User talk:Xiphosura

You just added something in the notes column in a table at Parker Solar Probe. And you wondered about wrapping, so as not to extend the cell. Just to let you know, I added every single note that's in that table, other than the one you just added. And the Page Break is the way I did it. Nobody has complained. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that's how I ended up doing it as well. I don't know if it's an issue with VE in particular, but I've been hesitant to interact with tables because of how their formatting is handled, to a beginner like me, it is quite daunting to peer behind the scenes. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 09:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

OK--"Reinstating edits with no comments, reversion is unnecessary when it is possible to check what was edited. It is evidently just reference management"]--I don't really understand what that means. There is nothing here that is "evidently" clear to a simple editor like me. "When it is possible to check what is edited" moves the burden from the editor to the rest of the community, and that's not a good thing. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies Apologies in advance for errors in formatting and the like, my first time using a talk page on a mobile device and while this looks fine, I may be missing something and I will address it once I have access to a PC again.

What I find evident from the edits is that there is nothing warranting reversion, the article is visually unchanged and in editing, the references are collected together in a list as opposed to spread throughout the article itself. This formatting makes plaintext editing a lot easier to navigate.

Sure, the burden is on the community to check edits without summaries, but surely as an admin you understand the importance of reviewing edits which arouse suspicion regardless of the summary? They may be missing, or even misleading. I personally always leave edit summaries as I understand their utility, but it is understandable some users see the (optional) tag and decide not to do so. As far as I am aware, it isn't WP policy to revert edits with no summary on principle. If I am mistaken, perhaps that (optional) tag needs to be addressed? Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 01:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no, the burden isn't really on the community to "check edits without summaries"--I never said that, and I don't agree with it. I scrolled through the edit and it seemed to me as if the user was deleting sources, but what they were actually doing (although I don't understand why they didn't finish the job the first time or in the 53 other edits): they were actually changing the reference format, changing (some of the) references and moving them into a format with a list of citations in the "References" section. That's not really "management"--and changing a reference format in the first place typically requires consensus, and expecting an explanation in an edit summary is the very least one can expect. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

btw something in your recent image edit went wonky and it ended up with no image at all, so i reverted it. if you wanted a past image, try restoring a previous version maybe? idk. im not literate with images on here so i wanted to let u know so u could try again Jackjd0 (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah cheers, sloppy typo on my end. Sorted that one out. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 05:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

genuine question. whats the diff between the two images. i cannot tell and im so curious now what the difference is Jackjd0 (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The more recent image is based on the first one, but with unspecified edits in GIMP (smudged borders with the smudge tool to try and "remove artifacts" from what I can tell) and "combined" with another image, altered to the user's personal preference for image appearance. The user has a habit of taking astronomical images, altering their colour and appearance to suit their tastes, then mass-replacing them across articles without proper citation or explanation. Similar has happened to the Arrokoth image, where the original image was replaced with one which was sourced from a tweet, but is clearly neither of the images in said tweet and instead a personal edit of it (the colour is completely different, as well as crop and rotation though the latter is perfectly acceptable). A couple other editors and I are trying to communicate to them that this constitutes OR/violation of NPOV, and that source verifiability is more important than subjective quality, and in the meantime I am trying to restore the original, unaltered images where possible before this starts getting out of hand. There are several editors in particular which seem to be on a "true colour crusade", mass-replacing images they deem to be "inaccurate", based entirely on their own subjective judgement. It's a bit of a headache because I do think there is scope to improve these images, but that is just not the way to do it, and it is hard to communicate this. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 05:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

ouch thats rough. i wish you luck in the space war Jackjd0 (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

THE IMAGE I REPLACED NOW (TOUTATIS HQ) IS NOT TRUE COLOUR! I ALREADY FIXED THE PROBLEM AND YOU ARE JUST MAKING IT WORSE! - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Anonymsiy You fixed one small problem but didn't address the fundamental issue, which is that you should not just randomly replace properly sourced images with personal edits you have made to unknown standards without any consensus nor citation. Please stop ignoring the multiple attempts we have all made to engage with you regarding this issue, I would like this to remain productive. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 08:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)