy to see, how formula A) is derived from formula B) and everything's fine. Pure harmony. As to the values 68000 versus 120000, I would prefer to have 68000 both in the article text and the infobox. The 120000 should be in the article text only, maybe with an explanatory note. But that's my humble opinion.
Other than that I agree with you on mixing values from two different sources is just too prone to error and also on we don't know all the different assumptions that were made in journal papers. But since there are different figures out there, all of them should be included in the article. I would also agree on Calculating a radius ourselves is just about OK, as long as the restrictions, that you've mentioned, are considered. Again, just my humble opinion.
Last but not least, the change that you made to the formula is certainly an improvement, compared with the previous version.
Best regards -- Agentjoerg ( talk) 07:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian, I have to come back to Westerlund 1-75 one more time. I've gone thru the articles by Fok and Arévalo and put together the different values, that I've found, in an overview on the talk page of Westerlund 1-75. You might take note, that especially for luminosity and radius, there are other values given by Arévalo than those used in the wiki-article. I'm not sure, if the other values calculated by Arévalo are of any significance (and maybe I have misunderstood the context they are calculated), so maybe you can check this out (I've given the page where the values are mentioned). It would seem to me, though, that picking one value over the other and leaving the rest out, is a little bit arbitrarily. Cheers. -- Agentjoerg ( talk) 05:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The IAU list of constellations was agreed at its inaugural General Assembly in 1922 and was published in the Transactions of the IAU, vol. 1, p. 158. The reason there are 89 names on the list rather than 88 is because they retained Argo as well as its three constituent parts, but that of course was superfluous. Skeptic2 ( talk) 10:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
"Damn, they're quick."
~
noob
67.187.73.94 (
talk)
13:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello there, and I hope you don't find this as a nuisance. I just want to request if, given that your time allows so, to take a look and have a review on the List of largest galaxies. I am aware that you participated in the delete discussion of this article way back 2018, which had ended as a redirect. I revived the list just last week with new galaxies, a reliable source list, and more defined methods to measure it, which is hopefully better than the old list.
In particular, given your experience with regards to trivial calculations in the list of largest stars, I also want to ask if it would constitute WP:OR if I could also apply a simple multiplication process in this list. Most of the sizes quoted is in the section "Quick Look Angular and Physical Diameters", which uses different distances from other sources and hence may result in different sizes. Fortunately NED provides a scale (how many parsecs per arcminute) given the distance, based on redshift, which uses modern cosmological parameters. I suppose if the given scale can be multiplied to the angular diameters instead, to revise the sizes and update to modern values?
Anyway, if you also have further comments on the list, please don't hesitate to comment here if you can, and I would be obliged to answer back and respond to any suggestions you have. Feel free to send any thoughts you have. Thank you and I hope you have a good day. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 16:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Just in case you have pings disabled. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Did you read what I wrote in the description before my cancellation? It seems to me that this is an argument for breaking this redirect. Are you okay with the soccer world cup page under "player's club" referring to a baseball team? ZERTINHO ( talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Arjayay. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Antares have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Teahouse or the
Help desk.
Please do not re-add spelling mistakes immediately after they have been corrected -
Arjayay (
talk)
14:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian. I am curious about why you reverted my most recent edit of the article on Deneb. I had moved all the reference definitions to the reference section near the end of the article. I routinely do that, because I think it is cumbersome to edit the main text section of an article if there are lengthy definitions embedded within the main text section (and the starbox). Do you disagree with that? Isn't it cleaner to have as little markup language as possible within a text block, so that it is more easily read when it is being edited? PopePompus ( talk) 13:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, seems like you reverted my edits. I realized that was too premature to create these pages by myself without consensus, and for that, I would like to apologize. The Account 2 ( talk) 16:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree on your removal of disambiguation link on Harmonization but I differ in opinion regarding Harmonize. It is difficult when searching for the Tanzanian artist. I'm open to your reasoning.. I might be wrong Volten001 ☎ 18:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes I mean on the redirect. Elaborate on that. I would suggest Harmonize redirects to the person's article since they are notable then add a disambiguation link on the page(I have added it already actually) Volten001 ☎ 18:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree on the hatnote on the redirect Volten001 ☎ 18:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Lithopsian
Thank you for reviewing MLEC.
