User talk:Marinaromanova55

January 2021
Hello, Marinaromanova55. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Richard V. E. Lovelace) for disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. —valereee (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Marinaromanova55! It looks like you're a colleague of Dr. Lovelace's? You'll need to disclose your conflict of interest both on your user page and at the article's talk page. We also ask that instead of editing directly you do so by making edit requests at the article talk. —valereee (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Posting
Hi, Dr. Romanova! Welcome to Wikipedia.

I've copied your Teahouse post to the talk page of the article, which is at Talk:Richard V. E. Lovelace, and which you are free to post at with any further suggestions for edits. Now that we've got a discussion going, I'm also happy to lift the block. You do have a conflict of interest, since he is a former colleague, so while it sounds like it's minor, it's probably best if you continue to make suggestions rather than editing directly. Thank you for creating an important article! —valereee (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Lovelace, editing
Dear Valereee,

I am adding references, which are required here and there. I will not change the text without your permission. I described details of references in my history. However, I tried to add a picture. Prof. Lovelace prefers this picture. I was not able to increase it a bit. Thank you! Marinaromanova55 (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * His preferences are not relevant. You'll need to make an edit request and make arguments based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines if you want the image changed. 174.212.238.87 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, Marina! We'd be happy to have a photo, but Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and all photos must be uploaded by the copyright holder -- that is, the person who took the photo. A friend or family member could take a photo of him on their phone and upload it. He could take a selfie and upload it.
 * Instead of adding references to the article, you can post them to the talk page, noting which of the 'citation needed' tags they are for. If you continue to edit directly, that big ugly banner at the top of the page is not going to go away. —valereee (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Valereee, Marchjuly or other respectable Editor. Please, modify the text in three places:

1/ Instead of the phrase: "After this discovery, scientists concluded that pulsars were rotating neutron stars." add the phrase: "This discovery helped to cement the idea that pulsars were rotating neutron stars. (Explanation: the earlier phrase was not precise, some people suggested that pulsars were neutron stars right after discovery of pulsars).

2/ Instead of the phrase: " It has been widely accepted by the astronomical community and now is the main model explaining jets from galaxies, stars and planets." please add the phrase: "The idea of the magnetically-driven jets and winds has been widely accepted by the astronomical community. (Comment: this is more precise phrase.).

3/Please, move this phrase: "He also developed the theory of the stability of electron and ion rings, which is used in current laboratory experiments on magnetic confinement fusion (for example at TAE Technologies in California)."

to the section "Other scientific achievements"  after the phrase: Lovelace proposed a new method of measuring magnetic fields,

(Comment: it is better to have a fewer main scietntific achievements in the section "Research").

Comment: after these modifications, I will provide more external references.

Thank you! Marinaromanova55 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You should make request like this on the article’s talk page and not here. Follow the instructions given in Wikipedia:Edit requests and use Template:Request edit. I also suggest you break up your requests in the smaller easier to assess bits. There are editors who help out by responding to edit requests, but some of them may shy away from requests which are difficult to decipher or for which they may only be able to partially edit. Edit requests like “change X to Y supported by this source” tend to be much easier to deal with, then walls of text. All Wikipedia editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs and those that monitor edit requests might want to spend their time answering as many requests as they can, then all of their time trying to figure out one request. I’ve seen requests declined simply because they were too unclear or asked for too many things to be done at once. Wikipedia doesn’t have any WP:DEADLINEs per se and articles don’t need to be improved all at once. Making a simple request, waiting until it’s responding to, and then making another request seems to be the approach that gets the best results. Finally, when you make such a request, it’s generally not a good idea to ask for someone by name to look at it because others might pass over it if you do. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Please, add references and new photo of Lovelace
Dear Valeree,

I found a better photo of Lovelace (my work). I uploaded it. Please, replace the current photo with this one using reference:



In respect of references. Do you want me to type references in the wiki form, so that you would copy and paste them?

Please, add two references. One of them to Gold, T. who proposed that pulsars are magnetized rotating neutron stars. He mentioned the discovery of 33ms period of Crab Pulsar (which is important for his theory) and referred to Lovelace discovery IAU Telegram (this is a brief and fast publication about discoveries in International Astronomical Society - IAU).

