Misplaced Pages

User talk:Lithopsian

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arianewiki1 (talk | contribs) at 13:30, 22 April 2016 (Edit Warring: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:30, 22 April 2016 by Arianewiki1 (talk | contribs) (Edit Warring: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5



This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Well I know Trion Supercars has been moved once, but then Trion is in another page. -DerrickMa502

Bad Faith / Edit Warring

Information icon Hello, I'm Arianewiki1. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Misplaced Pages needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. What's Bad Faith and edit warring? said DerrickMa502

Quick Solution to Current List of Bright Stars Issue

@Lithopsian My apologies for the last few posts, but trying to understanding your point of view is getting frustrating. Let's immediately and quickly fix this issue by putting it behind us, because I too have other edits and stuff to do... (like adding another seven stars to the List of brightest stars to tally them to 100 stars.)

I did happen to reread this "User:Arianewiki1 wanted all magnitudes to be clearly referenced and to come from a single source, preferably the Yale Bright Star catalogue (or FK5, but that is a non-starter). Nobody objected." mixed with some of the unnecessary rhetoric...

Q1. Do you Lithopsian actually object to using the Yale Bright Star Catalogue V5?

I also later said;
"The source of these magnitudes was taken from the USNO's Astronomical Almanac , which has a list of bright stars and their positions. If you bothered to look page L14 under "Section H:Stars ans Stellar Systems" it says of the 1467 stars listed; "all stars of visual magnitude 4.5 or brighter, as listed in the fifth revised edition of the Yale Bright Star Catalogue (BSC). I know this to be true, as the once missing No.63 β Auriga Beta Aurigae / Menkalinan 1.9 magnitude isn't included. (I fixed this on 18 June 2015, myself.) It is not in the FK5, because the star is a variable. (Most of these magnitudes also appear in the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) Part I (Fricke+, 1988) (FK5), which had a revised edition in 1991.) The BSC V5 is mostly used because the magnitudes are consistent in both hemispheres of the sky. (The only useful 'update' is HIP magnitudes, which is also within the FK6, etc. This has the advantage of not suffering from atmospheric effects, which have to be properly accounted for in photometry.)"

Q2. Do you Lithopsian object to using the magnitudes in the 2015 USNO's Astronomical Almanac ?

Q3. As most of the star magnitudes quoted in USNO's Astronomical Almanac also appear in the Fifth Fundamental Catalogue (FK5) Part I (Fricke+, 1988), do you object to quoting both of these as reference sources in the List of brightest stars page?

Q4. Do you know of any other consistent magnitude listings better than the BSCV5 or FK5?

(Note: HIP photometry is good, but is not precisely 'V' magnitude. I don't know of any other sources that are acceptably recent.)

Thanks.

Be star listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Be star. Since you had some involvement with the Be star redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Iota Orionis

Heads up: you appear to have broken several refs in Iota Orionis. -- Elphion (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Which aren't fixed yet. -- Elphion (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks -- I'll have to look up CitationBot, which I know nothing about. -- Elphion (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Citation Bot is an excellent tool for creating scientific references using the cite journal and related templates, looking up and filling in the entire template from a bibcode, doi, or pmid (and others?). However, it has had a tough time recently, been broken, been blocked, been upgraded, and currently is only partially functional for unknown reasons. By all means use it, but check its edits. You can add a button to the edit toolbar from your preferences, which is currently the only part that seems to work. Otherwise look for the Expand citations link in the left panel. Lithopsian (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Cymoeba

Just for your info, a work of fiction can't be speedy deleted, even if it obviously isn't notable. The tag was removed for that reason by admin Ritchie333, not the creating editor Writeintothefuture. However, I've deleted the article as spam, and indeffed Writeintothefuture for using the name of a company as a forbidden user name and promoting its client's product. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

==

Hello, Lithopsian. You have new messages at Moviegirl35's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

==

Hello,

I responded to what you posted on my talk page. Sorry I'm new to this :-)

