AstroLynx

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Solar eclipses in fiction. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading Image:C d andriesse.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you be so kind as to direct me to the WP rule stating that honorifics are not to be used, please? Anarchangel (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

See Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) 4.2 AstroLynx (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your input on saving the article, and for all your other astronomical contributions over time. The article was kept. Kindest regards. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I remember you were involved in a Hijri conversion related discussion here at Talk:Al. I have opened a related discussion here at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), you are welcome to contribute to it.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Robert, Can I direct your attention to the Talk page of the entry on Pyxis. The old canard about Pyxis being part of Argo has come up again. You might wish to comment. Skeptic2 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Skeptic, I found the discussion under Talk:Puppis and have responded to it - shouldn't this be moved to Talk:Pyxis? AstroLynx (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You recently edited the article on the Battle of Karbala. The old URL works - the page it produces seems identical to that produced by the new URL. So why the change of URL?--Toddy1 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The old URL indeed still works but in the near future it will die. In their infinite wisdom, the ICT people at my university have decided that all old URL's must be replaced by new URL's adhering to a particular format (it wasn't my idea). AstroLynx (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The article on the Battle of Karbala is one that I managed to stop people edit warring over, so I tend to question changes that I do not understand.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Howdy,

Thanks for keeping that article as junk free as possible! I just wanted to bring your attention to a message I left here as I figure you may have more to say about it than me - obviously if that's deleted or something by then then don't spam him/her, but it may be of interest   Cheers, Egg Centric 19:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I see that the page is now semi-protected. Hopefully, that will help. AstroLynx (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In Johan Maurits Mohr, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Batavia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 10:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vgent, you are right. There is now a date conflict. But is the conventional method of converting Islamic dates to Western dates really erroneous? Anyway, I do not have the references in my possession that point the date to be June/July 622, hence, am unable to cite them. If you have these references, you can do this, or suggest me what I can do now. Thanks.--AsceticRosé 04:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi AsceticRose, the conventional method (either using printed tables or online calendar software) for converting Islamic dates to Western dates is fine for dates after 10 AH (632 CE) but not for earlier dates as the Arabian calendar, as observed in Mecca and Medina during Muhammad's life, was kept in step with the seasons by occasionally inserting an intercalary month (as still is done in the Jewish calendar). All available conversion tables (and calendar software) neglect this fact. The June date was derived by Fazlur Rehman Shaikh (Chronology of Prophetic Events, 2001) by correcting for the omitted intercalary months (probably three). Earlier reseachers on this topic also derived similar dates. I have Fazlur Rehman Shaikh's book somewhere and I can give you the page references by tomorrow. AstroLynx (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm still waiting for your reference! --AsceticRosé 15:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi AsceticRose, as you had already 'fixed' the date conflict, I thought that it was no longer necessary. The revised date for the hijra is discussed in Fazlur Rehman Shaikh (Chronology of Prophetic Events, London, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 2001), pp. 51-52, where he concludes that the Prophet Muhammad left Mecca on 21 June (622 CE), arrived in Quba on June 28 and entered Medina on 2 July. AstroLynx (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your cooperation. --AsceticRosé 16:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

When-is.com is not WP:RS. Also, the Ramadan lasts for one month, not 1-2 days. Hence reverted back to my version. Please don't revert back. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I regarded your edit as unhelpful as it now links not to an Islamic calendar site but to a Hindu calendar site. I am aware that Islamic and Hindu calendars are both lunar calendars but they are computed/determined differently. I suggest that you revert your edit or substitute a better link to an Islamic calendar site. AstroLynx (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You are free to provide a better link to any Islamic calendar if you wish to. But not to some chat forum. Btw, this calendar is, irrespective of which religion it focuses on, still a better one at being a calender. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Let's first see what happens on the Talk page. If nobody suggests better links I will suggest some later this week. AstroLynx (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Connaissance des Temps may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• DEFAULTSORT:Connaissance Des Temps}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rob,

Thank you for your edit at Fixed Stars. I didn't realise the excellent UU site was already linked,

I would like to nominate the Google Art Project image of the manuscript as a Wikipedia Featured Picture at WP:FPC, but feel I need more information about the image. I can get a description of the manuscript from the UU site, but my problem is I can't read Arabic and I don't know which constellation is being described. Can you help me there at all? Grateful if you can.

Regards,

Marinka

Marinka van Dam (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC) (Dutch descent but not bilingual, though I can read Dutch easily if you would prefer to reply in Dutch)Reply

Hi Marinka,

The left-side page depicts Corona Borealis (The Northern Crown), the right-side page gives the star list for the preceeding constellation Boötes (The Herdsman).

Thanks so much, Rob. I'll nominate it later this evening or tomorrow morning. Really grateful. I don't think I could have nominated the file without that info.

