# User talk:Lithopsian

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

## New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Lithopsian, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you are a great user, and that you deserve a higher place, like being an admin. Thus, I would like to appoint you for adminship, (since you met most of the standards) so what do you think and what do you think of it? I think it will be great. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I don't think I'm quite ready for this yet. Or perhaps ever. There's lots of things I'm good at, but lots of things I'm not good at. I enjoy editing, probably wouldn't enjoy admin'ing quite so much. Thanks again for the offer to nominate me. Lithopsian (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.ZaperaWiki44 (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
It would be great that you also become a checkuser and an oversight. ZaperaWiki44 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

## equinox terms again

I see you have edited the article to show that the names of the equinoxes are not reversed in the southern hemisphere even though there was no consensus on the talk page to that effect. Sources were even cited that said they are reversed. Yes, it would be convenient if everyone just used the same names, but that just isn't the case. So I am asking if we can please change it back to show that there is some ambiguity in the terms. --Lasunncty (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't do that. If you really believe there is significant mis-use of the term Vernal Equinox, perhaps that should be mentioned in the article, but I don't feel that a few misunderstandings in popular press are sufficient to change the meaning of a solidly-defined scientific term like this. I would also suggest that the place for discussion is the talk page of (one of) the articles, rather than here. "Private" discussions might sometimes be helpful, but can also give the impression of cooking up side deals and trying to sidestep consensus and full discussion. The discussion at Talk:Equinox unfortunately just got archived (still visible at Talk:Equinox/Archive_2 - note the previous formal merge proposal with pretty threadbare discussion) although the one at Talk:March_equinox is still alive and kicking with more smoke than fire. I still think a merge (several?) would be beneficial but it isn't a quagmire I have time to wade into right now. Perhaps just a serious copyedit, but I can see it descending into chaos. A really experienced editor might be able to pull it off. Lithopsian (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I went directly to you because you made the change despite lack of consensus. You removed the mention of ambiguity that was there, giving the impression that everyone uses the same terms, which is not true. And for what it's worth, the sources you cited don't mention the seasons in the southern hemisphere, so I don't think they can be used to support your position. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The citations I added support a definition of the terms Vernal equinox and Autumnal equinox, whether you agree with it or not; the existence of the southern hemisphere is irrelevant to that definition. I removed a bald statement of fact that the Vernal equinox is in September in the southern hemisphere, because it was uncited and directly contradicted that referenced definition. I have now added a description of this and further references, which will no doubt be controversial. Nevertheless, the citations stand and I will continue to remove contradictory or mis-placed statements that are not cited. As it stands, the article as a whole is very poorly referenced. Statements that I think could be verifiable, but are not currently cited, will get tagged if I'm feeling lazy and possibly cited if I'm feeling enthused; I've just done a major drive-by which isn't pretty but could at least be a starting point for adding much-needed verifiable sources. Lithopsian (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're here talking rather than just edit-warring, but I doubt we'll achieve consensus between the two of us. This is an important article (in Wikipedia terms, just not near the top of my to-do list) and deserves to be a lot better than it is. Perhaps drumming up some interest from project pages might help, or just starting the right discussion on (one of the!) article talk pages. Lithopsian (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The two additional sources you added to the seasonal terms (now numbered 7 and 8) illustrate the discrepancy very clearly. Thank you. --Lasunncty (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This discussion touches upon the wider issue of the many journalists with media degrees who do not understand some fairly basic science or its terminology. Verifiability is laudable but in the truth v verification debate even JW has commented (Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:52 UTC 1 September 2011) that editors shouldn't publish untruths, even if there are many independent tabloid citations to support the assertion.
PS Thanks for the thanks. :) Astronomy Explained (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

## New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Lithopsian, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

## Nu Persei

Hi, thanks for the revert. I was convinced that Nu Persei was an RR Lyrae variable. I have checked the information, which is somewhat contradictory. Instead of speaking here, we should probably discuss this topic in Nu Persei's talk page. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

## NGC 479 image removal/previous version deletion questions

Why was the Space Engine image on NGC 479 removed? The file page says something about deleting previous versions but keeping the file. This is very confusing. Can you please explain? And can I re-add it to the article?

