User talk:Nicole Sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

archive for 2010-2015[edit]

Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Improper moves[edit]

  • You are conducting a campaign through Wikipedia that involves improper moves of articles based on whether the titles have hyphens or dashes. You are not moving articles properly even if your moves were uncontested or in accordance with Wikipedia styles. Please cease and desist immediately. I have corrected one of your improperly executed moves, but will leave others with bots to fix the other multiple moves you have made. --Taivo (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I do not have a "campaign"—I just merely correct any grammatical errors I find as I browse articles on Wikipedia. I already posted a comment on this issue at "user talk:Kwamikagami#hyphenation." A number of language articles on Wikipedia are (incorrectly) using dashes instead of hyphens for language names, both in the article titles as well as in the article text. In at least one instance I was able to identify, user "@Kwamikagami:" moved the article title from the correct hyphenated form to the incorrect dashed form, and then placed a redirect on the hyphenated article page. Since both the hyphenated and dashed forms for article titles already exist on Wikipedia, the only way to correct the article titles that I know of is to move the wikicontent from the incorrect title's wikipage to the correct title's wikipage (I also copied the corresponding talkpage wikicontent). Otherwise, an administrator is needed to delete the wikipage for the hyphenated form, and then move the dashed-title wikipage to a new (recreated) hyphenated-title wikipage. It might seem like a minor display difference, but dashes are non-US-ASCII special characters that cannot be typed from a standard keyboard and can create technical complications versus using hyphens (in addition to hyphens being grammatically correct in most non-numerical usages). The number of typographical errors present in the language articles though is an unusual issue I haven't seen before on Wikipedia (especially since the special-character dashes would have had to have been copied-and-pasted or shortcutted in since they cannot be typed from a standard keyboard). I think it would be a lot easier if a bot could be programmed to correct them (e.g. to replace dashes with hyphens when between letters but not when between numbers). Nicole Sharp (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    The hyphenation vs. dashes issue is being discussed on kwami's talk page. As for the cut-and-paste moves: we don't do them, because they entangle page histories and get in the way of attribution (see WP:CWW). In your case, the move was prevented by the presence of more than a single edit in the history of the target title. They way to execute a move in such circumstances is described at WP:MOR. But that applies only to uncontroversial moves, which yours weren't. The proper way to do these is via a requested move with a discussion, but given the technical nature of the difference in titles, I think a better venue would be the talk page of WP:MOS. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice for improper moves[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Taivo (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charge number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantization. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Messier 0[edit]

  • Is this sourced? How can the Ring Nebula be in Messier 57 AND Messier 0? And likewise with M42, M45 and so on. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I have actually only seen Messier 0 (M0) to refer to the Milky-Way Galaxy in science-fiction contexts. I know that is the notation used for star maps in the technical manuals for the United Federation of Planets (in Star Trek). In that context the Crab Nebula can then be referred to as being "M1 in the M0 Perseus Arm," saving the time and space from writing out the name "Milky Way." Nicole Sharp (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • The notation (albeit informal/unofficial) is particularly useful since unlike other astronomical bodies, there doesn't exist a standardized symbol or catalog number for our galaxy. Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Also, it should be noted that the Ring Nebula isn't in M57, it is M57 (Messier 57 is a synonym for the Ring Nebula), so it is grammatically correct to say that M57 is located within M0 (with M0 referring to the entire three-dimensional Milky-Way Galaxy, and not just the two-dimensional "milky" part of the Terran sky showing the densest part of M0 as viewed edge-on). Nicole Sharp (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Maybe as a New Yorker who's lived elsewhere I'm more used to the concept of X is in Y even though they cover the same area. In most states everything is in a county and the 5 boroughs of my city are completely conterminous with a county so it would not be strange to me to think i.e. Brooklyn is in Kings County. M0 in that analogy would then be like calling the state a county too. At any rate you could still say that the white dwarf at the center of the Ring Nebula would then be in 2 different Messier objects at the same time, M57 and M0. I can see why Federation ships would use M0, maybe one day our starships will do it too. So one quirk of English is that if humans invent fast enough spaceships then it suddenly becomes possible for a fish that hasn't lived for 400 million years to have sex with a Messier object. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Those types of terms can be broadly referred to as tautonyms. E.g. what is a gorilla? Is it an animal of the gorilla genus, the gorilla species, or the gorilla subspecies (Gorilla gorilla gorilla)? "New York" has the same problem, since "New York, New York, New York, New York, New York" is an actual placename: New York County, New York City, New York Metropolitan Area (MSA), New York Combined Metropolitan Area (CMA), State of New York. The different New Yorks just refer to various overlapping statistical and political divisions. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Exopolitics[edit]

  • Hi, you wrote: "exopolitics" is a well-established and notable term, used in a number of publications"
  • The term is used in publications by fringe scientists. This was disussed several times. At least it was so until recently. If you can find new references to reliable sources, you are welcome to recreate the page. Onterwise, sorry, no. We would not want to turn this page into a magnet for ufology kranks. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Please see my post to you at "user talk:Staszek Lem#exopolitics." Ufology is a valid science and Wikipedia should maintain a neutral perspective on the UFO phenomenon, not referring to ufologists as "kranks." However, anything to do with UFOs is only a tiny portion of the field of exopolitics, which covers a number of very important topics within political science, including the history of the Space Race, the politics of current and future space exploration, and issues of industry, private ownership, and the exploitation/colonization of space. "Exopolitics" is used in a number of articles in Astronomy magazine, and I believe I have also seen it in Popular Science as well. Nicole Sharp (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Politics of outer space 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 article's 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. Doug Weller talk 08:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Move requests[edit]

  • I'm sure you know how to form a proper move request. Please do that and stop edit warring. You're lucky you haven't been blocked. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Doug Weller: There is no "edit war." If you review the comments attached to each edit revert, it was due to discussion and consensus from the talkpage over an evolution from the original incorrect redirect to renaming the article and merging with astropolitics. Please review the discussion at "talk:politics of outer space#exopolitics is not a song" and please undo your recent revert of "politics of outer space." The "politics of outer space" has nothing to do with rock songs or British bands, this ambiguation has already been addressed on the pages for "exopolitics" (redirects to disambiguation page), "exopolitics (disambiguation)," and "Exo-Politics" (redirects to rock album). As per the talkpage discussion, due to the amount of controversy and ambiguity surrounding the word "exopolitics," the article has been moved instead to "politics of outer space" until a consensus can be reached on a better title (if any). Currently, the content at "astropolitics" is to be merged into "politics of outer space," again per suggestion from the talkpage, since "astropolitics," "exopolitics," and "outer-space politics" are all synonymous terms. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Are you claiming an exception to 3RR? I don't see the other editors making edit summaries that agree with you, or any consensus at the talk page. And you are stating that the content is to be merged as though it's been decided. I don't see that decision. I don't even see a real discussion, let alone agreement to move anything. I also see another Admin saying that you are edit-warring. You're saying we are both wrong? Doug Weller talk 08:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I think there is some confusion. The edit log has been merged over two article namespaces due to the move. The original revert was due to an error by another user in redirecting "exopolitics" to a British rock album. After discussion on the talkpage, the article was moved instead to the less controversial and less ambiguous title of "politics of outer space" (requiring a revert from the redirect before moving the article content). Another user realized that "politics of outer space" was similar in content to "astropolitics" and redirected "politics of outer space" (formerly "exopolitics") to "astropolitics." Again after discussion on the talkpage, this was agreed to be premature, and that the content at "astropolitics" should instead be merged into "politics of outer space" (since "astropolitics" suffers from a similar controversy and ambiguity in the title as "exopolitics" does). Regardless of what the article title is though ("astropolitics," "exopolitics," or "politics of outer space," which are all synonymous), "politics of outer space" should not be redirecting to a British rock album, since there is no connection there. The disambiguation between the song has already been taken care of by redirecting "exopolitics" to "exopolitics (disambiguation)." Please undo your recent revert of "politics of outer space" to remove this incorrect redirect, so that a discussion can take place on merging the content of "astropolitics" into the more-general article content at "politics of outer space." Nicole Sharp (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: if you disagree with the idea of merging "astropolitics" into "politics of outer space" or even whether the "politics of outer space" is a relevant topic for a Wikipedia article, please post to the talkpages at "talk:politics of outer space" or "talk:astropolitics." Either way, no discussion can take place unless you undo your recent revert at "politics of outer space." Deleting the article and redirecting the topic of "politics in outer space" to a British rock album doesn't make any sense. If anything, it should be redirecting to "astropolitics." However, a discussion on merging the two articles cannot take place unless both articles are available to view. As the articles are written now (before your deletion), "astropolitics" has a much narrower focus than the broader scope of the content at "politics of outer space," so it makes sense to merge the former into the latter (as well as since the latter title is less ambiguous and less controversial). I strongly advise simply undoing your recent revert at "politics of outer space" (for which the article had a merge notice already up) so that users can view both articles and comment on if and how they should be merged. Both are actually just stubs, and neither are full articles yet, so I do not see any merging being a major problem (and they are best to be merged now as stubs before they grow larger). Nicole Sharp (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Nicole Sharp. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United States[edit]

Hi. I closed your voting section because voting doesn't really solve anything. What you want to do instead is to initiate a move request (see WP:RM). --regentspark (comment) 23:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Nicole Sharp. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)