User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Hi, I saw you reviewed this page. What does this page disambiguate? per WP:D
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Bruxton ( talk) 21:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to create a new page for my village Madhura but you redirected it to Another page Madu and latter also deleted my page Please stop it guys. it's my humble request don't do this Iamkraza786 ( talk) 05:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I notice you've reverted yet another change made by User:Power Hacks. I reverted others. Quite literally, every single edit they have made outside of their own pages has been harmful. Partly poor grammar (evidently English is not their primary language), but also a complete inability to provide citations for the factoids they introduce. Is it time for something more than simply adding messages on their talk page? Tarl N. ( discuss) 18:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
FYI: wp:EWN#User:Volkan1881 reported by User:Pppery (Result: ) Cheers Adakiko ( talk) 20:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm looking for the discussion area on this page?
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
R Tauri and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 22#R Tauri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
PopePompus (
talk)
20:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I’m at a complete loss as to why you reverted my edit using WP:COMMONNAME as your justification. I didn’t change an article title, so what the heck does that have to do with me? I was simply adding the name of a nebula into the name table section on the List of planetary nebulae… so please, fully explain your thought process behind your decision to revert my edit.
Thank you.
Sykoskit ( talk) 13:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The source given by you for the distance to R Aqr is an automatic generated result, which is based on the assumption that R aqr is a single star. But this is not the case for R Aqr, because the components move, the red giant is extended, and circumstellar emission interferes with the determination of the star's position. That's why the GAIA distance isn't correct, and this value certainly can't simply be adopted. The distance should be taken from a different paper like: Accurate parallax measurement toward the symbiotic star R Aquarii, where they taken into account that the target is a symbotic star. 51.154.43.165 ( talk) 10:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not a test (Originally it was.) But an error happened and I lost all the links from the WWII combat vehicle page so im re-doing it.
Sorry for the inconvenience, im working as fast as possible! Gun Nut perk ( talk) 15:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
In May of 2022, there was an edit war regarding St2-18. You stated that the reason why St2-18 was not on the list from September 2021 to May 2022 was due to the main edit warrior wanting it gone. Primefac incorrectly thought that I was the edit warrior, but He thought this because my username and SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer's usernames are similar. I am sorry for what wrong I may have done during that edit war, and I am sorry for my disruptive edits during 2020.-- The Space Enthusiast ( talk) 11:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
A sock had left this message on your talk page the other day. It was removed under WP:EVADE, but do you think that those stars should be made into articles, or is it just nonsense/not necessary? Among Us for POTUS ( talk) 17:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I notice that you’ve removed my contribution to the above page with the comment “a chart would be good, but not this one, as discussed”. There is no such discussion on the Talk page. Could you link me to it please? Alternatively, in the future, it would be nice if you actually fixed the issue (in this case: the chart) instead of unceremoniously deleting and destroying other people’s work. Thank you! — Timwi ( talk) 20:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I was doing a little tidying at the Supernova article, and I saw that a few charts had been tagged as needing references. It looks like you made the comparative light curve plot back in 2012, and it is missing pointers to data from which it can be constructed. You wouldn't happen to have formulae/references to numbers at hand, would you? The only other image tagged as needing a reference is a qualitative plot for which a decent citation can't be hard to find (and probably exists somewhere in the article already). XOR'easter ( talk) 16:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the cut and paste move. I didn't know that wasn't allowed. I did the same for DeepL. Coldbolt ( talk) 15:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why do you think the following is not grammatical: "The source of energy that can maintain the optical supernova glow for months has been originally a puzzle"? I wrote it in the same style as I write scientific papers which is a little different from how I speak but it seems a pretty good sentence to me. The one I changed was IMHO stylistically jarring in a scientific text, even a popular one. Friendly Neighbour ( talk) 16:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I want to move Trito (Proto-Indo-European mythology) to Trito. What's the appropriate way to do it? Nothing links to Trito to refer to Lake Tritonis. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, as an active New Page Patroller, I wanted to make sure you were aware of an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation project to improve the PageTriage extension. We recently published results of user interviews, and have some findings that we would value patrollers' opinions on. If you haven't yet, please consider adding the project page to your watchlist to stay up to date with our progress! Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 13:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I have revered your revert on the article algebra extension, since the redirect is wrong; the redirect to the unrelated topic. Until the move discussion is concluded, it should be fine to have some content, which is not wrong anyway. I have also added a ref. —— Taku ( talk) 17:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian. Thank you for making {[diff2|1143552366|this}} change, I forgot about that until I saw your edit. Can you by any chance point me to a relevant bit of MOS or policy so that I can add it to my bookmarks? Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I am unsure why you undid my edit about Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd.
