Jump to content

User talk:Niyet'

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Space Infinite (talk | contribs) at 08:17, 26 May 2017 (Added comments regarding NR Vulpeculae). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Niyet'! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 13:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

May 2017

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)[reply]

Stop icon Do not use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at 210.55.76.21 (Maybe). 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)[reply]

Information icon 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) [reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Ynoss (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Information icon 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) [reply]

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 2016 (UTC) [reply]

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)[reply]
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 surapssed by [[VV Cephei]]," from CK Carinae.
1,180 R☉ is Betelgeuse's old size and 1,650 R☉ NML Cyg's old size. NML Cygni is listed as having a radius of 1,650 R☉ and being the largest star from 2012-2013. The NML Cygni article currently cites a size of 1,050 R☉ 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 R) with a size 1,730-2,500 R☉. And in general, when a range, use the small end of the range to sort, not the high end or some middle range.
BTW, This is your last warning; the next time you add unsourced content 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)[reply]

Ways to improve NR Vulpeculae

Hi, I'm Space Infinite . Niyet', thanks for creating NR Vulpeculae!

I've 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) [reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Niyet%27&oldid=782340020"