Misplaced Pages

User talk:Arianewiki1: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:20, 5 March 2015 editYunshui (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers69,412 edits 3RR← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:26, 31 January 2023 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,921 editsm Signing comment by Bgoldnyxnet - "→Adding Block Comment to a User Page: " 
(463 intermediate revisions by 73 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Archives|style=width:180px;|auto=no|title =]
[<sub>Subscript text</sub>'''Welcome!'''
{{{title|]<br />
]<br />
]<br />
]<br />
]<br />
]<br />
]
}}}}}


== Plasma cosmology revert ==
Hello, Arianewiki1, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- {{welcome}} -->


Hi! I reverted your revert of my edit on ]: but just wanted to confirm with you what you may have found problematic about the edit. The wording previously implied something a bit more "opinion-y" about a fact associated with astrophysical plasmas. I know controversial articles like this can be confusing, so just wanted to start-up the conversation here in case there was a mistake or something.
== Good Articles ==


] (]) 11:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I noticed you are putting alot of work into article development, which is great. However it can be frustrating once you leave something and articles degrade over time. You may be interested in ] and ], which serve as 'stable version' reference points to some degree. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


==3o Dispute Request==
== Editing articles ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Third opinion}}


== ignore the automatic undo notice ==
It would be appreciated if you would take a little time to familiarize yourself with the ]. It is the guidelines that we use to maintain consistent, high-quality articles on wikipedia. Thank you!&mdash;] (]) 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Sorry. A slow screen refresh resulted in me accidentally undoing you ] (]) 05:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
:Easily done. Thanks for the heads up. ] (]) 06:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


==deletion tag== == Notice ==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&nbsp;The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 03:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Would you please explain your addition of a speedy deletion tag to ] ? ''']''' (]) 13:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


== Crux and the Coalsack Nebula ==
deletion here I can't explain. error of somekind?''' ''' 13:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Arianewiki1,<br>
:If it was really an error, perhaps you would like to remove the notice you placed on ], or at least add an apology there. --] (]) 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I just added a new section to the talk page for the article Crux, which you worked on just yesterday (as I write this). After I wrote it, I looked back through the history of the article. It looks like you were involved, in 2015, with the point I make in my comment. So I wonder if I could get you to have a look at it.<br>
To elaborate here just a little on the point of my comment, I'm quite sure I've worked things out correctly as far as compass directions go. What I'm not certain about is, where the Coalsack would be, in the diagram. ] (]) 18:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


== Templates on Rigel ==
OK, many apologies. I think I changed My Preferences, which has changed the menu bar, and I've just done some thing silly.] (]) 14:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand exactly what the templates are for. However, I removed one of them, because they appear as exactly duplicates on the article, with no visual differences at all. One tag is all that is needed when there is an issue involved (such as NPOV content), especially when they appear exactly the same. I won't be reverting; however, should someone else remove one of the templates, you shouldn't try to reinstate it. ] 🌀 (]) 07:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


:{{u|LightandDark2000}} Thanks. I was careful with this. Under Nomenclature here is linked to talkpage Sections. 'Necessary reverts' and 'RfC: Inclusion of this statement under 'Nomenclature'. There are two problems here, and neither can be resolved easily. Although the tags look the same they are different. Hope this explains this for you. ] (]) 07:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
:Likewise, I've just removed the <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> tag from this page. ] (]) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


::Yes; I think this is a bug in ]: specifying a talk= section in the template (with or without the label) does not generate a link to the section, just to the talk page. I added the page as part of the wikilink and that does generate a section link (but no visual distinction). ] (]) 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
== Your edit comment ==


== Nucleosynthesis ==
I didn't attack any editor here. In fact, you previously said my same comment to me. Drastically reverting contributions like Largehole's, as you did, just makes others not to want to join in. The ] page is excellent, and your contribution is appreciated, but others have the right to improve it. Your previous criticisms of dissatisfaction made me stop contributing before. Also if you want to berate someone, you should also sign your name!!! 4 ~ isn't that hard! ] (]) 16:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


Commenting here since this didn't need to go on ANI. Johnson doesn't state that in any few words, but instead made the point in the figure itself, but more importantly in the supplementary data. He gives explicit estimates for the fraction of each element. It's not original research to note that he states exploding stars as the majority source of elements from Oxygen to Scandium, as well as Gallium to Rubidium. So actually, ''everyone is wrong''. In general, I feel this is the best alternative to "everyone is right". ] (]) 08:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
== Plasma cosmology ==
:Right. So it is not Ok to make a generalised statement, but it is OK to revert statement that don't say the contentions. I edited the text to avoid the empass, so that the average editor can read it, but now that is wrong? You have outed me for my behaviour, when the truth is I acted properly, while Attic Salt continues to stray from editorial principles? I tried to avoid the complications but it is just "everoyone's right."? Attic Salt never understood their edits at all, and this is a repeated trait. Yet supernova Tyope II produce spectra that shows hydrogen lines. The assertion is plainly false. If anything, prosecution of these edits nneds to be escalated. ] (]) 09:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


== Userpage Typo ==
Regarding your recent edits to ], please start a discussion on the talk page explaining your concerns. I see that you have previously been warned about edit warring. Please use caution. ] (]) 12:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


You have a typo on your userpage: gember.
I do not require 'caution', which seems more like an unveiled threat. The removal of this text was warranted as it is unrelated to Plasma Cosmology, and whose research has been mostly discredited and is out of date. Dominus Vobisdu was entirely wrong in his submission. Furthermore, the references given are irrelevant. The history of bias and deliberate agenda on the page has been well documented, with several being banned. I am well versed on this subject. ] (]) 13:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


== Notice ==
:Alfven did say that the results of plasma experiments scaled to magnetospheres, see . "Scaling up results of laboratory research by a factor of 10<sup>9</sup> makes them applicable to magnetospheric conditions. (...) In the magnetosphres, plasma exists in an active and a passive state. This is probably true for all cosmic plasmas." p. 314
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&nbsp;The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 18:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


:I reworked the caption of the image. --] (]) 09:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC) :I am gravely concerned with what I am reading about your behavior. It is imperative that you enter this discussion.&nbsp; ] (]), ], ] 07:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


:Yes he did, but it did not say this in regard to plasma cosmology. Furthermore, this postulate has been mostly rejected on observational grounds. I.e. Interstellar clouds or galaxies do not appear as magnetospheres, only planetary bodies, the sun and stars are magnetospheres. (Sheets are also not magnetospheres.) The article is about plasma cosmology not on magnetospheres. ] (]) 09:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC) :{{u|Dlohcierekim}}. I am too, and I spent the whole day writing a response. VQuakr own ANI is worring me from the POV of their own involvemment, and I don't think they have the full picture. I will be posting it right now. I would like to hear Attic Salt's POV too. Thank you. ] (]) 07:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


==Short Break==
:: You recently reverted an edit of Plasma Cosmology attempting to enforce the phrase "mostly rejected". Please provide the Polling Agency and Survey that was hired to conducted this study, otherwise I will have to assume this phrase was invented and has no place in an article educating people about this topic. This study should reflect a large enough statistical sampling performed in a professional scientific fashion. ] (]) 02:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Due to the pressures on a current on-going ANI, I need to take a break for a day or so, based on near exhaustion that has been spent over the last several days making various replies. Thanks. ] (]) 08:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
:::I disagree. "mostly rejected" is based on fact not hearsay. Contrarily, it could also be said where is the "Polling Agency and Survey that was hired to conducted this study" for supporting plasma cosmology, eh? I.e. Can you prove that the Big Bang is "mostly rejected" or "mostly unknown" too?


== Banned ==
::(Funny. The Big Bang is in most modern astronomy/cosmology textbooks, while plasma cosmology is not! Is that a suggest that plasma cosmology is "most rejected". I'd say yes.)


Greetings, Arianewiki1. This message is to inform you that, pursuant to ], you are indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages. For more information, see ]. For additional information on appealing this ban, see ]. Regards, ] <sup>]</sup> 06:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
:::As you already know that plasma cosmology is not accepted by mainstream science, an this explains why you be pushing so hard to rewrite this article!!!
*Additionally, you are indefinitely banned from interacting with {{noping|Attic Salt}}. This one-way interaction ban shall remain in effect if and when your site ban is lifted, until specifically overturned by the community. This sanction will be logged at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


:::Sorry. It seems the more you say, the more you exposure your seemingly unspoken agenda. I've seen it all before with the very article. ] (]) 02:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


:{{ping|Swarm}}
== June 2013 ==
:<b>SUMMARY and CLARIFICATION</b> : I'm truly shocked and dismayed by your decision here. I was almost certain it would be dropped or even would go the opposite way. Attic Salt had promised to "I agree not to look at your edit summary and not follow your talk page.", and I requested "I want the harassment and sanction gaming to finish." so "...we can just mutually agree just to stop interacting at all with each other's edits." I pose "Is following Arianewiki1's edits possibly true?" then after this declare "Having said this, I have, yes, viewed your editing history and noted some of the articles you've edited. Honestly, I don't think this is unusual." (and cite how they were doing this! We all move on. (All did you read below the article atop close, because this atop edit ends half-way down the page. e.g. Here .) Even User Dlohcierekim said "I meant above that he'd done a great job providing counter arguments. I don't see Arianewiki's comments as that incivil."
:VQuakr launching of this latest ANI was based on this exchange under ] Where is the abusive behaviour here? I received this notification here, claiming "Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ", but they had stated: "Cleaning up your messes is not harassment, and your repeated false accusations of such are grounds for a block or ban. You don't own your own edits, much less this page, so you should have no reason to expect that anyone, ever, is going to give a second's thought to your requests for others to not modify your work." (My response to Attic Salt was because they reverted one of my edits partly because it had no edit summary.) I just pointed out policy, and adding that to the edit summary was to make a ].
:Was that wrong? Reading this ] shows persistent rv problems without discussion, and they keep doing it by just continuously following my edits?)
:You also say: "Evidence to support accusations of hounding is unconvincing, and no one has even spoken up in defense of Ariane, a rare occurrence for an AN/I thread." My responses in this ANI were civil and responded to all their questions. I feel the evidence of hounding via ] were proven, but with examples and Attic Salt openly admitting to: "Having said this, I have, yes, viewed your editing history and noted some of the articles you've edited. Honestly, I don't think this is unusual."
:In the ANI I said to them: "OK, but didn't I ask you not to do this? When you placed your 'ban' from your talkpage, I requested this, but the article on ] was after this action. As Tigraan advised me not to have you on my watchlist, but now it is OK for you to do that? Can't you this see that is a big problem because it might be seen as targeting as I've stated. It is against policy. You are admitting you are following me. (So my previous ANI, in which you didn't respond BTW, my assertions were likely correct.)"
:The ANI I responded to gives examples. The three successive moves to different pages under Response 6 Should I have presented others? Was this not convincing?
:You tell me I have to modify my behaviour to return from this indefinite ban, but what else do you do when confronted with actions like ] when trying to make constructive edits as seen in this. (Both of them had never edited this page before.) All I did was fix some issues with ] submission here. There was no abusive behaviour here. Attic Salt had previously followed me to ] (See my response, please.) My next edit was to Lithopsian, who diverted this to ], asked a simple question (after this edit, and immediately got terse responses. (See ANI Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#OWN Behaviour : Admin Review Request] Look at VQuakr reaction.) Even simple questions are requests are attacked. e.g. This exchange here. Saying simpple things like to VQuakr "The cite needed is to show "magnitude x" is a recognised format. The given cites seem to show mixed usage." accused me "No, it isn't. Don't expect others to follow your arbitrary evidentiary standards just because you say so. This is an editorial decision." I went to the ] article and undid this edit, the next edits finding Attic Salt here then accusing me as the one who wrote it. I go to ] then to find Attic Salt again (Now I'm blocked, Lithopsian immediately goes to ], and says: "Undo of Arianewiki rework and subsequent edits - it wasn't great before, but it was better than this, and importantly more accurate" Grave dancing? (All I did was rearrange it, a explain what I did on the talkpage here ) I go to ] and find instead Lithopsian, then back ] again, and and a further revert by Attic Salt,so it goes on. I take this to ] because I'm being subjected to abusive behaviour.
:Considering that Tigraan says "If you truly believe that a dozen strangers on the internet all hate you for no objective reason, I would advise getting medical help. Seriously. You tick all boxes of Paranoia#Paranoid_social_cognition. Do not think they will lock you in an asylum (they won't) and do not think only wusses seek help (if you start coughing blood, you don't wait it out, you go see a doctor - at least I hope)", and it is not thought as 'abusive behaviour'?
:Obviously requesting the ban to be dropped is going to be difficult task solely on the complexity of the interactions. My defence in the ANI is the best I could do. I haven't edit warred, I have used talkpages as required, and do do productive contributions, like ] or ].
:Please be more specific with this ban, because I'm still confused where it actually went wrong. e.g. VQuakr made on complaint on behalf Attic Salt, for something VQuakr thought was offensive (it clearly wasn't), they use the first interaction between Attic Salt and me to justify that on a IBAN. Unbeknown to VQuakr, Attic Salt admits to following me from page to page as suspected, but I get a one-way IBAN plus indefinite ban? I do think some of the initial negative responses were unaware of the possibility of hounding in the background. Perhaps they might have responded differently? ] (]) 04:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