1. The company is a separate entity to the TV Channel (Use Channel 4 & ITV as comparisons) as the TV Channel is one division of the company.
2. Furthermore, the page had already been created, it was just set up as a redirect, and I simply gave it content. While I admit, I hadn't got round to correctly crediting the original author, of some of the content, this did not justify deleting everything.
Whilst I do believe that this was incorrect move on your part, I am happy to discuss it before I revert it to my edit as I do not want to get into an edit war over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandos1 ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Dear Lithopsian. WP:RM may not solve problem. Let me explain. According to ECP website, "According to the Delimitation of Constituencies Act, 1974, the constituencies for elections to the National and Provincial Assemblies are to be delimited after every census." Now you revert current constituency, which is officially created after 2017 Census of Pakistan, to older one that was created 1998 Census of Pakistan. Both have different areas. I am living in this area so I can understand this. This is not problem of move. Page was wrongly redirect. I am reverting your edit, hope you will not mind. Ameen Akbar ( talk) 16:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello . Hope you're doing well. I have seen recently that an account named User:امین_اکبر is messing with articles of Muzaffargarh District of Punjab, Pakistan. He is reverting articles without any reason. I request you to please stop him for doing that. Regards User:Saad Ali Khan Pakistan Saad Ali Khan Pakistan ( talk) 18:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
EXor has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § EXor until a consensus is reached. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
09:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm here if you'd like to discuss the WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT edits I have done to Super Pang. Thanks! — Flicky1984 ( talk) 19:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
V361 Hydrae has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 28 § V361 Hydrae until a consensus is reached. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
01:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Which part of the reference to the unseen ca1900 Milky Way supernova do you consider to not be a reference?
If there were no advances in telescope technology between Kepler's 1604 supernova observations and 1900, you have a hell of a lot of revision to do. By 1900 there were extensive photographic records being made, surveys for high proper motion, variable stars (the Cepheids were being studied, if not understood) were a subject of research, including supernovae, and stellar catalogues were reaching the millions. Yet with that effort, a supernova in the Milky Way WAS missed. My bet is that, between ca1900 and today there are other supernovae that we have missed, and still haven't found SNRs for. You are propagating an over-optimistic expression of hope, at considerable variance with the observed facts - which I referenced. AKarley ( talk) 17:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I respectfully invite you to stop interfering with the edit to Pentax 67. You are badly mistaken to treat the 6x7 and the 67 as the same camera. It is not. One is Asahi Pentax. The other is a Pentax. Two separate companies made them hence the name change to distinguish them. The two companies are separate legal entities and must be treated as such. Only a qualified lawyer would understand and appreciate the importance of "legal entities"
The cameras are the same series of 6x7cm cameras but stand alone products. One replaced the other. Some parts like the film counter, film advance assembly and shutter cocking mechanism is not backwards compatible.