Marinka van Dam (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Sometimes it might seem like a thankless job, but you've definitely earned some. Kudos! Chrislamic.State (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Chrislamic.State. It is nice to know when one's work is appreciated. AstroLynx (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Voltaire was not a Christian. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's new to me. AstroLynx (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Judging by this edit you seem to have some source for this information. Would you please cite the source in the article? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vgent/Astrolynx I've been getting a bit confused on the islamic calendar page with your signature and username being so different. Would you consider changing your signature to include "Vgent" or requesting a username change to include some form of "Astrolynx"? SPACKlick (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, actually I would like to change my username to Astrolynx (the same as my signature) but I have not figured out how best to do this. Can you suggest which steps I should make? Thanks. AstroLynx (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Changing username. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. AstroLynx (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well now you've drawn attention to who you really are, and from the links you keep adding to articles people will now guess (a) who you are and (b) which university you are tenured at. Also, your previous signature [[User:Vgent|Astrolynx]] will remain on the public record forever.87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have no problem with that - you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who I am (you probably knew already). AstroLynx (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Isn't it Wikipedia policy to place movable dates and non-Gregorian observances into Gregorian calendar categories? And what do you mean that Ramadan can fall within all months of the year? Asarelah (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

See my response at Talk:Eid_al-Fitr. AstroLynx (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am relatively new here and I was happy to know you have read Shamsi and Fazlur on the Chronology of the Sirah. Would like to know your opinions on the assumptions used by both. Did either one impress you more and if so for what reason? Please do get back. Best regards. Bulgarios (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you for your interest in early Islamic chronology. There is little difference in how both authors approached the subject. Both are well read in the large volume of traditions concerning the life of the prophet Muhammad and both are also familiar with the (Western) scholarly literature as well. The only difference is in the assumption of how the calendar was regulated during Muhammad's lifetime: without intercalation (Shamsi) or with intercalation (Fazlur Rehman). AstroLynx (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

		The Original Barnstar
		In the recognition of the good work you have carried out for long on this encyclopedia. I appreciate your long stay with Wikipedia. -AsceticRosé 05:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. AstroLynx (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

the other user who undo my changes make mistake. kindly do not make it complicated,. Simpleabd (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, changes of such a nature should first be discussed on the Talk page - you must provide relevant sources. Remember that WP is not a soapbox on which Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. can claim that their religion is the best. AstroLynx (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

you almost make me complicated by making bad reason. kindly respect the contribution of others. or make a good reason why it needs to be removed. Simpleabd (talk) 09:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Some of your edits appear to be unnecessary and you remove good sources without giving a proper reason. Changes to sensitive pages such as Muhammad should always be discussed first on the Talk page. Also keep WP:3RR in mind if you do not want to risk losing your editing privileges. AstroLynx (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

i add source. why still undo? it is common sense we dont own this website and we are just contributors. we cant say who is right but in source and true good detail can. Simpleabd (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Exactly, nobody owns this website - that applies to me but also to you. Your edits have now been reverted by three different editors and from that you should have learned by now that your editing behaviour does not comply with WP policy. Please remember that this is English WP and not Islamic WP. Also keep WP:3RR in mind if you do not want to risk losing your editing privileges. AstroLynx (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

no offense but i am improving the article. I knew this website but you might be guilty? Simpleabd (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Discussion here is rather pointless, you should do this on the relevant Talk page(s) and first get consensus before you make major changes to sensitive pages. AstroLynx (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi AstroLynx. Do you in fact disagree with my edit? If so, could you say why? I don't think saying that others might disagree is enough to revert a change. Thanks Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with your edit because you propose to make a major change to Islamic calendar without prior discussion on the Talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

fuck off you son of a bitch.--91.233.116.79 (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

you seem to be pissed off – care to elaborate? AstroLynx (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Blocked. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_campaign_by_IP_hopper_in_United_Arab_Emirates.2C_ongoing --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. AstroLynx (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Newcomb's Tables of the Sun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello!, i have a simple question, just answer at my talk page. What is the reason of my reference deletation? even in good faith. "MM.B.SA" (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Because your edits appear to be unnecessary - are you planning to add similar refs to all 88 constellations? - and because the English and formatting was rather sloppy. As example, I cite your proposed change to Apus: "( p - 103, The young astronomer,s hand book, bu Ian Ridpath, {1981})". In this short sentence I count at least six English or formatting errors. AstroLynx (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Please stop constantly re-adding copy-vio material, which was previously reverted by the moderator NeilN. Regards, 17:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)Reply

Hi! Nice work reverting the edits by (now blocked) IP user 151.225.17.59 on Gregorian calendar. A prolific sockpuppeteer, Vote (X) for Change is an ongoing pain in the tookus, but at least I have something to occupy my time through the week when London libraries are open. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  13:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

