User talk:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat: Difference between revisions
unblock request declined |
→@Lithopsian: new section |
||
| Line 262: | Line 262: | ||
{{unblock reviewed|reason=I told you I will develop a sense of maturity. Please decrease to a 12 (not 6) month long topic ban on big stars. --<span style="font-weight: bold; background-color:lime; color:red;">Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL</span> <sup>([[User talk:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat|Contribs]])</sup> 20:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)|decline=It seems rather likely that the same issues would crop up at whatever other topic you'd choose to edit. Take some time off and return in a few months. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 20:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock reviewed|reason=I told you I will develop a sense of maturity. Please decrease to a 12 (not 6) month long topic ban on big stars. --<span style="font-weight: bold; background-color:lime; color:red;">Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL</span> <sup>([[User talk:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat|Contribs]])</sup> 20:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)|decline=It seems rather likely that the same issues would crop up at whatever other topic you'd choose to edit. Take some time off and return in a few months. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 20:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)}} |
||
== @[[User:Lithopsian|Lithopsian]] == |
|||
([[List of largest stars]]) Should the limit on the maximum size of a star be changed to approx. {{solar radius|3,800|link=y}}?. I think the limit of the maximum size for a star would be somewhere near the former {{solar radius|2,544}} for Westerlund 1-26. Take a look at this paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/421700/fulltext/. A radius of approximately {{solar radius|3,230}} for VY CMa and {{solar radius|3,740}} for NML Cyg. --<span style="font-weight: bold; background-color:lime; color:red;">Joey P knows a lot about that!</span> <sup>([[User talk:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat|Talk]])</sup> 19:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:53, 4 November 2017
Whatever you do, do not vandalize my talk page. I am highly against vandalism. BTW, I am not an admin. Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC) Welcome!
|
Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL, you are invited to try Wikipedia training modules
If you're looking for some guidance on how to get started, try these training modules.
|
This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC) |
User page
Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply. 15:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Verified but citation needed
Template:Verified but citation needed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Train2104 (t • c) 11:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
GoAnimate page
I reverted your edit as it didn't seem necessary, the page needs to be kept short for the Grounded Videos section and extra information isn't needed.
Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
September 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it implies official representation of a company, group, or person. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at List of largest stars.
Here are the reasons why me and Lithopsian reverted your edits:
- You continue to make addition unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content. Please stop doing this, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. For example, you continue using this source (https://jumk.de/astronomy/), which was removed by Cas Liber and even by Lithopsian.
- You are also making addition of unsourced content, as you did to HD 100546. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability.
- You are also cherry-picking your favourite numbers, as you did with this edit on Betelgeuse and this edits on Westerlund 1-26. You do it even more than me.
- Even Lithopsian doesn't disagree with calculating a radius from a bolometric luminosity and effective temperature, but it would be best to add a note that this has been done.
Admins can mark your edits as unconstructive or even as vandalism. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ZaperaWiki44 (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
+ZaperaWiki44 I will only stop if you:
1. Stop removing the alternative sizes/ranges in List of largest stars,
2. Stop trying to be engaged in an edit war with me (I don't want to be engaged in an edit war too).
3. Stop removing ranges in articles (the values have to be complete and my intention is not to cherrypick)
Please do these things and then I will stop. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 00:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
September 2017
Your recent editing history at List of largest stars shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Moxy (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me. I need some administrator to lock the page so that my actions will stop. ----Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL 05:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joey_P._-_THE_OFFICIAL reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Thank you. Moxy (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Antares edit
@JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat: "The image is outdated (Antares is not 600 million km)". OK, but how is someone supposed to know that? You edit here[1] said nothing, hence my revert explanation was : "No explanation of deletion. Image is OK." Editors can't read minds, so either add something to the edit comment or it will be likely instantly reverted.
Worse, the article says: "If the latter, then the radius of the star changes by 165 ± 22 solar radii (19% ± 4%). However, if this were the case, Antares' brightness would vary by a greater amount. Older estimates gave radii between 300 R☉ and 700 R☉.
" But the starbox says 883 R☉ (442.5 times 1.2Mkm.), which is 530 million km across. See this discussion Talk:Antares#Diameter The article also says : "The parallax gives a derived distance from 460 to 877 light-years (141 to 269 parsecs). This implies a radius of 653 R☉ to 1,246 R☉ at this distance.