The appearance of the 6x7 and 67 is totally different. I will arrange photography and insert them. Only the silhouette is similar. It is this that causes confusion. Opcouk ( talk) 21:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Lithopsian, I am a PhD candidate in communication studies at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). My research focuses on amateur astronomers who process data from Space Telescopes and share their pictures online. I noticed you contributed to the WR140 page at the same time that an amateur published a picture of it on Twitter that got a lot of attention. I'm investigating the flow of information related to this image and I wondered if you would be willing to discuss your contribution with me. Let me know DeChamberland ( talk) 19:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your unilateral move of this topic: you had plenty of opportunity to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#DO Dra or YY Dra? Yet you chose not to do so. Why is that? Praemonitus ( talk) 00:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Why did you revert my edits? There is the article and why it needs to be redirected? Salazarov (chat) 14:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey there. Congrats on being a very active new page patroller this month. You're doing great. If you want to hang out with other NPPs, consider joining us on the NPP Discord. Discord is text chat/chat room/instant message software that can be really fun. If not no worries. Thanks and see you around :) – Novem Linguae ( talk) 08:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, still new (after many year) to wiki editing. Don't understand your removal of the Red Zone edit in regards to Canadian government and politics as not linking to other pages while keeping several other entries that likewise have no links to other pages. Scotthutcheon ( talk) 17:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I am wondering your view point, if you do not mind supplying of such thinking? M0YVE ( talk) 23:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey, while I appreciate you backing me up as far as the validity of the {{ Sources exist}} tag on Don Ramon, IMO it’s not worth the effort to edit war such a tag over the initial editors’ objections—my intent through the tag is to notify editors who worked on the article that it isn’t up to standards so that they don’t get the wrong idea going forward, and to make my NPP assessment of the article clear in the page’s history so that it’s clear I did my due diligence as a reviewer. If the initial editor wants to act defensive or disregard the notice that’s their prerogative—we can save the more heavy handed enforcement for when they’re actually adding content that breaks guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 19:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian. Just reaching out as you recently marked the KIKS TYO article as a potential copyright violation.
However, this article is not in violation of any copyright. It is a modification of the original KIKS TYO Wikipedia article which was soft deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIKS TYO. Undeletion of the article was requested in order to add sources, it was draftified to Draft:KIKS TYO to give one time to improve the article at 10:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC). Please see here Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#c-UtherSRG-20230706105000-Yakiton-20230706093500
NOTE: The Kiks Tyo Wikipedia article was first created on 14 September 2007. All other sources on the web that may be similar, including but not limited to https://alchetron.com/KIKS-TYO seem to have taken their content from various iterations of the Kiks Tyo Wikipedia article since that time.
Further, in the "references" portion of the article at the supposed content owner website https://alchetron.com/KIKS-TYO, it clearly cites, lists and links to what was the original KIKS TYO wikipedia article.
Please see the bottom of the page on https://alchetron.com/KIKS-TYO where it says:
"References KIKS TYO Wikipedia" (Text) CC BY-SA
Lastly the https://alchetron.com/ domain was not in existence until 2013-08-05. Again, the original KIKS TYO Wikipedia article is from 2007. Here is a link to the KIKS TYO Wikipedia article as archived on 2012-7-1 prior to the https://alchetron.com/ domain's creation which proves that the https://alchetron.com/ site took its KIKS TYO content from Wikipedia: https://web.archive.org/web/20120701234005/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIKS_TYO
As per the above evidence, and without a doubt, the copyright status of the text of the current Kikz Tyo Wikipedia page has been clarified. The text that has been modified is originally from Wikipedia, nowhere else. All content of the Kiks Tyo page should be restored and some type of notice left so that this issue does not come up again. Thank you! -- Yakiton ( talk) 03:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, Lithopsian. I am curious, how can I start writing about competence without it being in the context of human resources. The competence page seems to be hijacked by disambiguation links and the formal disambiguation page is a redirect. Looking forward to hearing from you. Infogiraffic ( talk) 11:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Dear Lithopsian, the star M33-013406.63 merits well, just by sheer luminosity, its own page (“one of the most luminous stars in the Local Group”, it's in a neighbouring galaxy). The estimates in the lead paragraph (between 3 and 10 million Suns) give a broad range, that seems OK, since quite some modelling enters here, and the issue single vs double star is probably still under discussion. I checked Ref M33-013406.63#cite ref-kournioitis2018 2-0 which discusses the possibility that the star is a binary, giving the estimate log L/L_Sun = 6.67, i.e. 4.68 million Suns, for the primary star. The temperature is assigned with the words “... we exceptionally fixed its temperature at T_eff = 30000 K, in agreement with the late-O spectral type of the star from the literature." In List of most luminous stars, the luminosity is given as 4.677 million Suns, that's the same number within rounding errors.