If a Dr. of the Astronomy Department at Berkeley University California reviews my Lion constellation image that I linked to. And says regarding the image: "[...] [This] lion looks much more interesting than the versions of Leo that are usually drawn." And finds no objection. Then we have to see that he probably knows H.A. Rey's lion. so he calls mine more intersting. Which makes my lion image well worth being shown on wikipedia. A Dr. of astronomy my friend finds no problem about my image. And still you keep deleting it. I would say somewhere a border is breached here. so put my image back in. Or at least refrain from deleting it Mr. next complaint will go to some admin on Wikipedia. and I guess he or she will understand that if a Dr. of astronomy says it is good knowledge and science then Mr. Astrolynks does not have to delete it. and I bet my friend that this is not the first complaint about you. so leave my image in. putting astro in your name does not give you more knowlege about astronomy then the doctors for Astronomey at Berkeley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:4BCD:185E:9042:C3B4:8F13:8BB2 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sir, I am World and History, your this revert might be right. I can always say I was wrong, but consider that I only added what Muslims attribute it to. It wasn't a statement or a claim. I tried to be as neutral as I could. You also seems to have rejected my sources. Please reconsider reverting if you will as I don't think that was a pseudo-scientific claim, it was rather an sourced opinion, just like other religious beliefs for example Persian beliefs has been mentioned. Thank you in advance. Regards - Worldandhistory (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not a repository for unscientific claims. The source which you cited is not a reliable source. If you disagree, start a discussion on the Talk page and present your arguments why it should be included. AstroLynx (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi AstroLynx, what do you think of this edit done by 188.220.247.11 on 17 July 2016 on Hegira article? This edit very awkwardly changed the dates we agreed in our discussion. This user advocates for Humidullah's dates. There was a banned used named 'vote x for change', I remember. Does this edit resemble his preferred version? If so, this 188.220.247.11 must be a sock of that banned user.

Waiting for your response... -AsceticRosé 15:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this has all the foot print signs of 'Vote X for Change'. The IP address geo-locates to the London area, as his/her numerous socks nearly always do, and he/she has in the past often vandalized the talk pages of Jimbo Wales. AstroLynx (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. I will try to fix it. -AsceticRosé 17:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I started a discussion under qibla so you can express your objections. However, you have no right to expect from me that I will first start a discussion before making an edit. Be Bold. Leocomix (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

When adding controversial claims it is customary and also polite behavior to first start a discussion on the Talk page and make the edit after consensus has been reached. AstroLynx (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on the mawlid article. Somebody keeps adding there POV changes to the article. I have reverted them again. How can we protect the article from further vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.213.115 (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi AstroLynx

I remember you have Fazlur Rehman Shaikh's book Chronology of Prophetic Events. Will you please provide me with some dates of prophetic events from the book, with page numbers? I need dates of battle of Badr, Battle of Uhud, Battle of the Trench, Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)'s preparation for Mecca campaign, his entry into Mecca, Battle of Hunayn, Battle of Tabouk, Farewell Pilgrimage, and death. -AsceticRosé 01:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just reminding you, as you told... -AsceticRosé 17:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Riyadh: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Could you explain why you reverted (all) of my edits to the page? Although I haven't actually read through Newton's Principia, I think I edited it to make more sense. G was a variable in the context that he didn't know its value at the time, but the equation could later be applied to astronomical objects in order to find it. Upper/lower case is stylistic, knowing that once it was found it would no longer be a variable. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The page is about Newton's constant of gravity (G). The intro which you added was on the measurement of the constant for the acceleration of gravity (g). Of course both constants are related but that is explained further on in the page(s). AstroLynx (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clarifying. I understand that there might be a better place for the history of free fall objects/pendulum measurements, but those can be seen as influential on Newton’s thinking. As for what appears in Principia, I think my wording still approaches more relevant precision than the description “attempting to estimate the absolute mass of planets” which I fail to see what has to with the capital G constant. UpdateNerd (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is wrong with you. You AstroLynx? Just now you removed my edited words in the "First Fitna" page? You know what they meant? You know what the word "Radhiallahu Anhu" meant? It means (May God be pleased with him). They were the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.! Show some respect. Bhamjee (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

See [1] why we do not add honorifics. You furthermore lied about the nature of your edits in your edit summaries as they were definitely not "neutral". AstroLynx (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Now why did you removed my earlier comment? Bhamjee (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I did not remove your comment but placed it at the bottom of the talk page where it properly belongs. If you have further questions or comments please add them at the bottom of the talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are you content with the way the current version of the article on the Conquest of Mecca deals with the date issue? I see that someone has collapsed the discussion on the talk page after an IP editor made another contribution.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

For now it should be o.k. However, may I suggest to move the section on the dates (now nearly at the top) to the end of the page as the event should take precedence, not the date(s) on which it took place. AstroLynx (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Why you removed PBUH from the Name of Holy Prophet Muhammad PBUH Aneess (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

See Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) 4.3. AstroLynx (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I simply saw a triple equals reduced to 2 on one side - and reverted that - thanks for following that up JarrahTree 10:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

wow you must be quite cool - an over ten year edit history in one talk page - and yet you have some of the most difficult areas of wikipedia to navigate - well done! JarrahTree 10:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

My first choice for the edit was Equinox, but the page is protected, so I added the information to Tropical year instead. Since you object to it being there, would you add it to my first choice article? Just delete the lead and replace it with the following:

An equinox is commonly regarded as the instant of time when the plane (extended indefinitely in all directions) of Earth's equator passes through the center of the Sun.^[1] This occurs twice each year: around 20 March and 23 September. In other words, it is the moment at which the center of the visible Sun is directly above the Equator. In the northern hemisphere, the equinox in March is called the Vernal or Spring Equinox; the September equinox is called the Autumnal or Fall Equinox. The dates are variable, dependent as they are on (1) the leap year cycle and (2) the longitude of the perihelion. Seasons may begin several days before or after the date they would have begun if the earth's orbit were circular. For spring, this would be the time when the right ascension of the mean sun (R.A.M.S.) is zero (i.e. it is crossing the equator from south to north). In 1939, for example, this happened at 10:11 AM (GMT) on 23 March.^[2]

Because the Moon (and to a lesser extent the planets) cause the motion of the Earth to vary from a perfect ellipse, the equinox is now officially defined by the Sun's more regular ecliptic longitude rather than by its declination. The instants of the equinoxes are currently defined to be when the longitude of the Sun is 0° and 180°.^[3] There are tiny (up to 1¼ arcsecond) variations in the Sun's latitude (discussed below), which means the Sun's center is rarely precisely over the equator under the official definition. The two understandings of the equinox can lead to discrepancies of up to 69 seconds.

