User talk:Ralfkannenberg

Welcome!

Hello, Ralfkannenberg! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 18:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

A page you started (2011 MM4) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating 2011 MM4.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

For unnumbered minor planets (such as this one), category Category:Unnumbered minor planets should always be added, while the navigator template should not be displayed.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Rfassbind – talk 12:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rfassbind: great, thank you very much. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links to draft articles

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Classical Kuiper belt object. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: Things have changed - last time I was able to add a non-draft article. I have no idea how to do this now, that is the reason why I have created draft ones which will be reviewed maybe within half a year. - What to do now: one of these cubewanos has a perihelion of nearly 65 (!!!) au which is fully within the perihelion range of the sednoids, and the other one also lies far beyond the Kuiper cliff. - These 2 objects should be linked "somehow" to the cubewano article; I do not mind if anybody does this in a better way, but it should be done. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ralfkannenberg you have had an account for over three years and have 125 edits, so your account is Autoconfirmed. AFAIK nothing has changed, you could have created the articles directly, or created them in a sandbox, but you chose to go through the articles for creation process, which is designed for novice editors. Comparing those two drafts with the other articles listed in the lead of Classical Kuiper belt object the drafts seem rather "thin", but, although I studied it at school, astronomy is not my strongest subject.
If you are sure that these objects merit articles, see WP:42, and that the drafts contain all that is currently published, you could move the drafts to article space - see Wikipedia:Moving a page. Never having used the AFC process, I am unaware of any reason you cannot/should not do this. You would than need to clean them up by removing the AFC templates and adding Categories at the bottom. - Hope that helps - Arjayay (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay: Thank you for your info. I suggest to wait as the data is in the official database of the Minor Planet Center and has quite a good uncertainty of only 3, but they have derived their data from only 2 days observation arc what is for objects that far away very poor quality unless further observations are obtained. - Is it possible to add the two cubewanos to the cubewano page without linking them to the draft articles, but with a suited comment about the data quality ? Then the data is provided already now according Minor Planet Center but indicated as possibly not being the final data. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ralfkannenberg, that sounds perfectly acceptable, but not in the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of the main article and not contain information that is not in the bodytext - If any new information arises, please improve the drafts before they are considered - don't take them out of the queue to do that, or you will be starting the wait all-over again (Drafts are not considered in strict order, but if someone is interested in checking an astronomy draft, they are likely to consider older ones first). Good luck - Arjayay (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Arjayay. I have added now a section "High Perihelion classical objects" to the article. Please feel welcome to review and update - or if inappropriate remove it again. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About 2020 KX11 and 2020 KY11

I see you've been working on draft articles on these two objects and mentioning them in the classical Kuiper belt article recently, though I need to nitpick a few details. Their distant orbits suggest they are detached objects instead of Kuiper belt objects, and they appear to belong in a group of objects with low-eccentricity objects like that of 2004 XR190 ("Buffy"). The low-inclination distant orbits of these objects are indeed interesting, though remember that 2020 KX₁₁ and 2020 KY₁₁ have not had their observations released in their respective Minor Planet Center pages yet,[1][2] so I would consider it premature (see WP:TOOSOON) until there is a press release or paper announcing the objects. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 19:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: Thank you for your information. It seems that they belong to a new population as they are too far out for being classical, I agree to you. According me Minor Planet Center is a serious source, but yes: an observation arc of only 2 days in a >47 au-distance is somewhat ridiculous and the uncertainty 3 given will change to >10 soonly unless the observation arc is extended ... - time will show if this ever happens. Indeed it seems to me that all the discussions and non-publications of V774104 have resulted in far too early publications in MPC nowadays. Another too early one was "far-out" (2018 VG18), which in its initial MPC-release had been a H=3.5 mag Centaur (!!!) what was very unlikely and fortunately has been corrected meanwhile due to further observations.

2020 KX₁₁ and 2020 KY₁₁ by the way do not seem to be like 2004 XR190 ("Buffy"), as Buffy or 2014 FC72 (also dwarf planet candidate) belong to the MMR+KR-population [3] and these two new ones do not. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC) -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2020 KY11 (November 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Devonian Wombat was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2020 KY11 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2020 KY11, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ralfkannenberg! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2020 KX11 (November 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sam-2727 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Currently your references don't indicate that this object is notable. To demonstrate that, you need at least 3 independent, reliable sources (in this context, probably journal articles) to support the article. These articles can't be databases.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2020 KX11 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2020 KX11, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sam-2727 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the rejection of my new articles about high perihelion objects

I take note of the rejection of my new articles about high perihelion objects; I will neither insist in submission nor delete the draft versions and also agree to the fact that the data provided by the Minor Planet Center is poor. I emphasize that the other articles I have written for high perihelion objects have much better underlying data quality. I hope time and further observations will show if these articles were justified or not. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:2020 KY11

Hello, Ralfkannenberg. This is a bot-delivered message letting you kno~ w that Draft:2020 KY11, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen above the reviewers have declined to accept the article, so it can be removed. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:2020 KX11

Hello, Ralfkannenberg. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2020 KX11, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:2020 KY11

Hello, Ralfkannenberg. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2020 KY11".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Lamech (descendant of Cain), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ralfkannenberg! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Lamech (descendant of Cain) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing. Can you please update this that it becomes correct again ? Ralfkannenberg (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I were an admin, I couldn't change that. Summaries and whole edits can be hidden from view, but that flag cannot be changed. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahusha:FYI, when pinging another user, you need to capitalize the username exactly as it is - I didn't get your ping because the R and P are not capitalized Generally, we cannot use historical records, such as letters, to draw conclusions because that would be original research. Historians interpret these records, their interpretations are peer reviewed, and that's what we use on Wikipedia. That's why you cannot use Tipu Sultan's letters or other original documents. That's our policy, sorry. Also, just a suggestion, it is not a good idea to complain about "political mindsets" or biases. A far better idea would be to get reliable academic sources to back up your changes. Wikipedia is not a crowd sourced encyclopedia but is a reliably sourced one.--regentspark (comment) 15:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Not concerned with what the truth is and even less concerned with what Wikipedia editors think the truth is. There is no need to go deeper into this matter than that, since anything claimed to be truth on Wikipedia pages is, first and foremost, a Wikipedian's opinion about what the truth is. If that Wikipedian can justify it by citing reliable sources, we are back to the original modus operandi: citing reliable sources. Can we stop this philosophical excursion please? The deliberations of philosophers about absolute truth, or the deliberations of Wikipedians on those deliberations, are pretty irrelevant to the question of what to write about Bryant G. Wood. Which is the purpose of this page. Just this: we describe the current scientific consensus and not any future scientific consensus because we do not know what that one will be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]