Talk:Kappa Pavonis

Period Values?

I have looked at some other sources and found another value for the period of this star. I found that this site puts it at 9.09423 days. Which one is correct? Falcø 19:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfedward13 (talk • contribs)

The period changes from time to time. It only changes by a few minutes, but this is easily measurable against the normally highly regular variations. I have included a reference to this in the expanded text. Lithopsian (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Kappa Pav : Irrelevant Sentence

The article says; Statement. "A group of W Virginis stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud have been discovered to be hotter and more luminous than expected, possibly due to being in binary systems."

How is this relevant to kappa Pav? I.e. kappa Pav is not on the Large Magellanic Cloud and in not a binary. I see "no evidence that it hotter or more luminous than expected."

This sentence IMO should be removed. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you completely lost the plot? Is patrolling my edits looking for nits not giving you enough material that you have to turn a typo into World War III? The sentence is relevant because κ Pav has been proposed as a member of the same group. What is so hard about that? The article says it and the reference confirms it. And I'll say it one last time, stay off my talk page. Don't accuse me of some sort of misbehaviour for deleting a Bracket Bot message and a Talkback tag from my own talk page. Lithopsian (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: Thanks for this edit. The original text did not have that explanation, which is why it was tagged as such. The addition of the tag had nothing to do with your previous edits, which I have properly acknowledged. I do find that 99% of your edits are justified and helpful, and I do sometimes read them to catch up on things I may have missed.

As for following my edits, I could say exawrong ctly exactly the same with you. You have similarly attacked my edits with similar alacrity, so I take your complaints with a grain of salt. I.e. The lead sentence on Supernova page. The central problem as I see it is the unwillingness to compromise or engage in discussions on Talk pages, which all editors are require to do to solve disputed materials. If you don't engage, those edits can be reverted. I.e. As with WR 31a. As for the Bracket Bot used on Talk page, blocking user on User pages is not a good idea. This is especially in regards notices on editing. If you can to go through WP:ANIs for every dispute, so be it. (It is actually not your page.) If you don't want comments on your Talk page fine, but you should have informed me. If you consider these infringements, you should use the appropriate processes.

Regardless of your general behaviour, I am not going away, as I'll edit as I please. All I perceive is an editor who can cannot tolerate criticism and refuses to act collaboratively, which is against Wikipedia edicts. Furthermore, your are also responsible for your edits, and if mistakes are made, they are your responsibility too. If you are unwilling to fix them or claim others can't, then you should not make them. Simple. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: Oh. Kappa Pavonis was already is on my watchlist, as was WR 31a, Supernova, Jewel Box (star cluster) and many others. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee:@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:@Lithopsian: I have just reread the article referring to the original edit and Lithopsian recent edit, and still question the derived conclusions. It was Feast (2008) (and two other authors ) who first suggested that kappa Pav belonged to the peculiar W Vir stars. (pg.24) of the ascribed reference) However, actually reference assigned here concludes "This suggests that either κ Pav is not a peculiar W Vir star, or is one of the few that lie near the PL relation. It is very desirable to clear up this matter." (pg.24 Breitfelder, J.; et al. (2015). "Observational calibration of the projection factor of Cepheids. I. The type II Cepheid κ Pavonis". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 576: A64. arXiv:1503.05176. Bibcode:2015A&A...576A..64B. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425171. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)) This central issue is solving the "distance calibration scale" and NOT because it is binary, hotter or more luminous (which the later two relies on the distance anyway.)

Hence, "The star also is considered peculiar compared to other W Virginis stars such as W Virginis itself.", is therefore quite false, and the qualifications and conclusions after this are also false. The truth of the matter is solved by finding distance via the adopted "distance calibration scale.", as the later references do say.

Could someone please independently adjudicate this issue in light of these false accusations[1][2]? jps perhaps? (Else, I'll return the 'clarification needed' again, as the consensus is still not clear?

Note: This is precisely the same issues that lead to the protection of WR 31a:. Since Lithopsian doesn't like reverts, doesn't seem to like qualifications on his or even unrelated edits, now doesn't want contact on his talk page, only sees my improvements as being "patrolling my edits looking for nits", and also clearly is ignoring WP:GF[3]. This doesn't even match the continuous false accusations against me without even actual referenced examples. (Is this about deliberately feinting me as somehow the aggressor and Lithopsian as the victim, as to make me somehow an inferior editor? That's what I see anyway.)

I see no other solutions to fix this continuing problem. Is WP:ANI my only option left here?

Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, I highly recommend using the steps at WP:DR to resolve this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think ANI will be helpful as it is specialized knowledge. I will finish up something else and try to take a look a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank both you for your helpful and useful comments. I will try WP:DR here, but I'm between this and the on-going WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE across multiple pages. My edit here has only added to tag 'clarification needed' which was then reverted to with this edit [4] saying it was merely "(typo)" Yes Lithopsian did add this text here [5], but it could hardly be construed as controversial to provoke such open hostility.

I agree this is all very technical, and it is clear Lithopsian is very knowledgeable across many subjects in this field. I did spent about an hour today reading the relevant references and further understanding all its nuances. Lithopsian actually HAS greatly helped improve many articles, and I can't deny that at all. (I've honestly stated that here too). Yet there seems to be a real block when it comes to the much needed collaboration and consensus in editing. It's as if no other editor exists. IMO, this is central to the Conductdispute(s) that needs to be resolved. There seem some aspects of WP:RUNAWAY and WP:DAPE here [6][7]. The later one he never responded to on multiple occasions. (Perhaps I could be accused of this too, but I know this is not the way to edit.) Thanks again. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)