On the day of an equinox, daytime and nighttime are of approximately equal duration all over the planet. They are not exactly equal, however, due to the angular size of the Sun, atmospheric refraction, and the rapidly changing duration of the length of day that occurs at most latitudes around the equinoxes. The word is derived from the Latin aequinoctium, from aequus (equal) and nox (genitive noctis) (night).

Thanks, and keep up the good work.:)81.139.160.225 (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but no: get a WP account so that you can also edit protected pages. AstroLynx (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Pushing outdated or irrelevant sources at "Equinox".

Thanks for trying to help with this but more help from administrators is needed. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

You undid this edit calling it vandalism. Please check up on Wikipedia:Vandalism, and you'll see that this edit, which was well explained in the edit summary, was not vandalism. Please also review Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_not_to_respond_to_vandalism. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Noted. AstroLynx (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, AstroLynx! I was about to make a similar complaint about your ESs reverting the Bulgar Calendar nonsense (not sure whether it’s a hoax, nationalist mythologizing, or a mixture, but regardless the proponent seems sincere albeit misguided). However, noticing that your more recent reverts just say “unsourced”, instead I’m here to thank you for the reduction in mordancy.—Odysseus1479 00:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Knowing you'd be interested, Ludwig Ideler used Julian days before John Herschel used them. I mentioned this in my recent rewrite of the history of Julian days. But Ideler used only two: the first day of the Nabonassar Era was an elapsed Julian day (with a typo) and the first day of the Christian Era was a current Julian day. See Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie I, pp. 102–106. Ideler also used sequential days in other eras, as did many Middle Eastern scholars like al-Biruni. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Joe. Yes, I am aware of the fact that sequential day numbering systems were used by astronomers long before Herschel's time. You will find them in Islamic zij's (as you already mentioned) and in the Alfonsine Tables. Each of these works start with a chapter on chronology and with tables how to convert dates from one calendar system to another calendar system. AstroLynx (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

HI.. you were previously kind enough to point out the error in my "©Peter Sketchley" labeling of my essential-dignities table..

you left a comment "one cannot copyright unsourced changes to WP"

sorry, what is WP ?

I just realized I originally did that table using an ip "120.156.167.210" before creating my sign-up profile.. is this the reason you were referring?

should I sign-out then redo?

also, my wording website/webpage was wrong.. I meant wikipedia website, not just webpage. is this the reason you were referring?

I've re-asked my original problem-question again on my TALK section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Sketchley

sorry for the inconvenience.. any insight will be greatly appreciated.. Peter Sketchley (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

WP is short for Wikipedia. You appear to have made changes for which you provide no source. Please provide a reliable source when you make changes to sourced content. AstroLynx (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The TABLE you claim to be "traditional" that represents something that was accepted for centuries.

I too have read many very very old "astrology books" & I have read something to the effect stating "the ancients deliberately obfuscated their work/tables to keep their secrets secret".. and the "initiate" was expected to expand this table out to the full 12 zodiac by using "know-how" known to their members.

I have also seen these "essential-dignities" tables many times in very old "astrology books" & I have indeed seen this table with the "exaltation" Column labelled as "exaltation of"..

IF I "go-to-the-great bother" of "re-finding" this very old "astrology book" with that column labelled "exaltation of"; then will you accept this as evidence?

OR will you state that the "MAJORITY" states this "exaltation" error, therefore this error is the truth by majority rule?

AS FOR the "ACCURACY" of the current "essential-dignities" tables supported here on wikipedia..

[1st] CANCER

MOON/Cancer can NOT exalt JUPITER fall MARS. <<== this is ERROR

if MOON/Cancer exalts JUPITER/Sagittarius then Cancer MUST fall MERCURY/Gemini..

if MOON/Cancer exalts JUPITER/Pisces then Cancer MUST fall MERCURY/Virgo..

comment: this RULE is nonsense OR obfuscated. <== which one of these?

[2nd] CAPRICORN

SATURN/Capricorn can NOT exalt MARS fall JUPITER. <<== this is ERROR

if SATURN/Capricorn exalts MARS/Aries then Capricorn MUST fall VENUS/Libra..

if SATURN/Capricorn exalts MARS/Scorpio then Capricorn MUST fall VENUS/Taurus..

comment: this RULE is nonsense OR obfuscated. <== which one of these?

ALL those so-called "traditional" astrology experts whom wrote ALL those books you hold-to;

were written by idiots whom did not bother to "check-their-work" & instead propagated an obfuscation ERROR.

TODAY, our "modern-astrology" is nonsense. TRICKED by a deliberate obfuscation.

