User talk:Norm Vargas

Welcome

Hello Norm Vargas, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Norm Vargas, good luck, and have fun. – Altamel (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Norm Vargas, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Norm Vargas!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mount Wilson Observatory

I put this on my talk page in response to your comments and questions but I thought I should put it here as well to be sure you get it promptly:

It seems that I was too easily persuaded to move off my original position. I thought the changes to metric (only) were incorrect under the Wikipedia Manual of Style but I also thought they simply did not look right in the context of an article about an American observatory and instruments over 100 years old. I think you are correct that this is not a science article - and I should have thought about that more carefully before conceding to that rationale.

I would like to see if I can find a person who edits Wikipedia who might be more knowledgeable and could help with this problem which I would do by looking at the most pertinent project pages to see if I recognize someone to contact. One of the persons on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Members may be helpful. I recognize a few names. There also may be a noticeboard of some sort connected with Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy to take this up on. It might be that this needs to be handled as an editing problem and someone with knowledge of the editing of units of measurement would be more helpful. So another project page or, more generally, theWikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk pages might be the most logical places to go with the question, rather than to an individual. Wikipedia:Requests has links to a variety of places to go for help including links to Help:Contents/Directory and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. That general dispute resolution board is available but I think help from a more specific project might be the first place to look.

As far as uploading images, or taking credit for images, is concerned, I am not an expert. I think the best I can do is refer you to Help:Introduction to uploading images/1 and pages linked or following on from there. Wikipedia:Uploading images and pages linked from that page also should be helpful. You will also find the following advice at the bottom of the page. Get personal technical help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), Help:Introduction to talk pages or Wikipedia:IRC.

I was about to log off and will be offline for most or all of the next few days (visitors) so I may not be able to get back to this right away but I will look into it further as soon as I can unless you see a quick way to handle this based on my comments or the links cited. Although I could get back involved with making changes and supporting those on the talk page and engaging in renewed comments with the person making the changes, I think it would likely just lead to calling in additional parties. Some notice that his interpretation is being challenged after all and how it will be handled would be appropriate in that event.

I hope these comments are a useful start. Donner60 (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I have checked the article. I had not rolled back my reversion of the edits to the article, even though I had conceded (wrongly, it appears) on the IP user's talk page and deleted my messages. The user again made the edit to the page but another editor then reverted that edit. No more edits have been made for about 34 hours now. It seems that nothing needs to be done to correct the Mount Wilson Observatory article at this time, but it probably will need to be checked for consistency and watched in the future. I have spent over two hours looking into the proposition that dual units, and US customary units as the standard unit, should be retained. I think a good argument could be made to the Astronomy project or currently uninvolved members as mediators. After all this time, I just come back to the same Manual of Style sections I relied upon to begin with, plus the cogent argument that this really is not a science article, even though it is in the general purview of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. Since nothing apparently currently needs to be changed, there is no reason to renew or expand discussion of the matter with respect to this article at this time. I have thought about making a backtracking comment on the IP user's talk page about the proper units and the fact this is not an article which discusses scientific principles (but not trying to restore my warning messages as I think that would be improper under the circumstances). I think this argument should be saved in case the matter comes up again. I probably should look at the other edits made by this editor to a few other articles because I think one other one may need to be changed. I hope you have made some progress with the image question or that I have sent you on the right track. Donner60 (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)