" This distance error is 62%!!
The size of a radius of 300 Mkm. falls within the range of possible sizes. Considering the errors, there is no justification to support The image is outdated (Antares is not 600 million km)).
. Hence,I've reverted your edit.
Recommend you consult and apply you logic on Antares talkpage please. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Current possible inappropriate user name
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it implies inappropriately promotional behaviors and is likely perceived as a Promotional name or even WP:MISLEADNAME or WP:DISRUPTNAME The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are disruptive or offensive:
Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible; e.g., by promoting you are a better editor than other contributing editors. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
October 2017
Your recent editing history at Antares shows that you are possibly engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
I have openly tried to engage you to reach some consensus [2], but this edit.[3] ignores any discussion.
Again your same edit here[4] says nothing in the edit comment and gives no explanation of why it was done. Editors can't read minds, so either add something to the edit comment or it will be likely instantly reverted. Such changes if they persist can be deemed as disuptive editing, and could apply sanctions against you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
You're walking a fine line
"I was alive then" is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia article - it is a glib comment that could be interpreted by others as vandalism. "What you know" is never sufficient for verifying claims in Wikipedia. You need to stop throwing in everything you ever saw on youTube and everything you heard from your friends and thinking someone else can sort out whether it can be supported or not. I'm getting to the end of my tether with fixing your sloppy edits - you've been on Wikipedia long enough now to know the things that need to be done. When the majority of your edits are getting reverted (not just by me) then you should perhaps consider that the problem is your edits and not that the rest of the world knows less than you about large stars. You've already attracted the attention of moderators at List of largest stars and haven't really taken on board how serious that is. The temporary lockdown of that article is getting close to its end, and I suggest you think very carefully about where you go next. The dozens of edits you and one or two other people made in the last few months have not improved the article, which is saying something because it had serious problems before you even started. Lithopsian (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- @JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat: After reading though many of your recent edits and inadvisable actions - especially after having the need for page protection to stop edit warring here[5] and this deceptive question here[6] you just might be now heading directly towards a WP:TBAN related to Star sizes. The page protection on List of largest stars will be lifted soon (12:45, 22 October 2017), meaning normal edits can again begin. Please reconsider very carefully your current approach to this general topic, because your last few edits, reverts and illogical behaviour regarding Antares has been clearly leaning towards disuptive editing. (Am not the only one to notice this.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Antares shows that you are possibly engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
R Apodis
I have reverted this edit.[7] Whilst no cite appears, it is legitimate to add a citation request, as was properly done. Continued edits like this will likely be considered disruptive edits. If you have issues please use the article talkpage or gain consensus. Thanks. 07:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC).
This is the only source that says R Apodis is 1,000 L☉: [8] If you think it is an unreliable source, just don't use it. I am opposed to uncited data because it contravenes Wikipedia's verifability policy. I even created a tag to show what is verified and not, but it was deleted. Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (Visit/Talk/Contribs) 18:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Antares shows that you are engaged in an edit war.[9][10][11] [12]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. WP:3RR will be the only option if you persist with this disruptive editing, in which your editing privileges can be restricted or revoked. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Possible WP:TE violation
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry if my edits offended you. The reason why I tried to remove details of stars in starboxes is because uncited data contravenes Wikipedia's verifability policy. I have added uncited data myself before, but those details were verifiable but I just could not find a source for them. I even tried creating a tag to show this but it got deleted. Just please leave me alone (I am not angry) and I promise that I will stop my disruptive editing. Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (Visit/Talk/Contribs) 05:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- "I am sorry if my edits offended you." They didn't.
- "The reason why I tried to remove details of stars in starboxes is because uncited data contravenes Wikipedia's verifability policy." Sorry. You've seemingly been removing them with citation required captions, leaving no comments in the edits when they are done. This just makes it harder for editors to improve the information.
