Niyet'
Welcome!
edit
|
May-July 2017
edit
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to NML Cygni. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ynoss (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC) --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Do not use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at 210.55.76.21. It is considered sock puppetry. Such attempts to avoid detection or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ynoss (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Space Infinite. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of largest stars have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Regards— ~ The Omega Infinite CyberSpace Alpha X 11:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Ynoss (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to List of largest stars. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. The reference you cited doesn't say what you claimed it said. This is approaching vandalism, please stop making bogus edits. Regards— ~ The Omega Infinite CyberSpace Alpha X 16:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
First of all, my intention is NOT to vandalize Wikipedia. I edited the page to give more accurate sizes. For VV Cephei A, this is what the Wiki page says:
The supergiant primary, known as VV Cephei A, is currently recognised as one of the largest stars in the galaxy, with an estimated radius of 1,050 R☉.
Analysis of the orbit and eclipses places a firm upper limit on the possible size at 1,900 solar radii.
So would it be not vandalism to say that VV Cephei A is 1,050-1,900 R☉. You undone it without even knowing that the wiki page for VV Cephei A actually said VV Cephei was 1,050-1,900 R☉
Even if VV Cephei A really is 1,050-1,900 R☉, it would be near impossible for it to stay fixed to the lower estimate for a period of time. Doing all the math, with all the numbers between 1,050 and 1,900 it would be almost impossible for VV Cephei A to stay at 1,050 solar radii for a time. Even the wiki page for CK Carinae (1,060 R☉) says that it is surpassed by VV Cephei A and the wiki page for Cepheus says that VV Cephei A is 1,050-1,900 R☉
Now for Westerlund 1 BKS AS, it had an UPPER estimate of 2,544 R☉ so how can it be vandalism to RE-ADD the higher estimate?
As for NML Cygni, you actually have NO PROOF that it is 1183 R☉, so you really are vandalizing Wikipedia! Even the ref doesn't even say that NML Cygni is 1,183 R☉ so that is why I edited it back.
As for Betelgeuse, I will edit it back to 1,180 R☉ but if I find a source saying 887 R☉ then I will edit it to 1,000 R☉ (because both the largest stars list and the wiki page for Betelgeuse say 887 ± 203 R☉, because Betelgeuse is a variable star so it actually has a range between 684-1090 R☉)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyet' (talk • contribs) 04:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm here to try and stop you getting blocked. You've said you don't care, but clearly you do because it would stop you editing and you clearly have an interest in stars and a desire to write about them. So, here's how it works. You may know the size of a star (obviously, you don't, nobody does, but let's ignore that for now), but Wikipedia doesn't care what you know. One of the founding principles of Wikipedia is that the information it contains must be verifiable - this is because anybody can edit any article and write whatever comes into their head. For Wikipedia to be a useful source of information, it must be possible to check what people write and remove anything that is misleading. Hence, verifiability, not truth. You can't write what you know, only what can be verified in reliable third-party sources.
- In case that is all a bit vague, here's how it works for the diameter of a star. You can't just use a number you made up - this is original research and even if you are a professional astrophysicist it isn't verifiable so it will be removed. So you find somewhere that someone has "published" the size of a star, possibly you can use that number and reference the source. Except that lots of people have "published" the size of the star and all the values are different, so which one goes in Wikipedia? Well possibly all of them, but most are completely obsolete and not very interesting except as a historical essay (Wikipedia does have a lot to say on the subject). Looking for a quality value for the stellar radius, we look in peer-reviewed journals (Wikipedia recommends secondary and tertiary sources, but in astrophysics these are rare and often out-dated) and usually at the most recent publications (but beware of papers just casually repeating very old values). So, at a minimum you must have a reference for any size of a star - what you know is 100% irrelevant. Even then, someone may overwrite your value and provide a different reference - don't just lose your temper and star an edit war because that's a sure way to get blocked. Individual cases where there could be disagreement or confusion about the best sources can be discussed on the article talk page (before the edit war starts). General principles can be discussed at project talk page such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. One final tweak is for list: very often they don't include references; it is considered acceptable to just insert values from a linked article although an inline reference would be better.
- Hopefully, you can continue to help out at Wikipedia without getting blocked, but it probably won't happen if you rant at admins. Admins are almost always even-handed and calm, especially to new editors who may not yet be familiar with all the Wikipedia guidelines, but they will block you if your "good faith" edits become disruptive or deliberately unhelpful. So, take what they say seriously - they're not getting at you, just trying to help. BTW, I'm not an admin. Lithopsian (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- 1,050 - 1,900 Rsuns are independent calculations by different authors. One of them is wrong, and the other is... well, less wrong. The 1,090 figure is actually ancient and should probably be dropped, but people do so like their big numbers.
- Even I removed "It is surpassed by VV Cephei," from CK Carinae's page.
- 1,180 R☉ is Betelgeuse's old size and 1,650 R☉ NML Cyg's old size. The Zhang's reference says that size was 1,650 (-2,775) R☉ and the temperature (2,500–) 3,250 K and the De beck's reference says that the temperature is 3,834 K, If NML Cygni's temperature is 3,834 K, it means that NML Cygni's size is 1,183 R☉, If it is 2,500 K, its size would be 2,775 R☉ etc... because when the stars become warmer, they shrink, and cooler, they grow and the size of a giant, supergiant, hypergiant stars can change quickly. NML Cygni is listed as having a radius of 1,650-2,775 R☉ and being the largest star from 2012-2013. The NML Cygni article currently cites a size of 1,050 R☉ (it means that its temp is 4,074 K) from a 2010 paper. Clearly it wasn't the largest star in 2012 or 2013, It was WOH G64 (Not V838 Monocerotis because it was 380–1,570 R☉) with a size 1,540-2,000 R☉[1]. And in general, when a range, use the small end of the range to sort, not the high end or some middle range and margin of error is not a range.
- Plus you say that we really are vandalizing Wikipedia while the version is correct?? No sh*t sherlock, but this one of the worst things I've ever seen on Wikipedia.
BTW, This is your last warning; the next time you make disruptive editing from Wikipedia, as you did at List of largest stars, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The OmegaYnoss ★ (disscusion • Contribs) 14:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- If the admins don't get you blocked from editing while you keep vandalizing Wikipedia, as you did at List of largest stars, I will be adding you to a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. The OmegaYnoss ★ (SMS • Cbs) 15:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't argue with me, but I still have more information (from the wiki page for Cepheus:) Another, VV Cephei A, like Mu Cephei, is a red supergiant and a semiregular variable star, located at least 5,000 light-years from Earth. It has a minimum magnitude of 5.4 and a maximum magnitude of 4.8. One of the largest stars in the galaxy, it has a diameter of 1,300 solar diameters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyet' (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Do not create mock articles of other normal articles, like what you did in your sandbox copying an earlier edition of List of Largest Stars. Remember that your sandbox is visible to public and that Leopold <<Butters>> Stotch does not belong to the top of the list, and that UY Scuti definitely does but Westerlund 1-26 might. BTW, I am not an admin but later in the future. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
VV Cephei A is between 1,050 - 1,800 R☉, (not 1,900 R☉) because 1: the value is historically obsolete and should be dropped, and 2: VV Cephei A's roche lobe is somewhere around 1,800 R☉, so the radius should not be larger than this. Earlier values gave sizes between 1,600 - 1,900 R☉. You might say that VV Cephei A is 1,600 R☉, because 1,600 does not exceed 1,800, but if the 1,800 roche lobe estimate is incorrect (nobody knows the size of a star), then you might say it is 1,900 R☉. The Levesque et al ref currently gives a size around 1,200 - 1,600 (-1,900) R☉[2], which gives a mean radius of 1,400 R☉ (or 1,550 R☉, at least it does not exceed 1,800) VV Cephei A is not 1,300 R☉ as an <<average>> because it is listed above HR 5171 (1,315 R☉), and is really somewhere around 1,400 R☉ matching AH Scorpii. The ref is from a book by Michael Ridpath and Will Tirion. Even though I come from a country that does not have English as its main language, I do have the book and it does say 1,400 R☉ for VV Cephei A. Remember, all content that you add and all edits you make must not contravene Wikipedia's policy on verifiablility.
Even The OmegaYnoss ★ (SMS • Cbs) removed <<Another, VV Cephei A, like Mu Cephei, is a red supergiant and a semiregular variable star, located at least 5,000 light-years from Earth. It has a minimum magnitude of 5.4 and a maximum magnitude of 4.8. One of the largest stars in the galaxy, it has a diameter of 1,300 solar diameters.>> from Cepheus. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Ways to improve NR Vulpeculae
editHi, I'm Space Infinite . Niyet', thanks for creating NR Vulpeculae!
Robert McClenon and me, we have just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This is pretty pointless. It doesn't say anything useful, doesn't offer any reason why it is notable, and has no refs. A good hint that it didn't merit an article was that it wasn't in the Stars of Vulpecula template. It is very likely to be deleted.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Regards— ~ The Infinite Space X 08:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit Warring
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, as you have done here.[1] 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 Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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. Signed by The OmegaYnoss ★ (SMS • Cbs) 16:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Niyet',
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether EH9 6632 should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EH9 6632 .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks,
Lithopsian (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your sandbox
editI have corrected it. 2407:7000:A23A:7029:8931:56D:E082:1EF1 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of SMC 018136 for deletion
edit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMC 018136 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.