So just to put the numbers in the "starbox" to the latest values, I suggest to cite Kourniotis2018 rather than M33-013406.63#cite ref-humphreys 3-0, quote the luminosity 4.68 million Suns, and for the radius estimate quote the formula sqrt((5772/30000)**4 * 4.677e6) = 80.06 rounded to 80 R_Sun (Notę a). That way, the number of significant digits seems OK. No need to provide three lines to bracket the result, I would say. That's what I did in the last edit. DieHenkels ( talk) 21:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Good to put the data for both components. But the Stefan-Boltzmann formula gives, when I evaluated a radius of about 210 sun radii for the B component ... quite amazing. A typo in the calculation leading to about 40 sun radii? DieHenkels ( talk) 21:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Why did you delete the subspecies article, bruh? I thought it would be allowed the same way as the panther tigris tigris article one, bruh. KungfuMantis ( talk) 11:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
can you help me get that entry on track? The journalist has that name, and should be findable under that. I understand someone else used that name also, among various pen names. Hundnase ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
King of the United Kingdom has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § King of the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached. . This listing also covers
Queen of the United Kingdom. You are being notified because you have contributed to one or both of these pages in the past by changing or setting the redirect target. Thank you!
Dylnuge (
Talk •
Edits)
23:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Manchester City (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
A disambiguation page is not required. All these entries are covered by a hatnote at the primary topic article.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
08:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
The two movies are way different and should not be referred to each other Savolya ( talk) Savolya ( talk) 17:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I just created the redirect Christianity in Georgia (U.S. state), so it would not longer be red on the dab. If you are against the dab, the only other option would be to move Christianity in Georgia (country) over the redirect and use a hatnote (i.e., make the country the primary topic). Right now, the base name is WP:MISPLACED. Mdewman6 ( talk) 19:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This still has the Afd tag on the article. That is one of the Afd closes I've seen. You should reopen it and let an admin close it properly. scope_creep Talk 00:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I took your requests not at face value, but in spirit. Please double check what I've done. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what was problematic regarding this edit. Redlinks are good! They prepare the encyclopedia to incorporate future articles without those articles getting lost as orphans, and spur the creation of articles too. They shouldn't really require explanation; "foreground halo star" sounds like something that should be an article, and that the text should link to there; therefore it should be a wikilink, red or not. Do you disagree? Bernanke's Crossbow ( talk) 16:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm not sure if you noticed this, but I wanted to let you know that this redirect you patrolled had been G5'd twice in the past, and this time was re-created by the same sock-puppeteer as the last time. Utopes ( talk / cont) 06:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Pleiades has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello Lithopsian, I have noticed that you have recently reviewed and improved many of my newly created astronomy articles. I appreciate the help, but could you please tell me where you find the Gaia DR3 data for the stars? (Including luminosity, mass, parallax, radius, spectral type, etc.) I am curious for the source and it could significantly help me use better and more official sources in my future article creations. Thank you, and I hope to be beneficial to the astronomical community on Wikipedia! 2003 LN6 ( talk) 05:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Understood, thank you. 2003 LN6 ( talk) 23:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |