Hypercolius

Welcome!

Hi Hypercolius! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: King Offa's Oak has been accepted

King Offa's Oak, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marton Oak has been accepted

Marton Oak, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of superlative trees in the UK (September 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Johannes Maximilian were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of superlative trees in the UK and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:List of superlative trees in the UK has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:List of superlative trees in the UK. Thanks! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 07:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Very well, I've corrected that, leaving just a mention to the website and a note that it is user-run Hypercolius (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of superlative trees in the UK has been accepted

List of superlative trees in the UK, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

PK650 (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

your reinsertion at rogue wave

Hi! I removed that because it's a self-published primary source, which, as you can see in those links, aren't really supposed to be used on wikipedia. If you think this was in error, feel free to let me know, but don't reinsert them without explaining your reasoning, otherwise I won't know why you think it's in line with policy and will end up removing it again. Can't read your mind and all that. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not a 'self-published primary source'. It is a scientific paper with 41 citations on shipstructure.org, and 16 citations on ResearchGate. Please do not remove this, as I feel like you will be attempting to suppress information in that case and act accordingly.

Accurate information on some rogue wave records is extraordinarily difficult to come by, and some scientific papers have made a massive mistake by christening, for example, the Ucluelet wave as the most extreme rogue wave on record. As I detail on the page, this claim is of the utmost falsehood, but those links to it are still there and nobody challenged them in any way. Hypercolius (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the content of that paper, challenge it directly and present your own evidence disproving it, but do not go around claiming it is a 'self-published primary source' like a blog Hypercolius (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that you left another comment: 'this entire segment might need to be refactored/cut but for now, we're starting small: no peer revieuw, primary source'

Please stop lying and spreading false information. The tabloids and people responsible for these claims must be called out for falsely claiming the Ucluelet wave is the 'most extreme ever recorded'.

Unless you have evidence disproving the following papers:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292873547_A_freak_wave_in_the_Black_Sea_Observations_and_simulation (peer reviewed, 51 citations- two of the authors are foremost experts in this field, Oceanography)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234151195_Oceanic_Rogue_Waves (838 citations, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics. Google Scholar gives 1120 citations)

https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/11/2913/2011/

You have no tangible argument against them.

So, to conclude:

'no peer review'- False.

'primary source' - So citing a pee-reviewed, cited, high-impact paper is somehow bad now? Hypercolius (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

RE: the primary source stuff: Okay, so, it is both of those things. The thing that would make it not self-published is being published in a source that performs either peer revieuw (for scientific papers) or has editorial oversight prior to publication (for regular press publications and the like). This document is formatted as a scientific paper, so you would expect it to have to undergo peer revieuw. However, the websites you mention don't do that. Researchgate is a website where scientists can upload any document they want to to show off their work, but it does not do peer revieuw, and often, the stuff you find on there hasn't been published elsewhere. In other words, it's self-published!

The Shipstructure. org version was published as part of a symposium - I'm gonna assume because he presented it there. Again, this qualifies as self-published. Nobody actually went over it to correct any mistakes, it's published as-is.

RE: your latest comment. I'm not engaging with that. You're getting outraged because you're assuming I believe something that in reality I have absolutely no opinion on. I'm going by source quality, and the source quality there was bad, so I left a comment to draw attention to it and to announce that I wasn't done checking that section yet. Again: I don't care about this ucelet wave thing, I care about writing a good encyclopedia, and that means making sure sources are up to our standards of quality. I'm going to steelman your argument here a bit though: the fact that it was published as part of a symposium might mean it qualifies as WP:EXPERTSPS, in which case it can be used. Do you have some more information about this guy? --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)