- "...I promise that I will stop my disruptive editing." That a very good start. Suggest you start editing and working towards gaining consensus with other Users and sometimes heed their wisdom. If two or more editors disagree with you then it is likely somethings wrong. Making endless careless mistakes in edits just frustrates other editors in having to correct them all the time. e.g. Finding the true diameters of stars relies (in most cases) on other calculated data, and is often steeped with gross errors and approximations. Adding just whatever you find without trying understanding the ideas behind it is poor editing. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Your contributed article, The most voluminous stars
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, The most voluminous stars. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of star extremes. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of star extremes. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. DrStrauss talk 17:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Please see the talk page. Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (Visit/Talk/Contribs) 17:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
October 2017
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with The most voluminous stars. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Nihlus 17:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of The most voluminous stars
Hello JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The most voluminous stars for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, List of largest stars.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Lithopsian (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Concerns with your editing
Hi Joey, I wanted to have a word with you about your recent editing. While your enthusiasm to edit and work on your project with regard to large stars is admirable, you MUST be sure that you are editing within our rules here at Wikipedia. I saw that you are 14 based off your edits, and working on Wikipedia requires a sense of maturity, competence and civility. The fact that you have a number of editors that have warned you on your editing, and you continued is concerning. Also the edits you made on the talk made for The most voluminous stars is worrisome. I do not want to block you for your edits, but consider this a warning that if your behavior continues, you will be facing a block for your editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. The issue is that some users think they are the ones ruling Wikipedia pages, and thus they hate and try to revert my improvements as if their improvements are correct/verifiable. Also, I am 15 now. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (Visit/Talk/Contribs) 19:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- "The issue is that some users think they are the ones ruling Wikipedia pages" is false. Edits are based on WP:Consensus, and if an edit is challenged, you are supposed do is discuss it on the talkpage. You persistently don't do that. Then saying "...and thus they hate and try to revert my improvements" is also false, because most of the cites are often irrelevant or trivial, or in some cases, are often detrimental or wrong. Frankly, we are sick of cleaning up the messes. Keep pushing they way you are and the conclusion will now end in sanctions. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
List of largest stars
Your recent editing history at List of largest stars shows that you are possibly engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. 88.188.215.39 (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Go away, whoever you are. I have had enough of you thinking you are the ruler of that page and not letting other else's opinion count. You are being selfish by publishing on your opinions when Wikipedia is where we all have a neutral opinion on the subject. It was you who started the edit war, not me. Now could you please leave before I post a hate message on your talk page. It is entirely your choice. I might as well leave Wikipedia if you keep going on. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (Visit/Talk/Contribs) 23:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- 88.188.215.39 is 110% right here. Unfortunately, you are also clearly edit warring here on List of largest stars, which is against policy. Others own views are equally valid and will not be silenced by veiled threats or intimidation. Again you openly ignore WP:Consensus (please read it.) 'Opinion' is irrelevant. As for: "could you please leave before I post a hate message on your talk page. It is entirely your choice." is likely perceived as threat, which is also could cause sanctions on you. You have now been told repeatably (by many) here about your disruptive actions and editing warring. Either stop it or you will be stopped from editing. As you said and it now also applies to you. "It is entirely your choice." Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
October 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)- I think you have been given enough chances to work here productively. These last series of edits show to me that you currently do not have the maturity needed to edit here. I would take some time away, at least 6-12 months, and show signs you are willing to work constructively on Wikipedia in the future. RickinBaltimore ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]
JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am sorry if my actions offended you. I should have thought twice if my contributions are subject to the guidelines/principles of Wikipedia. I was here to build an encyclopedia, but I think I messed up on it. I promise to do better this time, and to actually reflect on the sources I used. First, I will edit non-astronomy articles first and once everything goes well, I will go back and edit them again. I also promise not to participate in edit wars again. Thank you -Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (Talk/Contribs) 18:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are nowhere near six days since blocked, let alone 6 - 12 months as recommended to you. I agree with the blocking admin, you need some time to mature before being unblocked. Yamla (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I told you I will develop a sense of maturity. Please decrease to a 12 (not 6) month long topic ban on big stars. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (Talk/Contribs) 20:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It seems rather likely that the same issues would crop up at whatever other topic you'd choose to edit. Take some time off and return in a few months. Huon (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
(List of largest stars) Should the limit on the maximum size of a star be changed to approx. 3,800 R☉?. I think the limit of the maximum size for a star would be somewhere near the former 2,544 R☉ for Westerlund 1-26. Take a look at this paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/421700/fulltext/. A radius of approximately 3,230 R☉ for VY CMa and 3,740 R☉ for NML Cyg. --Joey P knows a lot about that! (Talk) 19:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)