User talk:Skepticalgiraffe

New page
Here is my new user page. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Scaled Composites Tier One with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU ( ✉ ) 21:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * as noted, and discussed on the talk page, no material was deleted; the content was moved to the SpaceShipOne article, where it was a better fit. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits
I've explained why I reverted most of your edits. They do not get to stay pending discussion; see WP:BRD. There were a lot of issues with your edits. The fact you think it is okay to reference TV Tropes is a bit shocking and concerning. I think it is a decent idea to explore genres in which the trope appears, but everything has to be sourced. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea here is to write a good encyclopedia article, not to revert edits from other editors because you own the article.Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to White savior narrative in film. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * A topic sentence is not original research. A sentence saying "sources disagree" which is followed immediately by citations of sources disagreeing is not original research.  Apparently a lot of Wikipedians have been criticizing you as posting original research; that should not be your excuse to label every sentence on an article "OR" except the ones you wrote. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black holes in fiction, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Collapsar and John Varley. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited On (Japanese prosody), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macron ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/On_%28Japanese_prosody%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/On_%28Japanese_prosody%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to the Orbital Ring
Great changes to the Orbital Ring page. I had to revert the replacement of the Russian reference because this is to an unreliable self-published promotion site published by Yunitskiy himself. We have to be able to find this information in a secondary source. If his theories have any validity, someone other than Yunitskiy himself must have published information about it somewhere. I welcome you to update this article on Yunitskiy's theories from a verified publication but not from Yunitskiy's personal website. –Zachar (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed it back to how it was after you made your improvement to the reference. I can see in retrospect that it's better to try to improve someone else's edits rather than reverse them. In the meantime I'll try to find another verified source which contains a valid reference to Yunitskiy's space theories and I appreciate the effort you made to provide more information on this topic.

-Zachar (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't find these facts you included in the article from a non self-published source. I've placed, however, a warning on the article about self-referencing and a topic on the talk page. Hopefully someone will be successful in backing up the facts you've posted with reliable references as the link to Yunitskiy's personal website is unreliable and will be removed.
 * Not sure if I care much one way or another; the guy is pretty clearly a bit of a nutter, but then, pretty much everybody proposing orbital rings is going to be at least somewhat crazy. The reference was intended to show what he proposed, and I can't think of a reference that is more reliable as to what he proposed than linking to what he proposed. The previously-used citation was pretty much useless.
 * However, looking back over the article's history page, I see that an earlier editor had actually found a scan of the 1962 reference on his website: Техника-молодежи» 1982 № 6, с. 34–36 – "Technical Youth" 1982 – To the space by wheel. Why did you delete this one?  I found a site with an archive of the magazine, and replaced the current reference with this one. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Raymond Gosling
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/gb-2013-14-4-402, which is not released under a compatible license. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Less than one sentence, but, yes, I suppose it can be rewritten.... except, your method of reverting the changes erased the edits in a way that makes it impossible to do that rewrite. The long edits I made are no longer available.
 * Your erasure also erased the changes that did not include copyrighted material, and those erasures are not recoverable either.
 * What the heck is it you expect me to do? Am I supposed to copy of every edit I ever make onto my hard drive to protect against the case that some editor removes the changes in a way that's not recoverable? Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.
Hello, Skepticalgiraffe! I'm not sure I agree with your edits to the page on the good doctor. For example, could you explain why you believe his marriage should be taken out of the chronological narrative? Or why, as another example, the article should be segregated into aspects of his life rather than in context? As you know, the article had already achieved featured article status before these rather significant formatting changes. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Because it reads better and flows more logically with different aspects of his life in separate sections. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree substantially. I will bring this to the article's talk page for further discussion. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah
Complex information about how to calculate the day of Rosh Hashanah is better suited for the article about the Jewish calendar. Plus, the article will not be run on the main page on 19 September with the info in the current state. If you would like to add it, please find citations -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see my proposal at Talk:Rosh_Hashanah. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo 51: restoration of my retraction
Hi! I noticed you restored some material I'd added then retracted 2 days later. I'm glad you thought it worth restoring. I thought Gosling's account was hugely significant. This is just a little note explaining why I deleted it: I found an earlier short account he gave in the 2003 Nova program, The Secret of Photo 51 which is quite different: "I cannot remember how he came by this beautiful picture. It may have been given to him by Rosalind or it may have been me." Now I can't remember why I hadn't found this before I added the material. This should be added, of course, which I'll do at some point. Since Gosling is dead, we have no way of knowing why he gave the two different accounts. Zgystardst (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I had thought that the fact that it had been given to Watson by Wilkins was well established. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)