Thanks. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 21:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That image is known as a "non-free" image. It is copyrighted and is only included in Wikipedia on the basis of "fair use". This is a tricky legal term, but for Wikipedia it means that occasionally such images will be allowed where there are no equivalent free images and where it is appropriate for "identification of, and critical commentary on" the software that generated it. The image is included on that basis in the SpaceEngine article (which appears slightly doubtful to me, but it will be looked over carefully). The image resolution has been reduced to meet WP guidelines for non-free images, and the previous high-resolution image will be deleted. You don't need to do anything (unless you think the copyright assessment is wildly in error), but don't re-upload that image in a higher resolution or other Space Engine images without careful checking with the copyright gurus. As for the NGC 479 page, I removed the image as it definitely doesn't meet the non-free use guidelines in that article. Lithopsian (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

## Antares

I have just made a significant reconstruction of the Properties section of the star Antares, and have especially fixed up the size issues, which were fragmented and confusing. Knowing your past edits on such stars, could you at least please double-check my work.

I also removed two terribly poor reference cites given by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat and after reading this[1], there might be some possible 'issues' coming. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know. I appreciated your recent updates and corrections to this Antares article here. It is certainly an improvement from the older version. Thanks for looking at this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

For your latest edit:

${\displaystyle R=3.4}$ astronomical units

${\displaystyle R=3.4}$ AU = ${\displaystyle D=1.107}$ billion km

${\displaystyle =R:796}$ R (rounded) -> 800 R

jumk.de Stars and Planets also says 796 R for Antares, but I did not use it. I think that value on jumk.de was taken from Jim Kaler's stars. Thank you. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (Visit/Talk/Contribs) 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

?? ${\displaystyle R=3.4}$ AU = ${\displaystyle D=1.107}$ billion km
3.4 AU = 510 million km. = 1.020 billion km. Please do your homework.
Kaler actually says: "A low temperature coupled with high luminosity tells us that the star must be huge, luminosity and temperature giving a radius of about 3 Astronomical Units. It is so big that astronomers can easily detect and measure the size of its apparent disk, which gives an even bigger radius of 3.4 AU, 65 percent the size of the orbit of Jupiter. The difference is caused by uncertainties in distance, temperature, the state of pulsation, and the actual location of the mass-losing surface..."
If you use 3 AU you get 588 R or about 600 R. Article says 680 R. Fair enough. It's cited, it's reasonable, and it now has the needed consensus.
Clearly you are just cherry-picking larger values and ignoring for the nth time the problems gross errors as already explained to you and now exampled in Kaler's own text. So far you have stretched Lithopsian patience[2] to breaking point, now mine. Any further disruptive editing like this and then arbitration processes will immediately begin. So drop it... the unnecessary discussion is now over. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not notice a typo there. Check out the latest edit I made with a verified higher radius. --Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (Visit/Talk/Contribs) 00:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

## Notice of Tendentious editing noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on tendentious editing. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TE violations by JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

## New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Lithopsian, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

## 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.)

## NGC Object redirect pages

I just removed the description of the remaining redirections to NGC objects and added

instead. Sorry for not doing that right away! The pages should now be OK for approval. WolreChris (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

## Sager Electronics

Sager Electronics Update Hello, I just wanted to let you know that Sager Electronics was updated before the deletion. I removed all salesy terminolgy and rewrote so not to infringe on copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinsmarshall (talkcontribs) 13:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

## N11 (emission nebula)/Bean Nebula

Thank you for your edits on my article on N11, I had thought that N11 was called the Bean Nebula, I can change my redirect to the relevant article if necessary.D Eaketts (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Proper names are messy. Who's to say what's right and what's wrong? There are no catalogs, very often the origin of the name isn't even clear. There's at least one other object in the LMC that I've seen called the Bean Nebula. The ESA and NASA sources for the main image are also pretty poorly-worded, giving the impression that the bean-shaped blob is the whole of N11 when it is in fact just a small portion - that happens to be IMO the Bean Nebula, and happens to be for sure NGC 1763 and LHA120-N11B. Lithopsian (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I will leave it as N11 for the time being unless it changes in the near future. D Eaketts (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)