User talk:Skeptic2

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

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)[edit]

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! --Simonkoldyk 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: David Tress[edit]

No problem! I've redirected the David tress page to David Tress, it's always worth having lower case surnames as redirects in case someone who doesn't use the shift key tries to find something. For future reference, if you do create a page by mistake and want to request deletion, adding {{db-g7}} to the page header will alert administrators to the page - this is only for mistakenly created pages though. By the way, good work on the article :) - Zeibura (Talk) 20:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A disambiguation page won't be necessary until there are three of them. I've changed the links on the film pages to point at David Tress (actor), which is currently a redlink. Once someone creates that article, a link at the top of the artist article should be placed, saying something like "This article is about the artist. For the actor, see David Tress (actor)". If someone then writes more articles about other people called David Tress, meaning there are more than two, that's when David Tress would need to become a disambiguation page pointing at David Tress (artist), David Tress (actor), David Tress (victoria cross maker) etc. Hope this makes sense, - Zeibura (Talk) 21:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Universe cover2.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Universe cover2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Astronomical Society library[edit]

Hi there. I noticed your edit at Royal Astronomical Society about the library. Thanks for that. Would you be able to supply any more information? I have access to sources about the history of the society, but if you have access to the library, I am sure there will be lots more available on the society and other astronomy topics. I also tidied up the required tags for the picture that a bot left a message about above. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just about all you'll need to know about the RAS is on its website, somewhere or other (not terribly well organized or signposted, but it's there!). I based my addition on what's on the Library page which I linked to. I didn't want to overdo it lest it be queried as advertising. There is a 2-volume History of the RAS (ISBN 978-0632021758 and 978-0632017911) which you could add to the references if you thought it helpful. Is there anything specific you wanted to know? Regarding the deletion of the book cover, I let that go without comment as it's unimportant. All I had done was to substitute the cover of the second edition of Universe for the cover of the first edition, with the same rationale as used by the original uploader (who I suspect was associated with the US publisher). Skeptic2 20:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the details of the two volume RAS history! If I can't find stuff in there or on the website, I might pop back and ask you, if that's OK. One thing I am interested in is the history of MNRAS. Reading some of the old issues (mainly the obituaries and society news) available online at the ADS is fascinating. I recently worked on Astronomische Nachrichten, and would like to do something similar for MNRAS (all part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals, in case you are interested). Carcharoth 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

MN didn't start publication until the RAS had been going for a few years. All the early papers went in the Memoirs. Then there was a period of overlap when stuff such as obituaries appeared in both. Only a subset of Memoirs is currently on the ADS but the rest should be going up sometime soon (inside knowledge). For an A-Z index of published obituaries see here: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=219&Itemid=98 (another of those hidden-away pages). Skeptic2 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow! :-) That list of obituaries is just incredible, especially the ADS links. The index for military ranks and titles of nobility reminds me how many of those 19th century astronomers (probably all of them, in fact) were gentleman scientists, often pursuing astronomy after a military career, or using inherited wealth. I know a lot of those astonomers have Wikipedia articles and links to obituaries, but that resource will be extremely helpful for updating ones that don't. Are you aware of Wikisource? Have a look at this for an example of an early notice by John Herschel in the first issue of AN. Carcharoth 22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking around that website, and this is especially impressive. One of the Wikipedia pages I take an interest in is Royal Medal (an award of the Royal Society), and from there I've become interested in many award articles, including Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. I wonder whether the other five awards listed here are notable enough for Wikipedia? Also, I've been looking at the Latin on the Gold Medal, and was wondering if there is a translation anywhere? I think it says "Quicquid Nitet Notandum" on the front, and something else I can't make out on the reverse. And it would be nice to know who the people are on the medals. I recognise Herschel's 40-foot telescope on the front of the gold medal, but not the people on the front of the medals. Carcharoth 23:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I Googled the phrase, and found a book!! See here: "Whatever Shines Should Be Observed". Fascinating! Carcharoth 23:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Gold Medal is obviously the top award. I'm not sure how the astronomical community rates the Eddington and Herschel medals, although there are some big-name winners. Perhaps best simply to describe briefly what these other awards are for and link to the relevant page with the list of winners on the RAS website? Skeptic2 19:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll have a look sometime and see how many of the winners have articles. If a lot of them do, a list might be doable, or at least mentioning the award in the biographies. Carcharoth 23:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing ISBN numbers.[edit]

Please make sure the data referenced's in the other books you're referencing before changing the ISBNs. Until then please undo your (US ISBN) changes. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-30t19:37z

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you rephrase, please? Skeptic2 (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Collins Gem stars (2000) ISBN 0-00-472474-7 is 90% the same as the older Collins Gem night sky (1985), but the differences mean one can't change the references of the 1st to the 2nd without checking to see that the new one actually has the information it's referencing in the article. So, don't change the ISBNs for references until you've checked that the information referenced is also in the new editions. If you haven't, please undo your US ISBN chanegs. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-31t17:42z
Now I see what you mean. It's simply a US edition of the same book, so content is identical (but not the ISBN).Skeptic2 (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Then why change it? Doesn't it break page references? -- Jeandré, 2007-12-31t20:08z
The US ISBN is an addition and will be of more use to North American readers. The UK ISBN remains unchanged.Skeptic2 (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Ack, I read the changes wrong. -- Jeandré, 2008-01-01t20:07z

Beal[edit]

If I admitted attending Beal, some of my edits might be considered OR. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Did we know each other? Please email me to compare reminiscences. Ian. 79.66.60.214 (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It must be cool to be a Skeptic[edit]

As your name demonstrates. Haha. Just messing around. However, on a serious note there's no need to be so controlling concerning such controversial topics as what the Dogon may or may not have known, even if you'd like to desperately attribute such knowledge exclusively to "modern (European) society", personally or not. I do see your point now about that being in the wrong place and overemphasized, and initially it wasn't a matter of me being "over-enthusiastic" as I wasn't the one making "over-enthusiastic" edits, but thought I was preserving former contributions that I thought were hastily removed, which I accept fault for as it WAS indeed in the wrong place. But you seem firm in your aim to simply "discredit" with out remaining neutral per encyclopedic standards. This is indicated by your willingness to insert blanket statements with no source about what is or isn't discredited (without allowing room for disagreement either) while selectively reading and omitting the conclusions of such people like James Oberg, who affirmed at the end of his excerpt that he believed that it was still a legitimate mystery and that claims of external acquisition of knowledge from "Europeans" are not rooted in anything more than circumstantial 'evidence'. As not to impose such speculations as fact, that should be reflected instead of writing something that feeds into a skeptical agenda. Please, I definitely don't want to wage any kind of back and fourth edit war and did compromise, but at the same ti,e I ask that you work with me since I refuse to let an agenda (either way) be brought across in the article, or let any definitive conclusion be made when there is much to contradict any absolutes on this matter given the intense disagreement on the Astronomy, anthropological studies, or social interpretations. Yes, scientists disagree on this and I DO have more sources. I only ask that things remain neutral and anything included or claimed, should be cited, while there be room for some disagreement. Thank you for your time, sir..Taharqa (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

If I can be so bold as to correct a spelling error in your comment on heat from Sirius: there is no word "miniscule". It's minuscule. Skeptic2 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch.—RJH (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:PeteBrown.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:PeteBrown.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:PeteBrownEmbankment.jpg[edit]

You can't upload CC licence unless the copyright holder of the original image (presumably the artist) releases that image as CC. Check out Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed. Ty 04:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for repositioning the image – I couldn't get it right.Skeptic2 (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the licence. Trust this is OK now.Skeptic2 (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikimapia..[edit]

Wikimapia uses a combination of Google Mapping (from various sources) and in respect of the data it overlays a rather loose non-commercial license.

There are some people (on OSM amongst others), who hold the view that because Wikimapia hasn't explicitly stated what it's relationship with Google is (i.e the nature of the 'permissions' they have to derive geo-spatial information from Google), that thier sites (C) status is thus unclear.

WP:EL seems to state that Wikipedia should not be linking to sites or material where the (C) status of material on that site isn't clear.

In a number of cases I've replaced the Specfic Wikimapia links with generic geo-coding instead of nuking links entirly. In others , the article proved to have a the generic geo-coding link present already (which until the relevant section was commented out also linked to Wikimapia). Having a seperate link would thus to be a duplication.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I hadn't realized that. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with anon spammer[edit]

If you go muck about in various Wiki-add ons, there are a number of warning templates that you can place on a problematic user's page to let them know that their activity is not okay. If they continue to not get the message, refer their problematic behavior to an administrator (I am not an administrator) and they'll take care of it. I'm going to go tag his user talk page right now, though I see User:Verbal has already done some of the legwork.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Unidentified Flying Object - protection[edit]

Hi,
the vandalising IP user at UFO conspiracy theory has been blocked by User:Jake Wartenberg, so I see no reason to protect it at the current time. --Aqwis (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Rendlesham[edit]

OK I'll take a look but am going out this evening so not much time! Bluewave (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

csicop.org link[edit]

Weirdly enough, the link to csicop.org on the Ufology page gave me an "error 404" page when I tried it earlier, but now it works just fine. My apologies for being all trigger happy. --bonadea contributions talk 15:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fake star name inventor 199.44.190.11[edit]

Hi Skeptic2! Thank you for your alert about 199.44.190.11, I'm putting him on my fake star name list, as probably another incarnation of the infamous desinformer troll User:Richontaban. I missed those fake star names and I appreciate people keeping their eyes open. Thanks! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Canes Venatici "Name a Star" from Dayactor[edit]

Hopefully this will stop the attempts to add a "name a star" name to CV. Regards, Tonywalton Talk 00:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:TheLandGreening.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TheLandGreening.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is only too happy to rip off copyright on two-dimensional works of art, I don't see your problem. Skeptic2 (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DS alert - climate change[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

bumpkiss[edit]

bumpkiss is presenting the items from the lunitic fringe framework that "something so weird happened that it must be explained by a UFO and massive government coverup" equal primacy to the reliable sources that the only thing particularly weird that happened was that a bunch of people believe that a UFO and government cover up happened. When we discuss content, we give the primacy and framework from the mainstream views, not the fringe. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

some guys blog is not a reliable source. you didnt "fix" anything, you restored inappropriately sourced and framed content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Taking out the skeptical sources (which are actually reliable) just strengthens the bumpkiss, to use your favourite word. Do you really want to give the explanation of this case or simply obfuscate? You need to set up the story before you can knock it down. Skeptic2 (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

blogs are not reliable sources. content may NOT be restored without supplying reliable sources. and we are not here to "knock down" anything. WP:OR We present what the reliable sources present about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

the "glaring gaps" are caused by "glaring gaps" in the reliable sources. Before you restored the unreliable sourced version I had pruned down the unacceptable to a point where acceptable sourced material might be built back up. But the starting point needs to be reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Understood, and I agree there was too much woo in the article. But your heavy deletions removed important parts of the story and broke up the structure. Please try to rewrite rather than just delete. Discuss first if you need help. This can one day become a clear, accurate summary of the case, with logical explanations, which is badly needed among all the misinformation out there. Skeptic2 (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I have now done a bit more editing to make the explanations for the reported lights more explicit. Hope this addresses some of your concerns. Skeptic2 (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You do not build a good article by presenting the UFOlogists claims, debunk them with some guy on the web, then fill in with reliable sources. You START with the reliable sources. And where they may have been sloppy and presented the UFOlogists story unaddressed, you can then fill in with appropriate skeptic sites. The article needs to be rebuilt from the ground up based on the reliable sources and mainstream views. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Well go ahead then. Do you realize that the person you describe as "some guy on the web" is in fact the main skeptical researcher on the case? Skeptic2 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
You might like to look at this, too: http://burbatory.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/bumpkiss-is-bubkes.html

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to this, and apologies for the error. I have fixed it. Skeptic2 (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


Lion image[edit]

Hey man. Just wanted to make sure that you scrolled my article completely to the end and did not stop at the first visualization of the "comic" styled lion. Since really everybody whom I showed this picture was absolutely exited. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:4BCB:8002:2096:A23D:69F9:D32 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Beal High School[edit]

I've removed the two alumni again. Neither entry has a wikiarticle, and neither entry has reliable sources showing the subject's notability or attendance at the schools. One entry has a source, but it is simply the person's personal webpage which does not mention his attendance and is not a WP:reliable source to show his notability. My removal of these entries was not an "unjustified removal" as you claimed in your edit summary. If they are notable, then write their articles first (see WP:WTAF). They would have to be shown to be notable under the general notability guideline WP:BIO, or the more specific guidelines (WP:NACADEMICS for Seigar and WP:AUTHOR for Wade). Meters (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you want to be so harsh on Old Beals. Why do you think that names in this section need to have Wikipedia entries to be worthy of inclusion. Several of the names i the list have no mention of Beal in their Wikipedia entires yet you have left them. I can confirm that John Wade is an Od Beal. Marc Seigar seems to have added himself if you care to check the article's history. I would have thought being an academic professor was notable. If you are still in doubt you can ask him yourself.Skeptic2 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I've already given you the links that explain why the two entries you restored are not acceptable for inclusion as notable alumni. Please read them. Whether you happen to think an academic is notable simply for being an academic is not germane. I didn't look at the other entries since they have wikiarticle showing their notability. Since you are concerned about those entries I'll add citations to the articles where I can and tag the remaining entries as needing a citation for the school. Meters (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Skeptic2. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Skeptic2. 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)