User talk:Lithopsian

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. JFHutson (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As already explained (briefly, so I'll make it clear here), do not cut the contents of one article and paste them over another article. This is a

requested move. Given that both articles gave existed for some years and have no-trivial edit history, I would suggest that such a move requires discussion first where interested parties can check that both articles really are about the same place and which should be the ultimate location. Lithopsian (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

What are we going to do about this chap and his nonsense edit in the Cassiopeia entry? I don't think he even understands the text he is trying to insert. He has been blocked for edit warring in the past. Should we do it again? Cheers, Skeptic2 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page first. I've put a standard warning on the user talk page. You could start a section on the Cassiopeia talk page, for all the good it will do, just to show good faith. Otherwise, I've reverted the latest drivel. Feel free to report any further reverts. Lithopsian (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would have been a lot more inclusive if you created a talk page. Sorry if I can not express what I am trying to add. I did include 4 different references. Would Wikipedia consider that vandalism? That I am not trying to add in "good faith".

I know people who were banned on social media. Some are back. I know people who were banned from coffee counters. They "won" the war.

Should "we" do it again? Take credit for your actions. You're not Lithopsian. Consensus is Wikipedia.

Did you really need to use the derogatory drivel? No need to use insulting terms. See Wikipedia:Civility

"Don't make snide comments."

I'd say "Patent nonsense" is the correct term to consider here.

The Wikipedia page indicates: "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it"

I'd be comfortable if the addition was removed with the explanation: "Cassiopea was not used by Jean Picard to determine "an arc of the meridian"

Try this if your willing. I googled: "picard" Cassiopeia

AI response:

"In 1669, Captain Jean-Luc Picard used the constellation Cassiopeia to determine latitude while measuring an arc of the meridian in France"

Are you saying some form of this google statement is not worthy of the page?

Picard is considered the first to give a realistic measure. He didn't use Leo or Cygnus for a reason. The links explain why.

The long and the short of it. The four articles I referenced have the word Cassiopea in them. Referring to a use of the constellation. Similar to the use of Polaris by navigators. This is a valid addition to the page. If someone with better linguistics chooses to "create" it; instead of spending their time "banning" they're the better person. The article will be better off. Philfromwaterbury (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Cassiopeia (constellation). Lithopsian (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lithopsian, i am here to advice your recent edits at Theta Carinae were reverted in error due to an edit conflict. Sorry for the incovenience. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That's what I thought had happened. All straight now, I think. Lithopsian (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you must insist on reverting "cut'n'paste" edits, a rule which I find quite unnecessary for short list articles as

I can't help it if you don't understand why not to do cut'n'paste moves. There's no end of help pages about it, I even linked one or two for you. Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't acknowledge that the minor plant (not a comet, actually an asteroid) "is definitely not worthy of being the primary topic"; I just suggested that it was possible. And please don't redirect a page titled

Nijhawan (disambiguation) to a page that isn't a disambiguation page; a set index is an article, not a dab page. Lithopsian (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

I wonder what motivated you to go against an XfD consensus here? As someone getting back into AfD, is there something I should know about when to revert an AfD outcome? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mis-read the outcome. Too much edit-warring in the article! My intention was to revert to the consensus. All straightened out (and protected) now. Lithopsian (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @

First, my perspective is that the

The first (7 hours later) and second reverts you made provided no substantiative basis to do so. It is essential to minimize

You have been the only editor to reject the redirect compromise and to insist on restoring the

This process is even more awkward, and confusing, given that in your new AFD, you seem to be marginally supporting the

Go away and stop whining. The article is at AfD again, no thanks to you. Respect the result this time. Lithopsian (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I saw that you marked Henry Mannox as reviewed. The article looks a bit dubious to me - see my comments on the talk page - so I hope that you don't mind my marking it as unreviewed. I plan to keep an eye on how it progresses. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to mark the redirect as reviewed. Looks like I need to be a bit sharper when there's an edit war going on ;) Lithopsian (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say a war as such. A skirmish, maybe! We'll see what the (still very new) editor comes up with. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Omega Puppis (ω Puppis, ω Pup, Omega Pup), a transit star located at (00^h 16^m 16.1^s, −32° 38′ 31″, 1870.0)^[1]

The U.S. Government certainly thougt it existed in 1874. Note the equinox and epoch are 1870.0 for these coordinates -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be w Puppis. Lithopsian (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The star listed above B.A.C. 2825 in the source is clearly a lower case omega. It is not Bayer w Puppis, nor Bayer W Puppis, nor variable W Puppis. You can compare it to Bayer

ω1 Cancri (Omega1 Cancri) which is also listed on the same page, which uses the same character omega. The page lists Omega1 Cnc at (00^h 53^m 03.8^s, +25° 44′ 47″, magnitude 6, 1870.0) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

I can see the omega, but it is wrong. There is no ω Puppis and the star at those co-ordinates is w Puppis. Lithopsian (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Premier_Futsal_League#

If can clear after redirect, if that is best option. Besides, help younger user who moved redirect as seems not to understand all rules. Appreciated! 93.140.108.210 (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harimau_Muda# 93.140.108.210 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_Land_F.C.# 93.140.108.210 (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lithopsian, As you have seen, somebody keeps putting the name "Rommel Canis Majoris" in the intro sentence of the R Canis Majoris article. Should we try to get that article protected for a while? If so, how does one do that? PopePompus (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Drmies just blocked the guy from editing the R CMa page, so that should do the trick. Sorry to bother you needlessly! PopePompus (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did request page protection, but Drmies took a different approach. Let's hope that finishes it. I use

Twinkle for this and for some other boilerplate tasks. Lithopsian (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page SZ Crateris, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

]

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lithopsian, I created the draft article

I created the redirect, and then I made another edit. I think that pretty much blocks a simple move. I'll tag the redirect for speedy deletion; after that you should be able to do a simple page move. Or I can. Lithopsian (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the move, as well as the contributions to the article! AluminiumWithAnI (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]