User talk:JayKayXD
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, JayKayXD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 21:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
June 2018
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Mosasaurus, you may be blocked from editing. Stop changing the length unless you have a source that says so.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Why do idiots keep reverting my edits?
[edit]When a majority of the contributions that you make to Wikipedia are getting reverted, whether you agree with the reasons or not, it is time to stop and think. It is possible that the whole world is "out to get you". More likely, something you are doing is not quite right. Good editors will give you a clue in the undo message. Better yet, discussion is always better than starting an edit war, then you can find out what the problems are before you get blocked. 20:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Lithopsian, 1.Your pretty much the only one reverting my edits at this point. My edit beef with ZaperaWiki44 ended a while ago now and V255 Canias Majoris reverted only "one" of my edits. 2. I've said this like 4 times now but always go with the smallest value in the most recent estimate.
Also, you wanted me to have a reasonable discussion with me instead of an edit war, ok. I will leave a message on your page soon. that's all. Best wishes. JayKayXD (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
MY Cephei
[edit]I encourage you to cease your attempts on placing MY Cephei onto the top of the list. This is cherrypicking and does not represent the fact that the radius of the star is uncertain. Going by only the most recent value is not an appropriate method. Now, I know you may ask, "Why is VY Canis Majoris so high then?". That is because, the reference that gives the value of 2,069 R☉ is a whole eight years more recent than the reference that gave the value of solar radius of 1,420 ± 120 R☉. That is more than enough to replace old data with new data. Did anyone hesitate to remove the Humphreys 2006 value of 1,800–2,100 R☉ when Wittkowski et al. 2012 was published? Of course not. However, the reference that gave MY Cephei the radius of 1,134 R☉ is only two years older than the reference that gave MY Cephei the radius of 2,061 R☉. And now, you've moved the star back to the top of the list, with it's lower estimate, even though you should know we sort the list by lowest value first. Discussion with Lithopsian came to not much avail, because (no disrespect to Lithopsian) I cannot discuss with someone who is not willing to discuss in the first place. Everytime I tried to discuss, I would either receive no response at all or he would beat around the bush not addressing of the points of discussion. However, Lithopsian did state this on the Talk:VX Sagittarii: "It would certainly be good to have a more modern range of values". This statement was talking about the temperature, but it is perfectly applicable to the radius as well. We need the most recent range of values, not just the most recent. Faren29 (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's better to talk about this in the list of largest known stars talk page but here is ok for now. We can bring it there later if we have to. Lithopsian was one of the ones who reverted the edit when you kept trying to put MY Cep back at 1,134 so his opinion on where MY Cep should be is pretty obvious. I agree that we should try and find as many recent estimates as possible. There's plenty of room for more estimates in the description box of the star. The most recent estimates for MY cep are 363, 1,134 and 2,061. 363 comes from a distance estimate that's inconsistent with NGC 7419 and is considered unreliable due to astrometric noise so we can rule 363 out. 1,134 and 2,061 are more reliable. 2,061 is more recent than 1,134 whether it's 2 years, 3 years, 6 years, 8 years. You don't get to pick and choose where the line is drawn and it makes everything a lot easier if we just go by most recent.JayKayXD (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly agree, that it is much easier. However, as it has clearly been shown through the years, references and radius values that are only slightly older than another have still been included in the list. However, for refs that are much older, they are usually removed once a new paper is published. This was clearly demonstrated with VY CMa a few weeks ago and back in 2012. I do not understand, however, how you are only doing this for MY Cephei, it just makes it appear as cherrypicking for a particular star you like. However, I will not jump to conclusions and assume this is what you think. I'm basing the choices of radii values off of what has been done in the past consistently. Faren29 (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't seen anything that's a clear example of what you're talking about. From what I've seen, the list goes by most recent with a few exceptions for some reason like the newer value being too large (everything above UY Scuti was considered too large for a long time) or something like NML Cygni where the newer ref gives a temperature and luminosity but not an actual radius. However, I don't often see something that's a clear cut example of what you're talking about. There is usually a reason other than it's "almost" as new as the other ref. I go by most recent because it's what I usually see and if it isn't, there's often a good reason for it. We should bring this over to the talk page of the actual article and see what everyone else thinks because we're clearly not accomplishing anything here.JayKayXD (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly agree, that it is much easier. However, as it has clearly been shown through the years, references and radius values that are only slightly older than another have still been included in the list. However, for refs that are much older, they are usually removed once a new paper is published. This was clearly demonstrated with VY CMa a few weeks ago and back in 2012. I do not understand, however, how you are only doing this for MY Cephei, it just makes it appear as cherrypicking for a particular star you like. However, I will not jump to conclusions and assume this is what you think. I'm basing the choices of radii values off of what has been done in the past consistently. Faren29 (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)