User talk:Lithopsian

Aradial Networks

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

VY Orionis

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

Deletion of "Garrett / teh ROBLOX Player"

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.)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Lithopsian, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Gaia DR2/KH 15D

Hi,

I understand that there is no DR1 information on KH15D, but the Gaia website (https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/documentation/GDR2/Miscellaneous/sec_credit_and_citation_instructions/) states:

"If you have used Gaia DR2 data in your research, please cite both the Gaia mission paper and the Gaia DR2 release paper:

• Gaia Collaboration et al. (2016): Description of the Gaia mission (spacecraft, instruments, survey and measurement principles, and operations); • Gaia Collaboration et al. (2018b): Summary of the contents and survey properties."

I'm only following the rules when I added back the "gaia ref1"

That is why we have {{Cite DR2}}. Put what you think should be the correct attribution in that template. Or better yet, discuss it on the talk page and get consensus on the best layout. Otherwise you can happily spend the rest of your life editing the several hundred DR2 refs already in WP, and the new ones being added every day, and you'll have a never-ending edit-war on your hands because someone will always disagree with something. FWIW, the attribution instructions say a lot more, but that's exactly why it should be discussed. Some of the best astro citation brains already watch that template, and you can attract more attention at the project talk page if you think it is needed. Lithopsian (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

HotCat question

Thank you, as always, for cleaning up my mistakes on pages like PDS 70. I had one question for you - I've noticed a couple of times now that you use HotCat to add a single category, and do this multiple times (for multiple edits). Genuinely out of curiosity, why do you do this instead of adding all 3-5 and then saving the page at once? Primefac (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Habit, mostly. Lack of planning, too. I see something and HotCat is so easy to use that I just fill it in. Going to Save, then starting to add categories, means I have to realise I'll have to add more than one, then think (oh no!) about when I'm finished. Not really worth it for just two or three. Sometimes I do see that I've added a whole bunch of categories individually but by then its a bit late. Lithopsian (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, fair enough. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Stealth page move of Alpha Herculis

Hi. Dean9901 has again moved the Alpha Herculis article to Rasalgethi (binary) as a minor edit (! - that shouldn't be allowed), despite your earlier reversal etc. I tried to undo it myself, but was unable to "because it involves content outside the main slot", whatever that means. How do we escalate this to get it reversed? Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that error means you tried to do the undo before moving the page back? Should be OK now, and User:Dean9901 is now blocked. Lithopsian (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etymology of Szczecin

While Etymology of Szczecin was (for a short time) an article, I nominated it for deletion, but while I was filling the Twinkle nomination you reverted it back to the redirect, and now the nomination article has a redirect as a target. Would you mind if I restore the article text so that we could properly discuss how much the article is appropriate and whether it needs to be redirected? I tried to speedy my nomination, but already one user commented, and it is not anymore possible. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. It needs something, because there is no notice on the page (current, as redirect) about the AfD. Whatever causes less confusion. Lithopsian (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I will revert to the article and add an AfD notice. As it looks now, the AfD will converge to a redirect anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Bilingualism

Hei Lithopsian, the page Bilingualism exist in other wikis. Please, add references and sources, but do not reverse unnecessarily these editions. Rodinelson Nivaeldo da Silva (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Question on Constellation

Good morning, Lithopsian. I saw your reversion at my edit in Constellation. You justified it as being "almost unintelligible". Were you referring to the part "separated by archs of right ascensions and declinations and grouped by asterisms of their historically most important stars"? Because if it is so, it is not "unintelligible": it is the scientific concept of constellation in an astrophysicist's terms. If there's any problem with my English, I fully welcome grammar corrections. But if the misunderstandings were related to the terminology, then they're unjustified, because they're correct and were simply even copied from another article (and properly sourced). If you were referring to neither of these, then what part of my edition did you find "unintelligible"? Thanks for your attention. EleassarBR (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

My comment was referring to the whole thing. It was unintelligible to the point where I couldn't even tell what you were trying to say, so I couldn't just fix the language. If it was copied from somewhere else, then it shouldn't have been because that is plagiarism, you need to write articles in your own words except for short attributed quotations. If it was translated from the original French IAU text then it needs to be translated better, and still written in your own words. The source is not a problem, simply the text you wrote. Sorry, but it needs to be in grammatical English. If you still feel your text was appropriate and correctly written, or at least close enough to be corrected easily, then go the the article talk page and ask. It is a fairly well-watched article and should get some responses. Otherwise, for even more expert eyes on the ball, you could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy although that would generally be overkill for an edit on a single article. Lithopsian (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Wafa field-Waha field