THE table I presented resolved the 12zodiac "exactly" without ERROR..

if a million people believe an ERROR; does that ERROR become TRUTH?

CONCLUSION: the "essential-dignity" table on wiki is wrong OR obfuscated. <=== which of these?

Peter Sketchley (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, WP can only refer to reliable and verifiable sources (preferably printed sources). If you can find a "corrected" table in a verifiable source (blogs don't count) then by all means add a reference. However, what you appear to be attempting is to add your own research which on WP is a big no-no. If you feel that your results are so important then get it published in an astrology magazine or in a book. Please remember that WP is not an astrology blog -- there are other websites for this. AstroLynx (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

YOU STATED: If you can find a "corrected" table in a verifiable source (blogs don't count) then by all means add a reference.

THIS is EXCELLENT.. I'm referring to an actual "very old" astrology book. The hard drive I had those books (pdf) on is crashed and requires expensive "mechanical" repair in a clean-room; that drive contains advanced design blueprints so I'd prefer to finish off an easier project then buy the repair-company as I've been warned by fellow academics they generally do an image-copy & go for a snoop-around.

I'm very pleased with your response and I will endeavor to re-find this source book-material and get back to you.

I originally came upon this book by sheer-luck, so this may take a bit..

until then....

Cheers, I appreciate your time.

Peter Sketchley (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good afternoon. I hope you are keeping well. You have edited extensively on the above subject, as may be seen from [2], [3], and [4]. In your two latest edits you revert two edits providing notable additional material on the ground that adding such material is "repeated vandalism". Can you explain why you consider that adding notable additional material to articles is vandalism? When replying, can you please explain two earlier edits you made?

• [5] reversing [6] and [7] by Senor Cuete, [8] by Timtempleton, [9] by Senor Cuete], [10] by Timtempleton and [11] by InternetArchiveBot

all reverted by you because you considered them to be "repeated vandalism"

• [12], an addition sourced to a proclamation by the Archbishop of Athens which you reversed because you considered it to be "repeated vandalism".

Thank you for your time. 77.101.226.208 (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, London-based calendar vandal. I fear that you are mistaking me for someone else as most of the reverts to which you refer were not made by me (as you perfectly well know). AstroLynx (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

So who do you say actually made edit linked [5] and edit linked [12], both of which have "AstroLynx" at the top and are logged in your contribution record? 77.101.226.208 (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Those edits were indeed mine, the others were not -- but you already knew that. As usual, your edits are only made to vandalize articles -- and you also know that very well. If you have problems with my edits you can always open a discusion on WP:ANI. AstroLynx (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I never suggested that the other edits (nos [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11]) were by you - I asked you about your edits, nos. [5] and [12], and you still haven't answered. Your answers remind me of those of Boris Johnson's foreign secretary on the television this morning who, when it was pointed out that Johnson had given an undertaking in court to write a letter to ask the EU for an article 50 extension four times failed to confirm that Johnson would write the letter. As to what to do next about your editing (it seems that WP:CIR is in play here), pinging @Tgru001: for an opinion.

77.101.226.208 (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Hi, I'm not good at this type of debate, though I am learning. I can't really give a useful opinion on the edits talked about as I haven't read them. If you want an opinion on AstroLynx's editing style I'd say it's honed by dealing with years of ill intended editors. Unfortunately intentions in type are not always well read by the receiver. Lack of experience or knowledge in the WP requirements are easily misread as bad intentions. Even if the intention isn't read as bad the same blunt stick approach is used to fix anything. They only have time to reverse edits, not time to put into considering what might be good in the edit correcting it or leave minor corrections to be fixed over time. I've gone back to pages I have edited years later and corrected obvious bad mistakes but because Astrolynx had no vested interest in those mistakes they were left, for years. We end up with the impression of Saducees and Pharasees, well intended keepers of the laws but the spirit behind the laws is lost and the peasants who don't have the resources to keep the letter of the law are sent away empty. The religous leaders at the time became wealthy out of their knowledge of the law.Tgru001 (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

77.101.226.208 is a sock puppet of the well-known London-based calendar vandal Vote (X) for Change (VXfC). He/she frequently trolls and hounds editors who in the past have reverted their poorly sourced and often misleading edits on calendar topics. This usually goes on for a few days until it is noticed by an administrator who then blocks their account. A few days/weeks/months/years later this behaviour is repeated and we do the same dance again. He/she often recycles old postings without giving proper context (in this case they refer to edits which I made on 19 December 2017 -- the account was blocked on the same day by Future Perfect at Sunrise). For some more information on their behaviour, see ANI Community ban proposal: Vote (X) for Change and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vote_(X)_for_Change and the links given there. AstroLynx (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Can you clarify what "non-standard transcription" refers to in this edit reversion?

