109.79.174.193

This is a copy of a message I originally send on your old IP address

Hello, I'm OrderOftheNerds. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Hello, I'm OrderOftheNerds. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

In fact I and most of the rest do not see the edits that you've removed about two weeks ago on the namers of Jovian moons problematic at all. It is just nothing more than a standard attribution typical of that we did to most of astronomical articles with regards to who discovered it, and also who named it. The names and their handles after all are already mentioned by the International Astronomical Union in their official announcement regarding the christening of names so by itself it hardly looks like a "low-effort" promotional content. If you still unsatisfied you should either bring it up at the article's talk page or approach users who are subject experts in the matter (in this case it's astronomy, example: User:Nrco0e) and sort out something that we can all agree upon. OrderOftheNerds (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As an afternote I have removed the Twitter handles from instances where their name and handle is the same, in order to address the concern while keeping the topical relevancy of the article as a whole. In natural sciences field attribution is a must when doing research, be it PHD, Bachelors or whatever. Failure to do that would automatically earn the suspicion of dishonest practice or even straight-up plagiarism. This thinking extends to Wikipedia in relation to many broad and niche articles of its type and don't be surprised that it will one day be plastered with this template per WP:WEASEL if you let your edit stand. Cheers! OrderOftheNerds (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a dynamic IP.

If you're going to tell someone about an edit that was a problem it helps to show the diff of that edit.

I think you have me confused with someone else. -- 109.79.174.193 (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The above message [from OrderOftheNerds] seems to have been intended for Special:Contributions/109.79.122.185.

It still does seem weird that OrderOftheNerds is reverting to add Twitter back into articles. That seems like something that would be better discussed/explained/warned on the article talk rather than on user pages. -- 109.79.174.193 (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

OrderOftheNerds made a comment and then deleted it.[1] Again please direct your discussion to the relevant article talk pages instead.

My opinions are my own. Same as anyone else can do I checked the diffs, I looked at the edit summaries in the article history. The choice to include Twitter handles is an odd and unnecessary detail, it doesn't even seem necessary to mention the names of the competition winners in any form.

The public naming contest is a publicity stunt and barely notable to begin with. It isn't like they were ever going to called it Moony McMoonface, the name was always going to have to fit within the existing naming conventions and there was only a limited number of names that ever had a chance of being used. It's fun for the kids but I don't think the names of the competition winners are notable or encyclopedic either, and I don't understand why OrderOftheNerds wants to include them in the article.

And I say again I'm not even the same person that OrderOftheNerds is edit warring with!!! -- 109.79.174.193 (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I know right now that you're not the one I'm in dispute with but IPs can be quite dynamic so who knows if tomorrow that guy ended up on this particular IP? Finally just for a second please take note that curiosity-driven fields such as astronomy have a different standards than entertainment such as movies and TV so conflating these two would be like comparing apples to oranges, or maybe even grapes. Cheers!OrderOftheNerds (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

---