:*I am sorry that you are hurt by this. I have no doubt that you are a person with genuine value, and an editor with something positive to give to this project. I have no desire to hurt you. But I did not make this decision. I don't know you, and I have nothing against you. I am just a random person who reviewed a discussion as a result of a general request. I reviewed the discussion, and interpreted the consensus. Yes, I specifically reviewed the accusations against you, and the supporting evidence. There is evidence. The accusations are not baseless. You did not acknowledge this. I reviewed the proposals for sanctions against you. The support for these proposals was unanimous. You did not have a single third party defend you. This was open for over a week, which by itself is unusual, and yet not one person spoke to your defense. On the contrary, those who spoke against you are not just some random nobodies, but highly established editors in good standing. As I noted in the close, this state of affairs is almost unheard of. And yet you'd expect this all to be ''ignored'', in favor of your own narrative? You need ''extremely'' convincing evidence that everyone involved are all conspiring in bad faith to get you banned for some unspecified reason. I did review your defense, but I see no unambiguous evidence that anyone has a motivation to persecute you. ]: you are a consistently uncivil and abrasive editor, and you've made a reputation for yourself as such. Your behavior has turned every editor who's familiar with you against you, and your self-evident behavioral conduct is to blame. You're not the victim of a cabal conspiring against you. The fact that you mentioned an editor calling you "paranoid", with zero self-awareness, is, I'm sorry to say, telling. Here's what I'd recommend. Self-reflect on your own behavior. Apologize and promise amends. And then demonstrate all of this in an appeal. Offer a reblock clause, where if you don't follow through, you will be reblocked. Get serious about the changes you need to make, and throw yourself upon the community's mercy. Of course, you may appeal with any argument you want to make, and my advice is merely that; advice. My second suggestion would be to just take the SO in 6 months. You served the time, you're ready to come back, the community gives you a new chance. That's usually how it goes. Lastly, and I would not ''suggest'' you do this, but I will make it clear to you that it is an option: you may formally dispute my reading of consensus, per ]. Put it to the community. Note that this is not an opportunity to ''rehash'' the discussion, but a simple ''review'' of the ''previous'' discussion as to whether or not ''my'' assessment was correct. It's a community review of my reading of consensus. If you want to rehash the discussion, you should appeal with whatever argument you want to make. But if you think I got the consensus wrong, you should challenge my closure. Let me know if you have any questions! Best, ] <sup>]</sup> 05:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
*<nowiki></nowiki>{{red|'''&#91;'''}}<nowiki></nowiki>
Thanks, <!-- (0, 1, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 07:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