Reference 1: Gold, Thomas “Rotating Neutron Stars and the Nature of Pulsars” Publication: Nature, Volume 221, Issue 5175, pp. 25-27 (1969) Pub Date: January 1969  DOI: 10.1038/221025a0  Bibcode: 1969Natur.221...25G https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969Natur.221...25G/abstract

Reference 2 (the first announcement of discovery): Lovelace, R. V. E., Sutton, J. M., and Craft, jun., H. D. IAU Astronomical Telegram Circular No. 2113 (1968) https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968IAUC.2113....1L/abstract

Thank you ! Marinaromanova55 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Marinaromanova55. Did you take this photo? You also uploaded File:Richard Van Evera Lovelace Kamchatka.jpg and said it was taken by a guide, but both photos appear to be taken around the same time. If you were with Lovelace on that trip and took the photo, then it’s probably OK. You might want to have the one taken by the guide deleted then per c:COM:CSD to avoid any misunderstandings. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi MarchJuly. Yes, I've been at this trip with Lovelace and took this photo. A few pictures were taken by guide, but I remember that this last one was taken by myself. Please, help me to delete all other photos, they are not needed. I was not able to delete them. There are 5 photos in Wikimedia which are not needed, including the one which is placed currently. Please, put the last photo to the Lovelace page. Thank you!
 * Marinaromanova55 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What you should do is to log in to Commons and click on the photos you want to be deleted. The click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the file's page and add the template to the top of the edit window right above ==== ; just move your mouse cursor to the beginning of the first line in the editting widow and click enter; this should create an empty line for you to add the speedy deletion template syntax. In the "Edit summary" field, simply add something like "Author requests deletion", and then click on "Show preview". If you've done things correctly, the template will be enabled and look something like this but it will say "This media file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion" and "The given reason is: CSD G7 (author or uploader request deletion)" instead.This type of speedy deletion only works for files less than 7 days old; so, you should try to do this asap. If you miss the deadline by a day or two, a Commons administrator may still delete the file anyway; if, however, you wait too long, the file will probably need to be deleted per c:Commons:Deletion requests. You need to make the deletion request on Commons because that's where you uploaded the files, and you need to log in to the account you used when uploading the files because that's the way a Commons administrator will know that it's you making the request. If you want to find the files you uploaded, log in to your Commons account and then click on "Uploads" at the very top of the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for super detailed explanation. It really helped. I marked 4 photos for deletion. Most of them were in wiki a few days longer than 7 days. Will see. It is OK with me if they will stay there.

cheers Marinaromanova55 (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons uploads
Hi Marinaromanova55. Please take a look at c:User talk:Marinaromanova55 because there are some issues with the files you've uploaded to Commons that you probably can help resolve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to this issue. I will work on it. Marinaromanova55 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Marinaromanova55. You don't need to start a new discussion thread if you're really only just replying to someone else's post. You add and probably should just add your reply below theirs as explained in and WP:TPG and WP:INDENT. This will keep everything together and make it easier for others to follow what's being discussed; it also helps when it comes to archiving. This is not such a big deal here on your user talk page, but it can be really helpful when it comes to posting comments on article talk pages or other noticeboards where there may be lots of people involved in a discussion or multiple discussions ongoing at the same time.In addition, please take a look at WP:LOGOUT and just it case you forgot to log in and posted some comments on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hi again Marinaromanova55. While I think you might've ended up at Wikipedia because of your desire to try and improve content about Lovelace, it seems like Wikipedia would greatly benefit if you and Lovelace decided to stick around and help improve other articles. There are groups of editors who belong to WikiProjects where they can discuss ways to improve articles about interests they share and I believe that both Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy would be happy to have either of you as members. There's a bit of a learning curve when it comes to editing, particularly when you're an academic as explained in WP:EXPERT, and things might be confusing at first; however, it doesn't take too much time to get the hang of things and you shouldn't run into too many problems as long as you always be try to be WP:HERE. Of course, if either of you have other interests, then there are WikiProjects for all kinds to subjects and you don't even need to belong to a WikiProject if you don't want to. Moreover, you don't even need to be a perfect writer or have expert knowledge and mistakes are OK as long as you here for the right reasons and make them in good faith. For sure, Wikipedia editing at times can a bit frustrating since you end up collaborating with all kinds of people, but some people still get enjoyment out of simply looking for spelling mistakes or typos to correct; there are over six million articles and there are lots of ways to WP:CONTRIBUTE that don't involve creating new articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Marchjuly, I may join one of these groups. I will ask Prof. Lovelace, whether he is interested. I already see different errors and wrong accents in Astronomy papers. Hopefully, this will not take much time, because I am behind in my own work. I am spending much more time than planned for this wiki page of Lovelace, because I am slow in reading and understanding wiki pages and rules.

Thank you for placing his picture ! This is in important step forward. Now, I need to add many more references of other people, because this is the preference of wiki, and I will do it.

