User talk:Cometwatch

Editing Puckett Observatory

Hello, I noticed that you've been editing this particular article with a great deal of skill and knowledge for a first time editor. So I thought to give you some links which might help you stay out of trouble with the Wikipedia admin if you just happen to be affiliated with the observatory. Your edits look fine to me, but I'm not one to quibble. The reason for posting this note is just because the administration has allegedly even chastised Jimbo Wales for allegedly posting original research and autobiographical material. Here are the links. Wikipedia:Autobiography Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Common sense. Regards and good luck.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I will read the articles and be careful how I edit this article. And yes...I am affliated with the observatory. We decided to post an article about the observatory, and discovered that someone had beat us to it! Best regards. Cometwatch (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the recent changes on Talk:Puckett Observatory. The article has been added to Wikiproject:Astronomy and assessed as a mid-importance start class article. Also, what do you think? Is calling Puckett an 'amateur astronomer', an 'astronomer' or a 'dedicated amateur astronomer' more accurate. Are there any 2nd party sources which clearly define him as #1 or #2, or is #3 the most accurate choice?

Also is Puckett notable enough for a freestanding article? Establishing personal notability requires sufficient external sources to draw from. See the recent article I threw together on Jerry Dolyn Brown to see the sort of referencing which is required. I bring this up because biographical articles are subject to special scrutiny to protect the subjects from libelous edits. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur is the most accurate word. All of Tim's work in the field of astronomy has been done as an amateur. No one pays him to hunt for supernovae. Although professional organizations (NASA, for example) or professional observatories have contacted Tim for data, no one has paid him for it. It is true that Tim has been able to use his knowledge of Astronomy to earn a living in related fields. Before he started working for Apogee, he built telescopes or was hired as a consultant to modify existing scopes. Now his work as Astronomy Sales Engineer at Apogee draws on his experience as an amateur astronomer. I think Dedicated Amateur is too descriptive. There is no doubt that he is dedicated. The links provided in the article show that.

There are 2 recent articles that continue to refer to Tim as an amateur. See the San Francisco Chronicle article from Nov 9. Also the October issue of Sky and Telescope has an article called "Become a Super Amateur." I don't think that article is available online right now. Part of that article is devoted to Tim's work as an amateur.Cometwatch (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's good enough for me. Being an amateur myself I tend to agree with User:RJHall's post on Talk:Puckett Observatory that the term isn't pejorative.Trilobitealive (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy issues

I noticed you edited Puckett Observatory and mentioned a privacy/security complaint. If you have serious worry about that I'd recommend you contact an administrator and ask if they could blank versions of the page which contain the problem information. I'll look around and see if I can find an admin who could do it. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I know where to go to start to make the request. They have procedures listed on separate pages. It would be Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Here is one other possible place to go for help if that doesn't work Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Hope this helps. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests seems to be the page which tells the most info about how to contact them to get it done. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-notable people

Greetings.

You've added a long list of non-notable people to Puckett_Observatory#World_Supernova_Search. It should not be there. Wikipedia is not your organisation's web site; it's an encyclopaedia and its readers expect encyclopaedic content. If you reread your list in that light it should be obvious why it is inappropriate.

As you seem to be new here... please be aware that it's best not to revert a revert without first starting a discussion. Otherwise, one is well on the way to an Edit war.

-Arb. (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I don't think amateurs such as Jack Newton, Caroline Moore, or Gionvanni Sosetero are "non-notable." All the members of the team, whether they are notable or "non-notable" to others, have discovered supernovas, and should be included in the article. They are recognized by the IAU as making contributions to astronomy. This is an online encyclopedia, and articles should contain as much accurate and complete information as possible.

Cometwatch (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Cometwatch[reply]

I was asked to look at this by Arb, and I made a comment there. As an administrator, though I have no special authority over ordinary content, it is one of my responsibilities to keep clearly improper material out of the encyclopedia. It is not true that "articles should contain as much accurate and complete information as possible." It is rather true that we do not include directory information, and that is one of our basic principles.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. And keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, which are usually more expansive. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not part of the dispute part of this discussion, but I do want to give you information which can help you with the article. And I'm not an admin, just someone who enjoys following the development of this article.

Perhaps these two guideline pages would help clarify what is meant by 'notable' in Wikipedia:

A general rule of thumb is that edits can be subject to reversion unless there are sufficient references cited from reliable second party sources to establish encyclopedic content. So this list could be reposted without squabble if you can cite a source for their notability.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies for any biographical material about living people.

In a nutshell, material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.Trilobitealive (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]