Kind regards, – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please use one of the more commonly used sytems listed in Romanization of Arabic. Your transcription of the dhal is not mentioned here. Perhaps best is to use ḏ. AstroLynx (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Actually, it is listed there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Arabic#ref_11. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for correcting me, it is indeed there -- my mistake, I was looking at the wrong letter (dhal). However, on WP the ALA-LC transliteration system should be followed which uses ẓ. AstroLynx (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Canis major finds mention in Rigveda. For example, Rigveda 10.14.1 as "dog star" on one side of milky way. Why has this reference been removed from Wikipedia page? ga11 (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

This claim appears to be based upon your own research - the passage you refer to (RV 10.14) mentions the two dogs of Yama but nowhere are they stated to be in or near the Milky Way. You will have to provide a reliable source for your claim. AstroLynx (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

You should discuss this on the talk page of Canis Major, not on my talk page. Other editors can then also weigh in. AstroLynx (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic calendar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hijra. 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) 06:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi AstroLynx, nice to meet you! On your edit hear, can you tell me why it is a "dangerous link with misleading title"? once again nice to meet you. ~mitch~ (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

When I click on the link a yellow page with the text "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead" pops up. This signals to me that there is something wrong with the link. Did you try the link yourself? AstroLynx (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I copied the Shaikh citation from Hijri year#Definition. I don't have the knowledge to explain the difference between sources - probably it is a misreading on my part. If you have a moment could you investigate please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

There was no misreading on your part. Shaikh's citation is based on a credible hypothesis that there were three intercalary months in the calendars of Mecca and Medina between 1 AH and 10 AH. Shaikh thus places the begin of 1 AH three months earlier than the date usually cited in the literature which assumes a calendar which was never intercalated. The Islamic lunation number introduced by Mohammad Ilyas is based on a calendar without intercalation. AstroLynx (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good, thanks. I knew that the epoch of AH was 1 Muharram of that year, so I could see how it could be both April and July in the Julian calendar. Does it need a footnote or is it too obscure? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Intercalary months in the early Islamic calendar are discussed in the article on the Islamic calendar so a short footnote with a link should probably suffice. AstroLynx (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey why did you remove what i wrote.It is easy for people to know how many Muslim countries are in the world .So plzz revert it .Or I will.i dont want to create a fight with you .

To which edit (what, when & where) are you referring? And who are you? AstroLynx (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Plz add the translation with full arabic text. জাবিরটটক (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add Arabic text & translation to which article? Please be more clear if you want me to respond. Also note that this is English WP and not Arabic WP, so adding Arabic text is only done when it is deemed absolutely necessary. AstroLynx (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

..for protecting Wikipedia. See also this block. Bishonen | tålk 13:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC).Reply

Ref this deletion, you'll be next to be denounced for deleting "useful material".:-D

(I assume you have seen talk:Islamic calendar#Delete whole section "Converting Hijri to Gregorian date or vice versa".) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did see the discussion you referred to but decided not to weigh in as I was working on another WP page. You were right in deleting that "useful material" three months ago. AstroLynx (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well I was right about the dispute expanding but wrong about where – see recent edits to Islamic New Year. The IP editor displays an impressive knowledge of WP policies for someone new to the project...

BTW, I wonder if it might be appropriate to add (to the external links section) your caution about dates in the early Hijri era: do you have some boilerplate handy? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion here (cf. "Note on early-Islamic chronology") but it also includes an image of M. which some may find objectionable. Regarding the IP editor, I have my suspicions who he/she could be but until I have more evidence, I prefer to remain silent. AstroLynx (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

After the IP's latest edit on the talk page of Islamic calendar my suspicions have become stronger. AstroLynx (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

100% certain now. AstroLynx (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sunrise equation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meridian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. AstroLynx (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

[13] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

please refer to section Effects at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#Effects — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.41.165 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

its shorter not longer in as of date coords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.41.165 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thus, the tropical year, measuring the cycle of seasons (for example, the time from solstice to solstice, or equinox to equinox), is about 20 minutes shorter than the sidereal year, which is measured by the Sun's apparent position relative to the stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.41.165 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

tropical year from jan1 2022 will be jan1 2023 05:48:43 sidereal year from jan1 2022 will be jan1 2023 06:09:08 do the math shorter or longer how much replace those 20 minutes

why you deleting without checking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.41.165 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not quite sure what you are trying to prove. First you claim that the sidereal and tropical year differ by 1.224 seconds and now you agree that the difference is about 20 minutes? Please be more clear and PLEASE SIGN BY ADDING FOUR TILDES AT THE END OF YOUR MESSAGE. AstroLynx (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

First of all the Sidereal Year uses J2000 reference, which is not current frame of equatorial reference, that makes the tropical year longer vs sidereal year (counter intuitive, J2000 snapshot is used for other purposes). We rolling with axial precession March equinox to equinox backwards relative to orbital spin and due to that it makes tropical year SHORTER, at a rate 1 degree per 71.6 years. Second, I added math numbers more accurate that shows where time difference is coming from, precision is what astronomy is built upon, its not tomato gardening where round around and abouts are allowed (in reference to your "about 20 mins").

Please put it back, since it takes time to get that information, yours not sure sounds bit immature taking time it took for you to remove the editing.

THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.41.165 (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, I see what the problem is – confusion between a decimal comma and a decimal point as decimal separator. When you write 1,224 you mean 1224, which is indeed 20 min 24s. In most European countries such a number will be read as 1.224 which is a thousand times smaller, hence my belief that you made a mistake.

You can put your edit back if you want but perhaps you should convert the number of seconds to minutes and seconds as this will be less confusing.

