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.

Added new article Aradial Networks, very simple and similar to Aptilo Networks I hope it will be approved this time.

You missed a publication called "Notes on VY Ori", which is about both VY Ori and VV Ori. Also, if you look up 2MASS J05333588-050132, there are some archives. SpaceDude777 (talk) December 16, 2016

Hi there. This is Garrett / teh ROBLOX Player. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Garretttehrobloxplayer) I understand the reason why my article was deleted, but I have a question. Can you please restore the page temporarily, or for a few days? This is only so I can save a copy of the work. Please let me know by editing on the new page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gtrp. (This new page can be deleted with the re-deletion of the original page.)

Do you ever have a hankering to buff another star article like Eta Carinae? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes. I need to be in the right frame of mind though, and find the right subject at the right time. I'm sure it will happen one day. Lithopsian (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Enthusiasm plays a major part in this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. There’s an AfD on Anthony Padilla that could use your participation, as you were involved in the article's redirect. Thanks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Padilla Sekyaw (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to drop a more personal note here and just say that I really appreciate your guidance as I start on the Starbox project. I really need guidance from someone who knows their stuff when it comes to stars and you definitely seem to know a few things. :-p Hopeful that we will be able to team up on this! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts on this page. As a very new contributor apart from very old minor edits i would appreciate your review as to its "artistic qualities" as per german wikipedia which is why it is currently a candidate for deletion. Also whether it is in fact neutral. it is my most genuine thorough attempt to be as neutral as possible, which is why I did not put the JAMA quotes to begin with. However they appear to have been necessary to neutralise the article. There are opposing points of view (everyone has bipolar namely) but this is debunked in consensus in Canada and the United States. I note that there has been no edit war engaging this "neutrality for neutralitys sake", and the cognitive biases including "point/counterpoint" and "misleading balance" may come into play here. I really don't want this to occur. I'm very thankful that it so far hasn't. This is why I directly point to the guideline controversy and legal controversy in Australia, and point to the not for profit in Canada who came up with all these controversial "appearing to have been right the whole time" theories. Any thoughts most welcome E.3 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to know what to say really. This article is well outside my subject area, so I can't really say if it is notable or not. With a time machine, a good way to avoid controversy would have been to expand the relevant sections of social media that already exist (and are somewhat trampled on by the new article and the section shoehorned in to advertise it), and then discuss a split. Social media is a very large article already and there is every chance that it would have been split out and you'd be here. Even without the split thee content would have been there and a redirect for anyone with a specific interest. As it is, there was and still is a serious risk of the article being stamped on, although it has been approved for now. The subject area is new, controversial, and being in the news for a while isn't necessarily mean it needs a Wikipedia article.

So, where to go from here. I suspect it doesn't matter what I say because you'll just charge ahead anyway. You've already translated a two-day-old article into half a dozen other languages, surely the article can't be finished yet? I feel that the proposal for good article review is highly premature - I've never seen an article go from new to good status so quickly, especially one that still has crucial tags across the top. I think I've said it before, but anyway I'll say it now: slow down, get a cut of tea, go away for a week, let people come up with ideas, questions, helpful or unhelpful edits, etc. The article will improve and settle down, or not if it can't stand on its own feet, but it will get where it needs to be. It isn't there today. We have a policy of not biting newbies (I'm not very good at it, but hey-ho), but outside of the article talk page, a few more blunt words could be what you need to hear. You're clearly enthusiastic and knowledgeable on the subject (there are other words, but I'm trying not to bite!) but that isn't always a good thing precisely because you feel that it is one of the most important things in the world and 99.99% of people don't. But what do I know, see where the article goes, but see over a weeks or months timeframe, not hours. For example, a good article review can take weeks to happen if it happens at all - you might wish it had taken longer when it happens ;) Lithopsian (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Doomsdayer520. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Turkish occupied Syria, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake? Click timing error? Or a philosophical objection to the redirect? Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not discuss on the talk page? I'm not communicating via edit comments. Hekerui (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are, by repeatedly re-instating the same edits despite reversions by different reviewers. The relevant policy is WP:BRD, talk instead of edit-warring. Starting a discussion after you think you've won the edit war isn't the best way to inspire collaboration. Lithopsian (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your talk page comment on the topic? Hekerui (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded and ask for an answer because your comment doesn't make sense to me. Hekerui (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my comment at Talk:Workplace Health and Safety Directive. Hekerui (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Workplace Health and Safety Directive, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian: Previously there was a whole article on the Burmese Independence Army (which now redirects to Burma National Army) and a whole article on Burma National Army (which Burma Independence Army redirected too). These two articles covered the exactly same topic of the BIA (later renamed the BNA). I previously simply merged and expanded them under the title Burma Independence Army and made Burmese Independence Army and Burma National Army redirect to it. However I keep being reverted. I tried to move the article in the proper way, but cant since Burma Independence Army already exists as a page. What should I do? --Havsjö (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I put in under Burma Independence Army since the organisations most active period and the focus of the article lay on the BIA --Havsjö (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The merge might make sense. Although I haven't investigated in detail, there was certainly overlap of the content. However, I have reverted all the edits just to give a clear starting point. It generally makes sense to discuss major merges in advance because of the work involved and the possibility for disagreements, although in this case it might be considered obvious that a merge is necessary. Still, the name of the final merged article seems less obvious. Consider carefully, I don't have strong opinions either way.