:::{{ping|Swarm}} Thanks for the response. You're not hurting me here, but I did read your response and are even more confused. There are only three editors with issues: Attic Salt, Lithopsian and VQuakr. Attic Salt admits to following and wikihounding, I give many examples, they revert anything they disagree with, you present reasonable arguments , even prove it, but now somehow I'm paranoid? They are shown to be sanction gaming with proof, and even when you express frustration, you are accused of being abusive. How does one feel if persistently followed with everything you write? How does ] end as it has? I don't see it. Where's this 'abuse' to manufacture such a reaction? (Why do people respond like this? I've done nothing like this nor even correspond with them.) ] (]) 07:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
== NGC 3532 ==
::::By my count, 11 editors spoke against you. 0 spoke in your defense, other than yourself. 7 of these 11 spoke against the notion that the IBAN was sufficient, and that the more severe alternative (pitched in the OP) was needed. Lithopsian played no part in the discussion. You dominated the overwhelming majority of the discussion. You dominated the overwhelming duration of the discussion. And yet not a single editor bought into your narrative. I'm not sure how else to say it. There was a unanimous consensus to ban you. The behavior that led to the ban was directly proven in the discussion with diffs. I'm sorry, truly I am, but you earned this, and the appropriate response is reflection, acknowledgement, and resolution. No more blaming! No more playing victim! At a certain point, when literally you have a massive discussion examining your behavior, and literally 100% of the feedback is in support of sanctioning you, and not a single person will speak to your defense, then your response becomes a ] issue. You just gotta acknowledge the issues raised and make changes. Playing the victim is not credible or viable. You have to get serious. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Swarm}} Q. "The behavior that led to the ban was directly proven in the discussion with diffs." What behaviour specifically? VQuakr expose was something I did two years ago or was within this latest ANI e.g. ]. 11 editors spoke against me, but did they known of the violation by Attic Salt? ] (]) 08:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
::::::Really? Are you seriously asking ''what the allegations are''? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


==Adding Block Comment to a User Page==
I have restored the references and referenced material you deleted. Please discuss this on the talk page if you disagree. -- ] (]) 18:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


{{ping|Swarm}} It is interesting to see your reaction to this edit and the subsequent response. Adding this banned tag on my User page here is unacceptable, and <b>I request that you remove this immediately</b>. Rules on this are clear; namely; "Like other pages, anyone can edit it, but users generally do not edit other users' pages without their permission." ]
Please do not change this until I have a chance to restore the references for this. O'Meara;'s book is greatly discredited for just making up names of deep-sky objects - especially southern ones. I strongly discourage you to quote his work. The cluster is commonly called in the southern sky as the "Football Cluster", which it has been known for decades ] (]) 18:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to clearly place a block on a user, then use the appropriate template on the User talk page. i.e Template:uw-block|indef=yes|reason=as the User has been banned by the community. ] (]) 07:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

*Banned users get tagged as banned using a standardized template, either on their user or talk page. This is standard, and you don’t get to dictate that I am not allowed to correctly document the ban. I re-added it to your user page so that you would not continue to remove it. Frankly, it was that or revoking your talk access. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
== Caldwell ==
:{{ping|Swarm}} Thanks. Next step oversight via Arbitration Committee. ] (]) 23:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

::If you really want to go to arbcom to challenge the standard practice of an admin putting {{tl|Banned user}} on the user page of a banned user, that's your prerogative. I have no issue with you, nor did I do anything wrong. I'm just the uninvolved administrator who happened to be the one to assess the discussion involving you. I have to say, though, your ] anything that has been thoroughly explained to you since the ban was enacted, along with your general behavior on this page, strikes me as either a fundamental ] issue, or willful trolling and disruption. It's exceedingly difficult to ignore this when you were banned for {{tq|"... a protracted pattern of abusive conduct directed at more than one editor..."}}, and I made a note in my closing summary that {{tq|"...Arianewiki ] the discussion repeatedly, effectively dismissing all behavioral complaints and reducing all unfavorable commentators to bad-faith grudge-holders and hounders. ... On top of that, I see no concessions from Ariane and no attempts at voluntary improvement."}} Your conduct on this page fits that profile exactly. You refuse to admit any sort of wrongdoing on your part, you reject direct complaints and explanations as to how you're in the wrong, and instead you go on the offensive and attack your perceived "opponents". In other words, the entirety of your behavior since the ban was enacted, appears to be nothing short of a direct continuation of the behavior that led to the ban. Again, I have nothing against you personally, and I wish you nothing but the best IRL, but I cannot allow a banned user to use their talk page as a platform to continue the same exact conduct that the community banned them for. Therefore, your talk page access has been revoked. If and when you would like to appeal your ban, you may request talk page reinstatement, or submit your appeal directly, via ]. Regards, ] <sup>]</sup> 00:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Your remark that Caldwell numbers are not frequently used by observers is simply false. They are becoming more and more common, especially among amateurs, and will probably eventually become as popular as Messier numbers. The references you are removing are there to signify to people who are coming to the page through forwards from Caldwell entries that they have arrived at the right place. -- ] (]) 18:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
=== Plasma ===