PLEASE SIGN YOUR MESSAGES AT THE END WITH FOUR TILDES (THE 'WAVY' SYMBOL IN THE TOP-LEFT CORNER OF YOUR KEYBOARD) – HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT? AstroLynx (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi AstroLynx. I am new to this so please bear with me. This article on the date of easter is the best and most thorough I have ever read. There is just one or two things that are still unclear in my mind and i think it would add value to the article if it was covered.

1) The article states the corrections to the solar and lunar calendars are in opposition to each other such that in some century years they cancel each other. I understand that perfectly but what I am not understanding is how the initial corrections in 1582 related to each other. We all know there were 10 days dropped from the solar calendar but I don't see any initial corrections to the lunar. I am assuming that the 4 days that the moon was off from its ecclesiastical date were corrected but I haven't seen that stated anywhere- only the 8 times over 2500 years.

2) I noticed from another website that paschal full moon dates advanced 7 days for each of the 19 years of the Metonic cycle after the Gregorian reform. Why did they not advance 10 days? Was it because the initial solar and lunar corrections were in opposition to each other such that there was only a net gain of 7? It would be great to see this clarified by the writers of this awesome article! Gal2man (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I rarely edit WP pages related to the Easter computus. If you have a question or suggestions to improve these pages you should post them at the appropriate talk page(s) – other editors who frequently monitor those pages will probably be able to help you. AstroLynx (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

It has come to my attention that Taurus and Libra are the only star signs that share a planet. I thought this seemed odd so I did some digging and found that many fellow 'Taureans' agree that it seems logical to associate Taurus with Earth. I edited the page: Taurus (Astrology) in good faith that this seems a helpful conclusion and one Taurus led sites seem to largely agree on. I added a source, it was there for a while but has been reverted back. I'm sure you agree that there is no such thing as a 'reliable' source when it comes to modern astrology and I do rather like things to be logical so I hope the edit is not too arbitrary and can be reverted back?

Thanks :)

Who are you? Please sign your question with four tildes ('~') at the end.

Your edit is obviously 'original research' (OR). In WP we only use reliable sources (RS), preferably printed sources – your site doesn't appear to be a RS. AstroLynx (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Greetings AstroLynx

On the Article on Ramadan under Health Benefits, You wrote “In many cultures, it is associated with heavy food and water intake during Suhor and Iftar times, which may do more harm than good.” The entry was small and minor in (negative) impact, which is why I didn’t think you would insist on reverting it. Since you have, please allow me to explain my removal of it.

Vagueness “the many Cultures” are not defined and the word “it is associated with” is vague. I could use those two words in combination to say anything about anyone. Furthermore, the statement is not supported by the article you cited. The article, which is entitled, “Should your water intake change during Ramadan” can be summed up with a one-word answer… No. After reading and re-reading the article, it does not single out any culture nor does it point to an association of iftar or Suhor with heavy food and water intake.

Which Cultures?--hiding behind the anonymous source(s) The publisher Gulf News is a regional progressive multimedia conglomerate and is not owned or operated for the benefit or propagation of any one culture or religion. The author Jumana Khamis is a journalist who writes on a range of topics. She is neither a religious scholar, nor a “cultural” editorialist, nor does she claim to be either. The professionals quoted, Clinical Dietitian Valiant Clinic Tanya van Aswegen and Dr. Nacrin Uddin, are board certified medical professionals and as such are not giving religious or “culturally specific” advice. The articles publication coincides with Ramadan 2019, and like most seasonal pieces, it refers to the relevant season in the region which it was published. But the article could have been written for any season for any region or no season at all, because the sum and substance of the article was such that it could have been entitled, “Good Hydration Practices: a guide for those who possesses Sweat glands, Kidneys, Skin, Bladders, or other Human Organs.

“May do more harm than good” Dr. Uddin states a general medical rule of how water intake does not increase, and how fluids are expelled” she then says that “our bodies gradually adapt during Ramadan so that more water is conserved for the next days fast.” Dietician Tanya van Aswegen posits that you “might drink more soups, laban, milk and tea…”and reminds the readers to “make sure they get a sufficient amount a liquid during a shorter period in the day.” I initially thought that maybe you caught on the Arabic word Laban milk/yogurt which gave you evidence of culture. This is bolstered by the fact that the author already cited the English word for milk, making Laban a more specific cultural reference. The problem however is that not only is yogurt, milk, tea, or soup is imbibed/consumed across cultures, but there is no mention of any of these drinks/foods being consumed in “heavy intake[s]” during Iftar or Suhor, and there is no mention of this leading to deleterious health effects. To the contrary the Dietician, in fact, recommends that these beverages be used as a source of hydration as a means of staying “healthy and energized” which is the opposite of what was claimed in your wiki entry.

Dr. Uddin further goes on to say that “It is advisable not to drink large quantities of water all at once or a lot during a meal.” Dr. Uddin does not specify whether this meal is Iftar, Suhor, Seder, Lent, or Taco Tuesdays. As a physician she is giving general (not culture specific) medical advice, and nowhere is she declaring or inferring that Ramadan in specific ‘cultures’ is associated with large intake of food and water during suhor. Finally, nowhere does she quantify the harm or benefit enough to declare it ‘does more harm than good’. Fasting is a universal practice, and Ramadan is a non-culturally specific religious obligation. The medical specialists’ even quotes “this is the rule, Ramadan or not.” They are going out of her way to declare that this is general hydration advice irrespective of Ramadan, or “cultures.”