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

COI editing at Eldridge Lovelace
Hey, Marina, is it correct that you also have a conflict of interest w/re: this article? You'll need to declare and stop directly editing there, too. —valereee (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Valereee. Congratulations with your day - 20 Years of Wikipedia !
 * Thank you very much for your edit. I am not doing any changes directly!!! Someone else did many changes. What bothers me is that someone asked to add a reference to almost every phrase.  I need to ask to do many more corrections.  Should I ask to do a small change at a time, or should I combine a bunch of corrections?
 * Should I significantly shrink the paper about Lovelace? Otherwise, we will never finish it. Also, as a scientist (I published >200 papers, gave some 40 invited talks at International meetings) I should tell Wikipedia, that publication in science journals (Nature, Science, few others) IS a reliable source and should be considered as such (it is checked by professional referees, editors and astronomy community), while random references of other people to these papers (usually 1-2 string description) is much less reliable and often not precise or completely wrong. Anyway, I will continue providing these additional references to other people, suggesting that this is what wiki likes.
 * Or, should we keep a long wiki page? What do you think? Lovelace did lots of pioneering work in several areas of physics and astrophysics. :That is why the Lovelace wiki page is long. But I can recommend to shrink it if you think it is more of the wiki style.
 * I tried to announce myself as COI in the correspondent place but was lost. Will try again.
 * Marinaromanova55 (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Valereee. Sorry, I did not notice that you mean Eldridge Lovelace. I added one misc. reference. May be about his obituary, because it went to the page of Lovelace. I thought it improved it a bit. I am NOT major contributor to this web page. I do not know who is. You do not need to put this ugly sign to the page of this respectable person. There are no people who will deal with this sign.
 * Marinaromanova55 (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, Marina! I was the person who added the citation needed and better citation needed tags at RVE Lovelace. Yes, it can take a while to get an article to where it needs to be. We have no deadlines here, per WP:NODEADLINES. We just keep plugging away. The most effective way is to open a new section for each tag as we deal with it.
 * You weren't the major contributor that concerned me at Eldridge, that was user RVELovelace. I just had noticed you'd edited it, too, and if you have a COI, you should disclose.
 * When you respond to a post at a talk, insert one more colon than the post you're responding to. That adds a level of indent, which is is how we keep track of who is responding to whom in conversations.
 * Re: what constitutes a reliable source. Even though academic publishing is peer-reviewed, we still don't use an academic's own papers for proof they 'discovered' or 'proposed' something. Some other academic or other reliable source has to say it. Wikipedia can be very difficult for academics to understand. What we do is completely opposite to what you do. We do no original research. We focus on secondary sources. We never synthesize from two ideas into one. We report what other reliable sources report. It actually doesn't matter what Lovelace says he's done. What matters is what other people say he's done. Ideally we wouldn't use Lovelace himself for anything but very minor clarification of noncontroversial assertions. There is explanation at Reliable sources.
 * Re: length. An article should be as long as it needs to be to effectively explain the subject. There is no ideal length. We should include what is important to know to understand Lovelace's contributions to astrophysics and plasma physics, and to adequately cover his biographical details as covered in other reliable sources.
 * Thanks, re: the anniversary! I wasn't yet editing 20 years ago, but I have been editing for nearly fifteen! —valereee (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Valerie. Thank you very much for your answers and corrections. Your experience is very valuable. Looking back, I see that the paper about Lovelace is looking better and better. The picture looks better too. I am getting some more experience, gradually. I understood the main principles about the neutrality. I have small corrections and also need to change the order of his achievements. Some are not logical. I am thinking to combine his major work in astrophysics, then in plasma physics. It could be long to describe changes in the Lovelace request-for-editing section of page. Should I create my new version somewhere else? Like in the Sandbox? I also can add neutral references to his work there and you will check. What do you think? Or, should I explain one thing at a time, as I did before?
 * In respect of Eldridge Lovelace. Richard had a brain injury in 2015 and stopped creative science work. He is also not good with the computer now. I think, he cannot do much in respect of this paper and cannot work on his COI. I can try to look at this paper after Lovelace's paper if there are serious issues. If the paper is reasonable, then I would recommend removing the ugly sign, because I am not sure that someone else will work on his paper. He was a respectable person, placing rodes all across America and planning parks in different cities.
 * Marinaromanova55 (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Marina, I'm so sorry to hear about Richard's brain injury. As long as you don't edit there, I'm happy to remove the COI tag. You can create a new version in your sandbox if you like, there's a link at the top of every page to that personal draft space. Or we can do it edit by edit at the talk; for many volunteers that is easier because it's less daunting to check one source and make one change at a time rather than to have to check multiple sources. I know it might seem like doing it all at once will be faster, but it's actually quite possible it'll be faster to do it edit by edit because of this. I know that for me, someone not familiar with astrophysics or plasma physics, the idea that I'd need to read and understand long papers would be...well, I've got many other editing tasks that interest me more and that I'm more competent at. :) If you tell me, "Academic X said Y on page Z of this paper so please change blah blah blah to blah blah blahx to reflect that" I'm likely to want to help. If you tell me, "Here are eight 60-page papers to read that in toto prove X, please rewrite paragraph y to reflect that," I'm likely to think there has to be someone more qualified to make that edit. Which then means tht until that someone more qualified comes along and gets interested, the edits don't get made. —valereee (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Valereee. 15 years of volunteer work is impressive. You and other volunteers are heroes. I am stressed from editing one paper, on Lovelace. I've been thinking myself, that creating a version in the Sandbox is a bad idea. I see possible mistakes in the current text, in particular in parts relevant to plasma physics, in which I did not work myself. So, I need to check sentence after sentence, and will send you modified versions. After that, I will discuss changes in the structure of the paper, also gradually. In respect of Eldridge Lovelace, I promise not to modify this paper, ever. Thanks again! Marina