Thank you for your explanation on the Plasma page. I've been dilatory about responding because I don't visit my talk page very often. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Southern observers never use it, and what you are forgetting is that the identifiers are more often either Dunlop or Herschel numbers. I suggest you visit the webpage http://www.ngcicproject.org/ , and use its database. I.e. NGC 3532 is Lac II 10, h.3315 or Dunlop &Delta;323. The Caldwell numbers are useless to observers, and it has not been adopted in the south. You can say the same for the Bennett Catalogue. I recommend that you not place it after the NGC number as it is not easily searched by it. If you must insert it, place it in the sidebox under "names=", please. ] (]) 19:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

::You have not answered my point. Who do you mean by "observers"? If professional astronomers, I certainly agree. But the Caldwell numbers are acquiring a currency among amateurs that we should not ignore. -- ] (]) 19:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

:::Will you please stop removing the Caldwell numbers. Whether any one of them is the usual designation is not the point -- the fact that an object is one of the Caldwell objects is of interest in itself. -- ] (]) 19:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

:::: I will if you will just stop reverting everything before I can even place references to support my changes! The Caldwell Catalogue and O'Meara's books as quote for references should be closer to the original sources. I.e, NGC 3532 references to Lacaille and John Herschel quotes should be from better sources. I.e. DOCdb :Deep Sky Observer's Companion – the online database http://www.docdb.net/object_index.php, Herschel (1847), John Dunlop (1828), Lacaille (1751-52), etc. O'Meara's quoting is making out he is the primary source, just like his latest Southern Sky book. He is not a primary source!! ] (]) 19:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, I did not mean to step on an edit in progress. (I generally add the references when I make the changes.) I do use the NGC/IC Project frequently. I had not been aware of DOCdb; thanks for the pointer. I agree that those are preferable to O'Meara in this regard. --- ] (]) 19:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::I agree. I am happy to restore the references, but it takes time to sort out the format and the actual source. As for the Caldwell Catalogue, read 2nd paragraph at http://britastro.org/jbaa/pdf/113-3omeara.pdf or http://www.cloudynights.com/documents/caldwell.pdf, and this will give some support in not using it. Most southern observers despise this whole listing as irrelevant , mostly because how it was contrived. I.e. http://www.cloudynights.com/documents/caldwell.pdf What has most people cross is the naming of southern objects that have no history, especially when the book was written, he had not seen many of the objects himself in a telescope! ] (]) 20:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::I have to say I don't understand the snark heaped on the Caldwell list -- though I grant Patrick Moore rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Yes, there are a few misses -- as there are also in Messier's list. But the idea is a good one, and by and large the objects are well-chosen. The important point is that it is increasingly being used as a source of objects to go looking for once you've done the Ms; and that growing utility should be accommodated here. My gut says that Caldwell is here to stay, as its inclusion in DOCdb attests. -- ] (]) 22:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::Sorry, its junk. Northern observers might use it, but in the south it's already badly tainted. Just another northern observer thinking they can impose their twisted minds for objects they can never see. At least Bennett was southern. ] (]) 06:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

== Omega Centauri ==

Hi! You were spot on about James Dunlop's discovery of Omega Centauri, but the next time you change factual information like that on a Misplaced Pages article, it would help your cause greatly to include a reference. I put one in where you edited. Thank you for your correction! Cheers. <span style="font: 12px Microsoft YaHei;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">]]</span> 21:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks, but not appreciated. I was right in the middle of editing the page and adding the reference when you changed it! (I've been trying to do it this way to avoid an edit war! ] (]) 21:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
::Do you have the reference?<span style="font: 12px Microsoft YaHei;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">]]</span> 21:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
:::If you had a better reference url than mine, I'm sorry. Just replace it, or you can give me the url and I can do it.<span style="font: 12px Microsoft YaHei;text-shadow:0 1px 5px #808080">]]</span> 21:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
::::I have. I just added Dunlop's original 1828 reference. ] (]) 21:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==

You boldly changed this article a day or so ago: I’ve reverted it per ] and opened the discussion ], if you care to comment. ] (]) 09:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It need changing, as it is quite wrong. I'd suggest you leave it, else a barrage of references be cited proving the point. Caldwell is irrevant, as it is not commonly used for the Eta Carina Nebula. ] (]) 11:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for June 10==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

== Caldwell: "serious issues" ==

If you feel there are "serious issues", discuss them on the talk page. Otherwise the tags should be removed. -- ] (]) 17:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm doing this right now!!
Q1. Are you British or American?
Q2: What relationship do you have with Moore, S&T, Cambridge Publishing, O'Meara? ] (]) 17:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:A1: That's immaterial. A2: no relationship with any of the above. -- ] (]) 17:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::The reason for my impatience is that once the tags were removed, you should have opened a talk page entry *first* explaining your reasons, before reinstating the flags. Otherwise these come across as drive-by shootings. -- ] (]) 17:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:::You should not have have removed them in the first place. ] (]) 19:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::::Based on your tags, I added references (far more than necessary), removed some material, and generally examined the article for more POV and found none, so having fixed the article, I removed the tags. This is the way it is supposed to work. You are welcome to reinstate the tags, but only after explaining why you think the problem is not fixed. I will address your remarks on the talk page when I have time; basically they say nothing about the quality of the article (which is certainly not POV). Your accusation that I am "pushing" Caldwell -- whether because of association with S&T or Moore or O'Meara or because of Moore's death (of which I was unaware) is simply false, and a breach of "assume good faith". I do feel Caldwell is useful, and believe it should be covered in WP. I am hardly alone in this. -- ] (]) 19:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, the evidence clearly shows you are "pushing" Caldwell, just from your statements. I.e. "But the Caldwell numbers are acquiring a currency among amateurs that we should not ignore. -- Elphion (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)" (If that is not POV what is?) I am just trying to understand your quite obvious bias.

:::::Also article balance means that it takes all points of view, not just ones supporting something. Worst it is promoting the subject instead of properly explaining it - and does so across multiple pages. I.e. Inferring the Caldwell object number is second only to the NGC number, for example. ] (]) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::The references changes are insufficient. It is even more biassed than before it! Please see my reply http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Caldwell_catalogue#Tags.3B_tone Q. Are you a northern observer? ] (]) 19:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::See my response there. Apologies for spelling your user name inconsistently -- which I am at a loss to explain, being familiar with both the rocket and the mythological character (whose compound with -wiki is particularly clever). I hope I caught them all. -- ] (]) 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::It matters not… ] (]) 23:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

== Heya ==

Echo says that you mentioned me on ]. Did you (and if so, why), or was it just Echo being weird? Thanks, ]'']'' 01:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

:No, I don't think I did? More info, please??? ] (]) 02:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

::The notification says this:
Arianewiki1 mentioned you on Talk:Caldwell catalogue.<br>
"→‎Tags; tone"<br>
16:27
::I don't think you did, though. I guess the system just decided that "hey, let's give someone random an even more random notification!" Sorry! ]'']'' 03:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
:::Zero problem. Happy editing!! ] (]) 03:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''A discussion has started on the talk page. Comment there rather than edit waring on the article. What you claim to be obviously wrong isn't obvious to other people, so BRD does apply, and you should join in the discussion. Thanks. '' ]] 11:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