Anecdotal evidence There is no way to surmised which among the “many cultures” the Wikipedia entry is referring to by referencing the article. Finally, the entry leaves us with no verifiable way of finding how this association with overeating and suhor/iftar was made. The inclusion thus, in its current form, is anecdotal.

How anecdotal evidence can promotes bias “I once saw a Muslim overeating during Iftar.” “I also once saw a Jewish person eating a Cheeseburger on the Sabbath.” “an Italian person eating way too much spaghetti,” “and an Irishman in the hospital being treated for liver poisoning.” I guarantee that I can find ways to clean up these simplifications add seemingly relevant citations and sneak them into wikipages where they may remain undetected for some time. Whether or not ‘many cultures’ associate the stereo type with the religious/ethnic group mentioned, it does not mean that the scholarly worth now outweighs the negative impact of the inclusion.

Citations One of the primary purposes of citations is to strengthen your position. If you cite to a source which weakens, or in this case is directly opposed to, your position your citation will diminish your credibility. Even if the article was properly cited (which it wasn’t). There are three possible reasons one may insist on this inclusion: 1) The contributor mistakenly misread the article leading to a misrepresentation of its contents 2) The contributor hopes to use Wikipedia to provide insider advice to Muslims (specifically reminding them of how they should best to practice their fasting), or 3) The contributor hopes to use Wikipedia to provide insider advice to non-Muslims, or those hostile towards Islam, (specifically reminding them of the negative health outcomes of things which are “associated” with their “culture.”) All three reasons tend to run afoul of Wikipedia policy on fairness, and editorial bias which is why I removed it. Again I could be wrong and you had a fourth reason I didn’t consider if so, please let me know, maybe we could even collaborate on an entry together.

Conclusion Wikipedia suffers from bias. I do not assume that you intentionally mean to contribute to this bias. Your one sentence inclusion is relatively small both in size and negative impact. I didn’t think you would insist on reverting it. And although seemingly harmless when taken alone, in the aggregate it contributes to the environment which facilitate to anti-Muslim racism which are prevalent in entries which deal with Islam and Muslims, which I do not assume to be your intention.

Rdjackso (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)rdjacksoReply

Hi, I am afraid that you are mixing me up with someone else. On the Muslim calendar pages I usually only edit the calendar information. I do not recall editing anything that has to do with health benefits. Please provide a link to the edit which you claim that I have made. AstroLynx (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Explain Ahmedalharbie22 (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

As I clearly explained in the edit summary, it was unsourced. AstroLynx (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I translated it from the Arabic wikipedia exactly.Search uhud mountain in Arabic Ahmedalharbie22 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

You cannot use Wikipedia as a reliable source. If your claim is that well known, then surely you can find an English-language source for this. AstroLynx (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Listen brother there’s no way that the sources in English are more then the Arabic if the topic is about something exists in Arabic country.You’re telling me the you are going to find about Abraham Lincoln in Arabic sources more then English? Ahmedalharbie22 (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you provide a source (even a clear statement that it was translated from the Arabic WP) it should be OK. But an English-language source would be preferable. AstroLynx (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not the sort of question one should expect to see in a talk page of Wikipedia, but... AstroLynx, do you perhaps know if (or when) there will be a new list of new names for exoplanets? The last list of this kind of names was of 2019, and I wonder if the I.A.U. (or other organisation) has plans to give a large number of discovered exoplanets names, and perhaps also new names for the stars they (those planets) are orbiting. DannyCaes (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I do not know this. Best is to regularly check the IAU website on naming exoplanets. AstroLynx (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would like to ask you, why my examples were reverted?🤔🤔 41.116.6.159 (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Because they were unsourced and do not belong on a talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your tables of the first day and last day of islamic months are unsourced.

Why revert my changes when your table has no references and no citation? Sdcjixcz (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The source (The Umm al-Qura Calendar of Saudi Arabia) is mentioned in the paragraph just above the table – what is your source? AstroLynx (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you are editing the Jewish calendar months. Please don't change what is consensus. Biblically, Nissan is the first month and that is what is generally used in liturgy and law. If you wish to discuss, please use the talk page, or the main Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaismpage. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

or here: Hebrew calendar Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fine by me but why does the list of Jewish months and holidays at the bottom of each page in the "Jewish and Israeli holidays and observances" box start with Tishrei? This does not seem to be consistent with the consensus and can easily lead to confusion.

It is also confusing that for each month the leading sentence starts with listing its position in the civil year and then its position in the rabbinical year. If the position in the rabbinical year is deemed more important why isn't its position in the rabbinical year mentioned first, before its position in the civil calendar?

Can you provide a link to when and where this "consensus" was actually reached?

Furthermore, are you sure that ecclesiastical year is the proper term to use in the leading sentence of each month in the Jewish religious year? Should it not be rabbinical year? AstroLynx (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I assume you are watching Islamic calendar, so would you review my changes please. I had some difficulty with the verbal gymnastics so may not have got the balance right. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am always 'watching' Islamic calendar but your changes are OK, thanks. AstroLynx (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply