User talk:JoshuaLibrarian

Welcome!
Hi JoshuaLibrarian! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Tychonic system
With regard to Tychonic system: I explained my revert, though tersely: NN, and appears to be a nutter. You may well not like the latter, but the former - NN, for Not Notable - is harder to work around. See WP:NOTABILITY. You may also wish to consider WP:BRD William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Whether the author in question "appears to be a nutter" sounds like a vague value judgement on your part, and even if he is a "nutter", how is that relevant? Having read your reference on the subject of "notability", it seems to be about whether or not something deserves it's own page ("notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists"), which I am not saying it does.  This new model is derived directly from the Tychonic system, so clearly part of its "legacy" hence my simple and short addition to the relevant section on this page referencing the EXISTENCE of this new model. JoshuaLibrarian (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Clearly I'm not going to convince you he's a nutter; for your purposes it is the former that matters. You chap is not notable, and neither are his opinions. None of his work has been published in anything like a WP:RS William M. Connolley (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, he's not "notable" (I never claimed him or his work is), which is why he has no page of his own (as indicated in the notability guidelines). I don't see how "reliable sources" are relevant to this, as my edit makes no claim except the *existence* of this published work, which is quite verifiable.  I would counter that your revert seems to defy the policy of "neutral point of view!" JoshuaLibrarian (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As WP:RS says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. Your source is not published, and is not reliable. It needs to be both William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let me get this straight. First you curtly object to my edit based on "Not Notable" and your own opinion.  I pointed out that your NN objection was not valid, so then you switch your objection to "Reliable Sources".  In said RS policy, I read this: "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  I am not arguing this point, but this is not an article, just the mention of a published book (online and on paper) relevant to the article.  As the "Reliable sources/Noticeboard" discusses, I have correctly sourced this reference to its webpage ("For an online source, please include links").  According to the "No original research/Noticeboard": "'Original research' includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."  I have included NONE of that in my tiny addition, only a reference that this published work exists.  Frankly anyone visiting this page and interested in the Tychonic system may be interested to know that such a recent derivative exists, and your objections don't seem in line with any of these policies that I can read. JoshuaLibrarian (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)