User talk:InTheAstronomy32

1

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi InTheAstronomy32. Thank you for your work on HD 63332. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

On changing text without changing citations

Greetings, I've seen that you have rearranged some text here without moving around citations to match. Please don't do this, it leaves the text unsourced - "Precise distances from OGLE-IV member RR Lyrae stars in six bulge globular clusters" for example does not mention M62H now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually it is a reference for the distance to Messier 62 and hence M62H. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

OK. I've changed the citation format a bit so that it matches that of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

List-defined references

Hi, InTheAstronomy32. I just wanted to point out that a lot of our articles on stars use list-defined references. Your recent edits to update the astrometry etc have left a lot of these articles with citation errors, because the references are still defined, but not used in the article. You can see the error messages in the reference section of Alpha Indi, for example, and you can fix them by removing the definitions for any references that are not still in use. Could you go over the articles that you've edited recently and tidy the unused references up? You can find a list of the articles with this kind of error Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. Many thanks, and thanks for your work on the articles, Wham2001 (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Wikipedia uses reliable sources to support the information contained in articles. It is not up to you (or me) to decide whether those sources are true. In particular, it is not up to any of us to decide what "the answer" should be based on our own knowledge or on a mixture of other sources. We do often have to make some decisions about which of the multiple sources to use regarding stellar data, but that should not be based on your own opinion, or even your own in-depth knowledge. That is original research. Just one last thing, when your edits are challenged by another editor, the appropriate response is to discuss (see WP:BRD), not to simply keep insisting on your version. You have already effectively started several edit wars and are testing the spirit if not the letter of WP:3RR. Lithopsian (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, i rarely make more than one revert in an article. I am just trying to remove inaccurate statements in articles, which is encouraged by the WP:Editing policy. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Also WP:BRD is optional, and WP:TRUTH is not an official policy on Wikipedia. Intsead, it is an essay, an opinion of one or more contribuitors. There are many other essays that contradict this one, like WP:Verifiable but not false, WP:Verifiability, and truth and WP:Truth matters. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)