What is more definite is that you merged the article into what was previously a redirect. This is known as a cut-and-paste move, renaming an article by copying its contents into a different title. This loses all the history prior to the move which is considered unacceptable, and also makes a bit of a mess in the talk page. Pages should be renamed (moved) properly, which carries over the history and talk contents. Unfortunately, if a redirect already exists at the desired new title and it has been edited since creation (as it has in this case because of the cut'n'paste move and revert) then most users do not have the powers to make the move. Instead, it must be requested at requested moves. This can be done as a pro-forma technical request, but if any opposition is likely then it should be discussed first. Merging does tend to leave a dead-end of history in one article, although it is possible to also merge histories but this is generally not done as it is more confusing than helpful.

I suggest doing this in two very separate steps: a merge of the two overlapping articles; and a proper move/rename. Consider whether either or both should be discussed first. Lithopsian (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this change, it's not clear to me that "relating to a place on the other side of the world" is the dominant meaning of "antipodean". At least on Wikipedia, the dominant meaning, if there is one, seems to be "relating to Australia and New Zealand". Of the links pointing to Antipodean (which you mentioned), it looks like every one of them is directly in reference to Australia and New Zealand. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its a tricky one. I don't think there is any question about the dominant meaning of the term, just about the best place to send people who are interested in it. Antipodean in the context of most incoming wikilinks (I haven't checked all of the large number) refers in a generic way to "inhabitants of the antipodes", usually meaning those from Australia and New Zealand although potentially elsewhere. However, neither of the country articles really address this terminology, or even mention it. Possibly they could, but that wouldn't make either article a good place to end up when wanting to read about antipodeans generically and neither article would seem better than the other. Antipodes mentions the term specifically in this context, and I recently bolded it for people ending up there through the redirect. A standalone article could address the confusion by describing the dominant meaning so it doesn't have to be a dab page. Some might argue it contravenes WP:DICTDEF, but it seems to me that there is more to the term than simply being an adjectival form of antipodes. Lithopsian (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually that many incoming wikilinks - about 15 articles altogether, all of which use it to refer to Australia + New Zealand. (It doesn't take that long to check.) To clarify: when you say "inhabitants of the antipodes", are you talking about "antipodes" as the region around Australia, or the place across the world from the person using the term? Because those are two very different things - often, "antipodean" and "antipodes" are used by Australians to refer to themselves, which is clearly only the first meaning. I should note that in the current wording you put in place for Antipodean (disambiguation), you used both meanings of "antipodes" in different entries, which is... confusing. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I don't know which I mean, or which anyone else might mean. It seems that the vast majority of people (and Wikipedia articles) are going to mean Australia and New Zealand, but I don't think it is helpful to redirect to either of those country articles: antipodean is not a synonym for Australia or New Zealand and isn't mentioned in either article, plus it can refer to other people, even generally to things in that region or nearby regions. Antipodes is a good target for the term, it describes the term in context and in full. A dab page just muddies the waters and makes people wonder why they're there. Lithopsian (talk)

In Antipodean (disambiguation) there is a narrow technical difficulty, entries on a dab page should only have one blue link, which highlights the basic problem with linking Australia or New Zealand at all. My wording can probably be improved, or perhaps there should be more entries in the list instead of multiple links in one entry. The Antipodes Islands probably deserve a mention somewhere if we're picking discrete places, although that will not be what most people are thinking of when they say antipodean. Lithopsian (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens: Antipodes Islands mentions the Antipodean albatross. That should surely be in Antipodean (disambiguation). Lithopsian (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually quite a few terms (animals, etc.) that start with "antipodean" - you can enter "antipodean" in the search box to see all of them. I'm not sure if any of them belong in a disambiguation page, since I don't believe any of them are referred to as just "antipodeans", but it probably doesn't matter much either way.