Hi, you undid my edit removing the redirect from Wafa field to Waha field. I realize that deleting the redirect leaves Wafa field as a blank page, which is apparently why you undid my edit — but having the first page redirect to the second is incorrect, as they're completely different, and in different parts of Libya (I made this edit because I'm doing oil & gas research work and the fact that the first page redirects to the second screwed me up for like 20 minutes, because I was operating under the mistaken assumption that the two were the same). I don't have time to create a new page for Wafa field — what would be the correct thing to do here? delete the page Wafa field, so that any links to the page are redlinks? CircleAdrian (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a formal discussion process for deleting redirects. Before you get all gung-ho, it is worth reading the blurb up front because it is notoriously difficult to delete a redirect. For example, "being wrong" isn't a sufficient reason. Any redirect is basically considered to be better than no redirect unless it is actively confusing, mis-leading, abusive, spam, etc. In this case, the redirect is from a term with no article to an article on a slightly related subject. The best you might hope for from a discussion would be a better redirect, and you can probably come up with one of those on your own. Western Libyan Gas Project or Elephant field? I don't know if those are appropriate or not, but remember the idea that sending people somewhere is better than sending them nowhere. Lithopsian (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

My point is that the redirect *is* actively misleading, since it redirects to the incorrect field. I can't possibly see how sending people to the incorrect page is better than sending them nowhere. If there was no article on George H. W. Bush and a search for his name redirected users to a page for George W. Bush, would that be better than a dead link? Honestly, this kind of thing is why more people don't edit Wikipedia. CircleAdrian (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Even if the redirect is actively misleading, blanking is not the right approach (except for the case where you are the original and only substantive author). The simplest solution is to redirect it somewhere better, remembering to take care of any incoming links. To get rid of the redirect completely, use the WP:RFD procedure. A redirect does not mean the terms are synonyms, just that there might possibly be something (even remotely) of interest at the target article. Deleting redirects is a hard ask, you'll need to demonstrate that any readers looking for Wafa field are better off getting a redlink or nothing than being sent to Waha field. If you think you can do that, then go for it. Complaining here won't help, I'm just me. Complaining at the redirect talk page might be marginally more helpful, someone may come up with a better solution. Lithopsian (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Revert of page "Quantum field of magnet"

Dear Sir Lithopsian, This page refers to a recent discovery made and published, on magnetic fields using the device ferrolens and is apart from the ferrolens page because its potential significance for physics in general and academic research and development.

It suggests the discovery of magnetic monopoles in essence inside every magnet. This is important and the Wikipedia community must be aware and can not be dismissed from this information. This page deserves its own space and I was in the process to evolve and expand it.

Please reinstate and revert the page "Quantum field of magnet" in its previous state.

If the revert will not be undertaken by the Senior editor or contacted by him/her in the next 6hours period I will revert the page so it can be further edited and expanded in the near future. I will keep the physics-stub category though until the page is expanded sufficiently.

Kind Regards,

Markoulw

Markoulw (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Threats, nice. That's not how WP works, I'm afraid. You are welcome to revert changes made by any other editor, but the recommended course of action is bold, revert, discuss and not edit war - in other words, when someone reverts one of your edits, don't get into a war about it, but open the subject for discussion. The correct place for such discussion is the article talk page, although the talk page of a newly-created article is unlikely to be visited. A more formal approach would be to reinstate the article and open an AfD, a discussion about whether it should be deleted. Possible outcomes would include a redirect rather than an outright delete - or keeping the article. Before going that way, you should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's definition of notability which may not conicide with your own personal feelings or the normal expectations in your field. Just for the record, please read WP:COI and consider its implications for you, as explained in more detail at the top of your talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Senior Editor Lithopsian,

No. Respect. I was merely waiting for your response to my explanations of why this separate page is important before I do anything. Sorry, to see that you feel that you were threatened by me . On the contrary my intentions were to respect your decision and wait for your reconsideration after the explanations I have given to you, but I can not wait indefinitely. I now have an expanded version of the page "Quantum field of magnet" I will update it with and kindly ask you to review and reconsider.

Kind Regards,

Markoulw Markoulw (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Citation bot assisted edit error

FYI, your recent edit with citation bot assistance produced reductive useless title information, [1]. I've filed a bug report against that error at citation bot. Obviously "A 2-3 billion year old major merger paradigm for the Andromeda galaxy and its outskirts" is not the same as "OUP accepted manuscript", in identifying the journal article being sought. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that. I'll manually fix the minor errors in the previous version of the citation instead of letting the bot do it. Lithopsian (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Or not, thanks again. Lithopsian (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

No problemo -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Rat-shot to Snake shot

