User talk:Paper9oll/Archive 3
|
ℹ️ This is archived talk page If you wish to contact me, please click here to start a new discussion thread. |
Aespa (Awards and nominations)
Hi Paper9oll. The edit I made on aespa wasn't a mistake. I'll keep in mind about practicing editing on Sandbox. I hope you can revert it back. Thank you! StanYu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @StanYU: Hi there, your edit was reverted because you first added extra rows which was I deemed it as test edit. However, Billboard Korea is not an actual award ceremony either is it an award to being with hence please do not add it inside the table, it should only include notable award ceremony. The Billboard Korea is an listing instead hence please include it under Critical reception table in Black Mamba (song) instead. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 02:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Paper9oll: Oh, is that so? I didn't know because I was basing it on Itzy's List of awards and nominations received by Itzy. I added Billboard Korea because I saw Dong-A.com's Pick in the Award ceremony column. I thought it would also be the same with Billboard Korea, but I guess not. StanYu (talk)
- @StanYU: For Dong-A.com's Pick, the source provided stated it as award ceremony hence it can be inserted in the award and nominations list. However, now where in the Billboard Korea source stated it as such. And btw, if you read carefully, it is stating that Aespa is the rookie that performed the best in Billboard K-pop 100 of 2020 not rather saying they are awarded with best rookie. Hence, this is better suited as listing instead. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 04:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Paper9oll: Oh, is that so? I didn't know because I was basing it on Itzy's List of awards and nominations received by Itzy. I added Billboard Korea because I saw Dong-A.com's Pick in the Award ceremony column. I thought it would also be the same with Billboard Korea, but I guess not. StanYu (talk)
Rollback permission extended indefinitely
Hi Paper9oll, per your request at User talk:Newslinger § Request to instated rollback permission permanently, your rollback permission is now indefinite. Thank you for rolling back over 500 unconstructive edits over the past month, and keep up the excellent work! — Newslinger talk 07:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Aether theories
What is your physics background to revert my changes to Aether theories? Explain to me why it isn't ok to remove the dubious sections that I have removed from the article. 77.3.233.209 (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @77.3.233.209 Hi there, you removed huge chunk of information that was cited hence your edits was reverted. Please use the article talk page, if you feel the information incorrect. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to tell you the same I told the other user who reverted it. Honestly, you gotta have a look at who added this nonsense to the page in the first place. They've "established facts" here by adding it to the page with no one watching and removing them now you require to cite sources, but the problem is that they are so oddly specific false claims that you will not find a source addressing exactly these misconceptions, other than for the quantum vacuum claim (which is common enough that people have written articles about it https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/ ). You would have to cite a 600 page textbook on GR, a 600 page book on QFT and a book on Bohmian mechanics / Pilot waves apparently and point out that no where in these books will you see the claims backed up or the connection to aether theories made. It is just unfounded. Do you understand the problem? Nowhere will you find statements saying directly that the claims made here are wrong (even though they clearly are to anyone who has studied this). You didn't answer the question regarding physics background so I assume you have no background and are just reverting because it's a large edit. The sections should be removed for now and the person who wants to readd them should cite sources. 77.3.233.209 (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @77.3.233.209 The source is not considered reliable source as per WP:BLOGS. —</s7pan> Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- The original claims don't have a reliable source. And this nonsense has been in the article for a decade, 2012. Someone tried to delete it in 2013 and sure enough some guy who just counts characters thought removing many characters must be vandalism so reverted it. Physicists don't have time to engage in edit wars on wikipedia all day. Only crackpots have that time. You end up with an article contain false information for almost TEN YEARS. Just because you think it's better to have more characters in the article than having less. 77.3.233.209 (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am tracing back the particular false section about the quantum vacuum to the original creation of the article in 2008. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aether_theories&oldid=202913269#Aether_and_quantum_mechanics ("It has been suggested that this seething mass of virtual particles may be the equivalent in modern physics of a particulate aether.") There are no sources for the claim, no textbook or paper will back this up. This is just a popscience misunderstanding of the topic. The burden of proof can't be on people disproving misunderstandings. A source like a textbook or paper cannot preemptively address every possible misconception someone might gain from it. What they can do is write articles like Arnold Neumeier did linked above which you do not consider reliable source. If you accept for the sake of argument that this section is indeed wrong, how is this section going to disappear from the article then? 77.3.233.209 (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @77.3.233.209 You're being disrespectful here by calling me a crackpot which means this is end of our discussion. I'm not going to say if you can or cannot remove the section, you face the consequences if you intend to continue removing huge chunks of referenced content. I'm not going to revert it but leave it to other editors or administrators to handle it. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't call you crackpot, I called the people who authored the sections in the article and similar sections in other articles that have no basis in actual physics crackpots. Crackpots usually have time to fight these edit wars and keep their pseudoscientific content in. You're promoting pseudoscientific content in wikipedia by leaving it in and reverting edits that remove sections of an article that have no basis in physics. As it stands there seems to be no way to get rid of these sections. 77.8.230.201 (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @77.3.233.209 You're being disrespectful here by calling me a crackpot which means this is end of our discussion. I'm not going to say if you can or cannot remove the section, you face the consequences if you intend to continue removing huge chunks of referenced content. I'm not going to revert it but leave it to other editors or administrators to handle it. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @77.3.233.209 The source is not considered reliable source as per WP:BLOGS. —</s7pan> Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to tell you the same I told the other user who reverted it. Honestly, you gotta have a look at who added this nonsense to the page in the first place. They've "established facts" here by adding it to the page with no one watching and removing them now you require to cite sources, but the problem is that they are so oddly specific false claims that you will not find a source addressing exactly these misconceptions, other than for the quantum vacuum claim (which is common enough that people have written articles about it https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/ ). You would have to cite a 600 page textbook on GR, a 600 page book on QFT and a book on Bohmian mechanics / Pilot waves apparently and point out that no where in these books will you see the claims backed up or the connection to aether theories made. It is just unfounded. Do you understand the problem? Nowhere will you find statements saying directly that the claims made here are wrong (even though they clearly are to anyone who has studied this). You didn't answer the question regarding physics background so I assume you have no background and are just reverting because it's a large edit. The sections should be removed for now and the person who wants to readd them should cite sources. 77.3.233.209 (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
List of Blackpink concert tours change
Hi Paper9oll, I've seen that you're pretty active in articles related to Blackpink and just wanted to reach out to ask for your help on a change I want to make to List of Blackpink concert tours. I created a list of Blackpink live performances in my sandbox that mirrors List of Taylor Swift live performances. Can you please go through my sandbox and see whether if that would be sufficient and accurate enough to change the article to "List of Blackpink live performances". I'd also appreciate it if you can help me on how to change the article name as well. Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks. — Jihkilan (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Jihkilan: Hi there, the sandbox seem good and well sourced with reliable source. I don't see anything to needed changes to be made.
- To rename the article, you would need to move it, you can do that by going to the More dropdown button on the top right corner (if you're on Vector skin, not sure about other skin), click Move, under new title textbox, type in List of Blackpink live performances. Reason just type something relevant and easy to understand to other editor, like
Inspired by List of Taylor Swift live performances
orMoving to more relevant naming because the list no longer contain just concert tours
. Make sure you on List of Blackpink concert tours article to initiate the move process not on your sandbox, and copy-paste the correct content from your sandbox to the article first, publish it before starting the move process. - If there is anything, you're still unsure about. Do feel free to reply to this discussion. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
File:Aston Martin AMR21 2021.jpg
Hi,
I notice that you nominated this for deletion earlier today. Just to let you know that I nominated for speedy deletion instead as a clear violation that requires no discussion.
SSSB (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- @SSSB: No problem, I just find the "nominate for deletion" link on the left sidebar faster. And also because adding {{copyvio|reason=}} template for some reason is slower to get it deleted, not sure why. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)