You're right that it would be better if there were an article called, say, "Australia and New Zealand", although the article Australasia comes close - and according to that article, the term "Australasia" is sometimes used just for Australia and New Zealand. I would rather see the "Australasia" article used to define the Aus/NZ meaning of "antipodes" than the current "Antipodes" article, since the two meanings of "antipodes" have almost nothing in common - unless you happen to live in the UK or thereabouts. So... what do you think about making Antipodean a disambiguation page again, and making "Australasia" the primary article linked to for both the "Antipodean" and "Antipode" disambiguation? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australasia (as opposed to Australasian?) is a target that would resolve the problem of which country to redirect to. Is that really where people want to go when they click on antipodean, though? Its somewhere, I suppose. I'm not so sure Antipode itself has a primary topic. Most references to antipode in Wikipedia (not directly linked, obviously) are in the context of antipodes rather than the colloquial antipodean context, although that is arguably incorrect since antipodes is both the singular and plural for this meaning. Lithopsian (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps all three terms - "antipode", "antipodes", and "antipodean" - should each be a disambiguation page? You're right that there's no overwhelming meaning for any one of these terms, and there are enough meanings for each to justify three disambiguation pages. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly late reply, but this is all going in the right direction. I don't like the idea of a dab page for antipodean, because it is fairly clear what people are interested in when they see that term, forcing them to make further decisions is not very helpful. It is just unfortunate that there isn't a very good target, but then maybe that indicates that its meaning isn't so obvious after all. I still suspect a standalone article would solve a lot of problems. Antipode is already a dab page, so that's good. Antipodes is a fairly clear primary title, so it wouldn't be good to usurp it for a dab page. Antipodes (disambiguation) is a possibility, since there are other possible targets for Antipodes, but it is all currently lumped into the Antipode dab page and I don't know if pulling that apart into two lists would be helpful - confusing enough for people already that antipode and antipodes are two different things. Lithopsian (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a technical point, probably moot now that Antipodean is a redirect to Australasia. Having Australasia as the primary article for, for example, Antipodean implies that it is the target of a redirect. Then the dab page would be Antipodean (disambiguation), which should probably be formatted as having a primary topic and some other possibilities. That seems to be where we are now for Antipodean so all is well. It is much less obvious what a primary topic would be for Antipode, with some very specific mathematical definitions as well as all the antipodes links. Lithopsian (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean - Antipodean is not a redirect to Australasia, although maybe it should be. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought you'd changed this already. Did you change something else to redirect to Australasia? Lithopsian (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just added links to Australasia to the disambiguation pages Antipode and Antipodean (disambiguation). Having Antipodean redirect to Australasia does seem somewhat reasonable, though. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

Why. You made this edit[1] wrongly stating: "Although Rigel is a variable star, it does not have a separate variable star designation because it has a Bayer designation." Yet when I corrected this text "Rigel itself is classed as an Alpha Cygni (ACYG) type variable star, V*bet Ori.^[1]". You now claim; "remove misunderstanding again after it was previously reverted", and [User:|151.230.113.97] claims "remove Simbad-specific codename."

• 1) So your are now actually admitting socking?
• 2) The nomenclature of Rigel in the GVSC is "V*bet Ori", which is why it is listed there.

Even if you doubt the SIMBAD Vizier data, the name appears here[2]

(butting in) that link you just posted says merely "BET ORI". It doesn't give any new name at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote the initial text, I correct it, but you now you claim it is not needed?

Either get consensus, revert your edit, or we'll start investigating clear evidence of disruptive editing. 22:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, while we are at it @Arianewiki1: can you please answer/explain about the variability ranges? And also the Webb reference where Webb discusses the Bayer designation? I myself am in two minds whether a "V*" prefix counts as a separate name or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BET ORI is simply an abbreviation of the Bayer designation, using the official IAU constellation abbreviation and a (usually) three-character Greek-letter abbreviation that is unofficial but quite common in online databases (eg. Simbad, GCVS, and VSX). V* is a Simbad-specific prefix used to ensure that identifiers are unique (eg. Nu Orionis and NU Orionis). For example, Simbad lists R Lyrae as "V* R Lyr" but that is not its variable star designation. Similar prefixes are used for double stars (eg. ** MCA 50 for Albireo) and plain old boring stars (eg. * 67 Ori). The prefixes are not part of any formal designations. Note that the AAVSO page does not include any "V*", only the Bayer abbreviation - in at least two forms, highlighting the non-standard nature of the Greek-letter abbreviations. Lithopsian (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And so it turns personal, as it always does with @Arianewiki1:. Lithopsian (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Utter tosh. You are alone responsible for your own edits. You made the wrong statement that Rigel had no variable star designation, when it does. Instead of accepting that, you deleted the correction claiming it was now irrelevant. This is evidence of WP:DE.

As for: "BET ORI is simply an abbreviation of the Bayer designation, using the official IAU constellation abbreviation" is irrelevant. "Bet Ori" is the GCVS designation. In Kukarkin B.V., "GENERAL CATALOGUE OF VARIABLE STARS", Publ. House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow, 3rd edition. (1969), it says and lists in Table 1. SUMMARY OF VARIABLE STARS NAMES.,"For each constellation the following are shown:

first Argelander designation (e.g., R Cas)

last Argelander designation

first sequential designation (e.g., V335 Cyg)

last sequential designation

all non-standard designations (e.g., Gam Cas)."

Hence "Bet Ori" is the correct variable designation. Your response above looks plausible but is actually wrong, especially towards my only contention regarding its variable star designation. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? But it's not a specific variable star designation, its just its Bayer designation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I'm afraid I must go back to ignoring User:Arianewiki1. Despite previous recommendation to always engage in discussion, I feel it simply leads to more aggravation on all sides rather than a resolution of any issues relating to article content. I know this will lead to further accusations of violating this policy or that, but so be it. Lithopsian (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]