Moviegirl35 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Moviegirl35

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
u have defended wikipedia well grasshopper Wishupon star (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fire Rocks Speedy Deletion

I'm very new to all of this so forgive me if I am doing this wrong. I would like to edit the fire rock page so that it is more encyclopedic in tone but am not sure how or what needs to be edited for this to take place. Would this serve better to do as a stub? Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfarrell070 (talkcontribs) 23:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

why

why is speed delation ? — Maisie008 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Blue Cone Monochromacy

Hi Lithopsian, thank you for your advices. I'm going to remove the content of 'blue cone monochromac'. When I recently submitted the new article of my SandBox the answer I received from the editor Anarchyte was "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Misplaced Pages. You can find it and improve it at Blue cone monochromac instead". I thought, and now I understand that it was a mistake, that the editor was requesting me to put the content inside this page with the tiny change in the title. I'm going to immediately remove my content from there.

Then my question is: 'Blue Cone Monochromacy' is a human disease, also known as 'Blue Cone Monochromatism' and there is an entry on wikidata for it https://www.wikidata.org/Q18553394 but not a wikipedia entry, other than a redirect to 'Monochromacy'. 'Monochromacy' is not a disease, https://www.wikidata.org/Q450059. Do you think it will be better to ask on the talk page of 'Monochromacy' in order to know if editors would like to consider my sandbox article ? In my family there are many people with this disease, I often use Misplaced Pages and it is strange to me to don't see this disease inside wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renata.sarno (talkcontribs) 16:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Does he got deletion?

Hello With respect to my new page creation which you have suggested for deletion. Have provided 7 citations of National Newspapers, media b2b websites tec in India on the topic, if you still feel it should be deleted, AM OK. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabineschrmal (talkcontribs) 17:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Galaxy Stubs

Thanks for the suggestion, Lithopsian OwenJiang (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

calculation of the radius of NML Cygni

hello Lithopsian, you helped me some time ago with regards to NML Cygni, therefore I'm addressing you again:

  • First I've got a question. on the talk page of NML Cygni you said: The radius is not calculated from the angular radius. As explained in the paper, 16.2 mas is not a directly measured value. It was derived from assumed values of the temperature, luminosity, and distance. 1,650 is a rounded value for the most likely physical parameters given in the reference (3,250K and 270,000 L). I was wondering, is there an article in the en.wiki or somewhere else in the net, that explains how exactly the radius of a star is calculated based on the (estimated) stellar parameters. The reason is I'd like to mention the calculation of the radius on the de.wiki, because you're right, people (including myself) are obsessed with the largest, the most massive and so on and I think it is important to highlight the fact, that all radii are calculations based on estimated values.
  • Second I'd like to ask you a favour, if you can spend the time. This article http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...610..427Z is used as reference in the de.wiki for a calculated radius of 3700 for NML Cygni. Can you check if this is true, because it would make NML Cygni the by far largest known star. Thanks a lot. --Agentjoerg (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

1th

In this edit, "1th" is a typo. Page 6 of the reference says "Ks≈10∼11 mag" so I'm not sure what was intended. Art LaPella (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolved – Art LaPella (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, as you have done here. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Comments:

Furthermore, by stating "I have given up engaging with Arianwiki1 since that author has been repeatedly abusive to me, making demands, chasing down my edits, and simply being difficult where it would be easier to be helpful." This is avoiding WP:GF which is clearly sanctionable. You were properly requested to "Justify these statements properly, or they will be removed under Misplaced Pages adopted policies." More than a month had past, and you refused to engage in gaining consensus. You did nothing. I do suggest you read the Edit Warring warning above, as you have already avoided; "The article's talk page to discuss controversial changes." You just haven't done this. This is why I reverted your edit.
However, as you did here, , in this my comment , you also tried falsely accused me of producing "Remove fluff sentence originating from non-neutral editor (User:WAFred))" As I stated, "This edit in question can be construed as a derogatory comment under WP:PA.". This was made worse but justifying this under a fictitious User: (User:WAFred).


Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)