User talk:ThePurgatori

Talk page editing

Please review the talk page guidelines, particularly about 'fixing' errors made in other people's comments. Keep their mistakes and add a comment correcting them, if anything. Cheers Wizmut (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting multiple times

Please review the guidelines against edit warring. All relevant discussion should take place on the talk page, and should be for discovering the consensus, not enforcing a view. One of the best methods of finding the consensus between editors is the bold, revert, discuss cycle, which does not involve multiple reverts. Wizmut (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I'm sorry for edit warring, plus, I don't perform more than 3 reverts. ThePurgatori (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of Arctic and Subarctic islands

Hello, ThePurgatori. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Arctic and Subarctic islands, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of Arctic and Subarctic islands

Hello, ThePurgatori. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of Arctic and Subarctic islands".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ice planets has been nominated for renaming

Category:Ice planets has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Isoceles-sai (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited (612931) 2005 CA79, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eccentricity and TNO. 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) 19:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 15760 Albion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magnitude.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 42355 Typhon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Brown.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions to Resonant trans-Neptunian object

Hello ThePurgatori,

Thanks for your edits to Resonant trans-Neptunian object. Unfortunately, I had to revert some of them, because they contradict our source (Buie). Of your four edits, this is the only one that actually agrees with [1]. Feel free to help update the list where it is incomplete, as you've done with (612931) 2005 CA79, but please follow our reference's classification when you do. Renerpho (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePurgatori: Please stop adding objects to that list that are not in the source! You are creating a lot of work for people to clean up. Renerpho (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi ThePurgatori. Thank you for your work on (612931) 2005 CA79. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited (612931) 2005 CA79, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Photometry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001 XB255

Hello, I have fixed the issue with the sources, so they now appear as correct in-line citations, but they weren't attached to any of your key points. You might now want to grab them and allocate them to the various points you intended them to verify. Best wishes, and keep up the good work, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf planet candidates

Hi,

I noticed you've been adding Category:Possible dwarf planets to an alarmingly high number of TNO articles, even those like 88611 Teharonhiawako which have diameters below 300 km, which is smaller than the smallest round moon Mimas (400 km). From what I see with your edits, you either don't give a source for the "possible dwarf planet" category or you cite only Mike Brown's list of dwarf planets, which hasn't been updated for almost 2 years. Making claims without a source is obviously problematic on Wikipedia, so I don't need to explain that. But for your Mike Brown citations, I also have an issue with that because his website is outdated (look at the 2002 MS₄ diameter!) and is informal. Brown's website is self-published, not peer-reviewed, and does not provide detailed explanations that back up his claims of dwarf planet likelihood for each object. For these reasons (see Wikipedia:Self-published sources), I consider Mike Brown's list of dwarf planets unreliable. Not only that, Brown is the only person who makes these claims about "possible dwarf planets". Just because he is a discoverer of dwarf planets doesn't mean everything he says is necessarily true or reliable. In scientific papers, no other researchers are calling TNOs like 420356 Praamzius or 1996 TO66 dwarf planet candidates today, because they either: 1) too small or 2) too poorly known to say anything about them. If many people don't call a TNO a dwarf planet candidate, then you shouldn't too. Putting things like "p-DP" (possible dwarf planet) in a TNO's infobox, adding the category Category:Possible dwarf planets, or outright calling a TNO a possible dwarf planet in the lede sentence (take a look at 2015 RX245) is essentially prioritizing Mike Brown's opinion over everybody else's, which is considered giving him undue weight.

A lot of TNOs that have been discovered so far are over 200 km in diameter because this is the smallest size of TNO we can find with modern survey telescopes. If you continue your way of classifying dwarf planets, you're pretty much going call almost every TNO a dwarf planet, which is absurd. For the reasons I've explained above, I urge you to please stop indiscriminately categorizing every TNO as possible dwarf planets, and I suggest you also revert your edits to these TNO articles as well. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePurgatori: Why are you still editing TNO articles after I asked you to stop? Please, I need you to talk so we can come to an agreement and get this situation sorted out. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePurgatori: I appreciate you listened to my request to remove those unreferenced dwarf planet claims, but next time please respond to other people's messages on your talk page, and ask other editors on WP:WikiProject Astronomy or WP:WikiProject Astronomical objects before you make any big changes. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative place, so if you don't talk to other people at all, it will make things very difficult for everyone. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePurgatori: I am inviting you to a discussion about the reliability of Mike Brown's list and the "possible dwarf planet" category in Talk:List of possible dwarf planets. I'd appreciate it if you could comment on there to explain why you did these edits, what you think about Brown's list, and what TNO article should get the "possible dwarf planet" category or not. Thank you. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 07:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And this one too. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Category:Possible dwarf planets & Template:Dwarf planets. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 08:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Resonant trans-Neptunian object, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ark Hyena (it/its) 19:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take part in the discussion. Otherwise people may take decisions about you without your input. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ThePurgatori, please come to discuss your editing on ANI. You could very well receive a sanction here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:ThePurgatori. Renerpho (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: The AN/I thread has been archived, so I cannot reply there. I just had to remove the same kind of WP:OR from Resonant trans-Neptunian object that ThePurgatori had added previously.[2][3] We have tried to explain a dozen times that objects like (84522) 2002 TC302 are below the size threshold agreed upon by Wikipedia users to refer to them as dwarf planet candidates; even our very long list List of possible dwarf planets doesn't mention it. But they just won't listen! Renerpho (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Renerpho: Start a new ANI thread please. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice (#2)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Renerpho (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for repeatedly making erroneous edits..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make edit requests on articles' talk pages. Establish a track record of accurate edit requests, and this block can be reconsidered. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]