Can you move Rat-shot to Snake shot? I have been unable to do so.--RAF910 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Snake shot has unfortunately been edited by another user since creation and so cannot be overwritten by normal users. The edit was simply a redirect category, which is not really what this block is intended for, but there you go. You can request a technical move by an admin, although it may be rejected if the admin feels the move is not completely uncontroversial. Alternatively, there is a discussion process. You should also carefull consider the title of the new page: Snake-Shot, Snake Shot, Snake-shot, and Snake shot all exist as redirects. You overwrote, and I reverted, Snake Shot, but this almost certainly shouldn't be the new article title because of the capitalisation. You should be able to overwrite Snake-Shot yourself, but again this doesn't look like the correct title. Lithopsian (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough...I will leave a message on User:Materialscientist talk page. If you would like to comment there that would be appreciated. Thank you. --RAF910 (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Lithopsian, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Luhman 16

Hey there, could I get your opinion about something? Over at Luhman 16, an editor inserted a personally created image of its proper motion, which works great for that section, but the user insists that it must be the lead image, and is warring to keep it there. I rather feel that the resolved image of the stars themselves is the best representative image for the article. I'm obviously involved at this point and can't take administrative action myself, so I was wondering your thoughts, whether I should pursue this or just give up. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I waded in. Or did you just want an opinion? I can't say whether you should continue to pursue it but the editor is clearly being unreasonable. I don't like animations as the lead image in the starbox anyway, and the information it shows is interesting but incidental as well as too intricate and distracting (if your browser continues to animate it). Lithopsian (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Those are exactly my reasonings as well. Always your prerogative re: "wading in", but your thoughts on the matter were greatly appreciated. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Revert on Gene Klein

Hi, I've reverted your edit that removed the article stub I wrote about the soccer coach Gene Klein. I've gone ahead and fixed all links within Wikipedia that link to Gene Klein instead of Eugene V. Klein, and there is also a hatnote on the Gene Klein article pointing to the Eugene V. Klein. However, it's possible that there needs to be a discussion about which person is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Gene Klein". Because the businessman's article was titled "Eugene V. Klein", I assumed that "Gene Klein" was just an occasionally-used nickname for him, but I don't know much about him so I'd welcome a move discussion. But, the soccer coach article definitely should continue to exist somewhere -- having coached the fully-professional team Pittsburgh Riverhounds for five years, he definitely passes WP:NFOOTY. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like User:Bagumba has gone ahead and moved the businessman to Gene Klein, moved the soccer coach to Gene Klein (soccer), and added a hatnote to Gene Klein linking to the disambiguation page at Eugene Klein. This seems like a good resolution to me; I hope this works for you as well. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

All looks good right now. I did not have an issue with notability, but with retargeting the redirect. There are quite a number of existing articles that link to Gene Klein. The majority of the them certainly care about the major league baseball magnate rather than the soccer coach. One or two links added by you expect the soccer coach and one expected someone completely unrelated. So after your original edit, all those links pointed to an unexpected page, with no way for anyone to know everything was broken. A hatnote is an insufficient remedy for this. If it is necessary to retarget a redirect, or convert it to an unrelated topic, or a disambiguation page, incoming links should always be fixed first. Then a hatnote can be added if there may be confusion in the future about which article someone might be looking for. Lithopsian (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi: I was unaware of this discussion when I made the move. I was familiar with Klein though his owning the San Diego Chargers, and he was mentioned more as "Gene Klein" in that context. I was bold and made the move based on Google Book search results. However, he was often called "Eugene" as well, so I can respect if anyone feels strongly enough and feels WP:RM is needed if they believe there is no primary topic. However, the coach is definitly not the primary topic. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Bagumba: for the very complete set of edits on this topic. Lithopsian (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks from NPP

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Thank you for your recent work reviewing redirects/dab pages, keep up the good work. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Daniel Lorraine

If you review drafts, could you please approve that one? Thank you very much. Joey717 ^(talk) 19:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Is that even a thing? A draft is just a (semi-) private article in progress, which will eventually be moved to the main article space and then approved. Or you can go through the articles for creation process, which has a separate approval system. However, you should read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Lorraine and perhaps reconsider trying to create an article that was only just deleted after discussion. And definitely don't ask me to try and circumvent the results of that discussion by creating an article with a subtly different name. Lithopsian (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Joey717

Hi there, this is an urgent message the userpage titled User:Joey717. On User:Joey717 there is a category located in the bottom titled Category:People from Winnipeg. Categories are not allowed to add on userpages under WP:USERNOCAT. So go to the user page titled User:Joey717 and remove the People from Winnipeg category. Category are not allowed to add on userpages. This is an urgent message. please do that immediately. Thanks. 2001:569:7C07:2600:C084:6CAA:20CB:AAE (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. Shame really, since I'd edited some other categories related to astronomy, but the user page contains several concatenated articles and I missed the Winnipeg one. Lithopsian (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You reverted my edit

What did you mean by 'hardly' when you reverted my edit? 92.17.89.71 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are an amazing and smart editor! Joey717 (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC) 06:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(I'm new to WikiLove).