 * Marinaromanova55 (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, Marina! There's no hurry; unless there's actual libel on the page, we don't treat a page that needs correction as an emergency. We're all volunteers. Our goal is to eventually get there. Take your time, and feel free to ping me at the article talk, which you do by typing in (that is, two open curly brackets, the letter u, vertical slash, Valereee, two close curlies.) That notifies me that you've asked for my attention at a particular page. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Valereee. I am wondering whether I placed the ping correctly. Also, I am wondering, may be you did not like my new changes? Do you want me to write more brief version? I though it is a good idea to say a few words about scientists who pointed to possible pulsars in Crab Nebula. It is a part of the discovery story of the Crab Pulsar. It is OK if you are busy with other things. However, if you are not sure in my changes, then I am ready to discuss. Thank you! Marina Marinaromanova55 (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Marina, no, I don't think I've gotten a ping recently. It's curly curly u | Valereee curly curly, and it has to be signed with four tildes in the same edit. It looks like this when you type it into source code: but when you publish, it looks like this: . If you publish and you can see the curlies, you did it wrong. You don't include the nowiki coding when you ping. That's just to make the code not create a ping but instead to show you what you should be typing. The "nowiki" is telling the system to ignore the code.
 * Are you talking about the stuff you suggested on Jan 28ish? I've answered there. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, if you think I may not have seen something, you can post to my talk page (the link is next to my name below); that automatically pings me. —valereee (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Marinaromanova55 (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, Marina! There's no hurry; unless there's actual libel on the page, we don't treat a page that needs correction as an emergency. We're all volunteers. Our goal is to eventually get there. Take your time, and feel free to ping me at the article talk, which you do by typing in (that is, two open curly brackets, the letter u, vertical slash, Valereee, two close curlies.) That notifies me that you've asked for my attention at a particular page. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Valereee. I am wondering whether I placed the ping correctly. Also, I am wondering, may be you did not like my new changes? Do you want me to write more brief version? I though it is a good idea to say a few words about scientists who pointed to possible pulsars in Crab Nebula. It is a part of the discovery story of the Crab Pulsar. It is OK if you are busy with other things. However, if you are not sure in my changes, then I am ready to discuss. Thank you! Marina Marinaromanova55 (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Marina, no, I don't think I've gotten a ping recently. It's curly curly u | Valereee curly curly, and it has to be signed with four tildes in the same edit. It looks like this when you type it into source code: but when you publish, it looks like this: . If you publish and you can see the curlies, you did it wrong. You don't include the nowiki coding when you ping. That's just to make the code not create a ping but instead to show you what you should be typing. The "nowiki" is telling the system to ignore the code.
 * Are you talking about the stuff you suggested on Jan 28ish? I've answered there. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, if you think I may not have seen something, you can post to my talk page (the link is next to my name below); that automatically pings me. —valereee (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Dear Valereee, Thank you very much for help with editing the Lovelace wiki page. However, I have concerns in respect of my recent modifications and overall policy of wiki in respect of scientists. I realize that this discussion takes more of your time. However, I would like to create a good paper about Lovelace, which reflects the reality. Briefly, I am checking web cites of different scientists and see lots of references to their own work. In some cases, there are a few, most significant references, in other cases many more references (usually, when a scientist proposed many interesting things). In paper on Albert Einstein, there are many references to his own work. In brief. I think we should return back an important reference to the IAU telegram (which in Astronomy is the main proof of discovery) and the paper in Nature which describes the details of discovery. I removed them for now. Added some external references. However, brief external references usually do not describe the subject well enough and do not substitute the main major work. It is difficult for me to look at hundreds of pages of wiki policies. This is something for young people. However, I am confused with the result - that most of wiki pages of scientists do have references to their own work. May be the rules are not strict, but in the form of recommendation ? I agree that it does not look good when there are only references to the scientist's own work. May be, there should be a mixture of own work and external references. Overall, initially, I removed all important references from recent proposed modifications, but will add couple back today, before your morning tomorrow. Otherwise, it does not look good. Sorry for long writing. Thanks again!

Marinaromanova55 (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Marina, good job with the ping! I'm going to answer you at the article talk, as that's where discussion shoudl be. —valereee (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)