Contents

User talk:Supernova58

HiSupernova58! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

" deleted "gamma-alphacentaurion." I could not find any sources in which this term was used, so I reverted it back to the default "-astron" because that is what the term was called in Proxima b's discovery paper" Celestial apsis names are derived from Greek words describing the celestial body in question. Gamma-alphacentaurion is Greekified adjectival form of "Alpha Centauri C", which is the systematic name of Proxima Centauri. Not an arbitrary name. Uncommon but actually systematically correct name. Erkin Alp Güney 19:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Erkin Alp, I understand that some apsis names are derived from Greek (e.g. perihelion, perigee, etc.) However, when it comes to stars, "periastron/apoastron" is the conventional term in all cases unfortunately (naming conventions are boring, I know). While gamma-alphacentaurion may be a linguistically correct name for this situation, I cannot find it used in the scientific literature and so I don't believe we should include it in Proxima Centauri b until we can get a good citation for it per WP:ORIGINAL. Please inform me if I have missed any sources that use this term! (I'm sorry I didn't make it clear in my edit summary that my deletion was due to lack of citation — my bad!) Supernova58 (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not close move discussions until you have more experience with Wikipedia.
In this RM you closed, Talk:List_of_angels_in_theology#Requested_move_17_July_2020 you said that the majority of participants oppose the move. Consensus is not about the number of participants that oppose the move, it's about the strength of the arguments.
In this RM, Talk:Christian_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_29_June_2020, it seems like you based your closing on just one editor's argument.
I request that you reconsider your closes and let an admin or experienced editor make the decision on closing the discussion. Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed these discussions at move review. Link: Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2020_July#Christian_IX_of_Denmark. Interstellarity (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond—I have now commented on the move review. Supernova58 (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of a personal error in judgement. I acted wrongly here by initially ignoring Interstellarity's request. (This was my first time really engaging in a "forum"-type website and I was a bit socially awkward.) Although I disagreed with it, there was no reason we couldn't have had a reasonable conversation - my bad judgement made us both angry and unreasonable.

Ultimately, as it was my choice to ignore that started the escalation, I ended up apologizing to Interstellarity on their talk page. If I ever make a similar social goof, please call me out on it! No one's ever done learning from others.

"[An] error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." - Grand Admiral Thrawn

Supernova58 (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]