:This is a classic example of forced false verification. The article is wrong because of wrong assertion that this is the Carina Nebula, when it is historically clear it is called the Eta Carina Nebula. Again It is another example of falsification. The reason the term "Carina Nebulae" exists is because of the large number of paper on this object, which when published distinguishes between papers. The Wiki user continues not to recognise this fact, which shows lack of knowledge than deliberate misleading, which was enacted by changing the name of the article. Unless he can prove otherwise, these changes should stand. There is a difference between usage and actual origins. It is clear the person refuses to discuss this issue rationally. (I am an expert is this field, so know what if talking about.) ] (]) 14:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
::Arianewiki1, you are likely to be blocked if this continues. Your expertise won't have any benefit if you wind up being excluded from the article due to stubbornness. Please wait for other people to agree with you on the article's talk page. If your position is correct, you should be able to persuade others. Thanks, ] (]) 00:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. However, you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. &nbsp;]] 21:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->


{{unblock reviewed|reason=I have complied with the request, and have added reasons and references why this is wrong in the Carina talk page.|decline=Merely insisting that you are right about the content dispute won't get you unblocked. If you agree to get consensus first before making any more edits about this issue, admins might reconsider the block. Your comments on the talk page like "Thank you for showing your bias" and "outright fraud" will not win you any friends here. ] (]) 17:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed | 1=Not wishing to fight the issue, but I feel these words are unfairly targeting me for the wrong reasons.] (]) 18:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC) | decline=Per discussion below. — ] (]) 03:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)}}
::The words "Thank you for showing your bias" made in response to "Or that southern observers should take precedence because it's in the the southern sky?" Made by; ] (]) 11:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

::The "...outright fraud" I was talking about was with the article ], which referred to the name "Pearl Cluster", which was linked to an External links site "The Pearl Cluster", which was advertising a likely fraudulent jewellery site. I had repaired this, whose original page was http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=NGC_3766&oldid=488555036 There are others with the same problem.

:: My statement was; "Fraudulent naming of deep-sky objects have been found on several by me, with motives from commercialism to outright fraud."

::(I have just received 'official' notification another of these problems, by user AndJames @ the site http://cdsannotations.u-strasbg.fr/annotations/simbadObject/3050700 . It shows the same problem as ] for open star cluster ] (named the "Diamond Cluster'. This is another fix by me in a Wiki article. ].

:::Yet you do the right thing, and your punished for it?

::As for " If you agree to get consensus first before making any more edits about this issue, admins might reconsider the block" OK I agree, as I've already said in the first request to unblock.

::Again, please kindly reconsider. ] (]) 18:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
:::I have asked the blocking admin if he wants to comment. Nobody will object if you remove an external link to pearlcluster.org. We wouldn't describe that as 'outright fraud', it is ], and we just remove it. If you assume that people in the other hemisphere are merely biased, you are not ]. Your comments about bias are borderline ]. You made the following comment:</br> {{quote|''The article is wrong because of wrong assertion that this is the Carina Nebula, when it is historically clear it is called the Eta Carina Nebula. Again It is another example of falsification.''}} The right name for the nebula is simply a content dispute, but the word 'falsification' makes it sound as though other editors are lying. If this is going to be your style of reasoning on Misplaced Pages, you may find it impossible to cooperate with others. ] (]) 01:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@ ] (])
:The beginning of the talk page of the article on ] says; "The nebula is not called the Eta Carinae nebula, it is the Carina Nebula or the Great Nebula in Carina. The Eta Carinae nebula is also known as the Homonculus and is the much smaller nebula surrounding the star. --Keflavich 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"

:This (and many of the statements following), are simply wrong.

:I've given evidence to support this claim. Falsification means "prove (a statement or theory) to be false." I.e. The hypothesis is falsified by the evidence. Yet now you say this is evidence of me accusing someone of lying? (Falsification is not the same as false evidence.) Suggest you read ] (and nowhere does it refer to lying.)

:If we look at what ] said of my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Carina_Nebula "Some papers generally refer to this as the Carina Nebula, mostly because of differentiating the many paper published on this object, but the historical precedence as determined by southern observers like James Dunlop and John Herschel, who have both termed it the Eta Argus Nebula or Eta Carina Nebula.", when he says "I have tagged this as dubious." Isn't nearly calling me lying too?

:My the ban is for "Edit warring" not ]. Does this mean you are extending this towards the ban to include this too against me too?

:As for "Nobody will object if you remove an external link to pearlcluster.org. We wouldn't describe that as 'outright fraud', it is ], and we just remove it."

:I had already removed it, so I don't understand how you have done so?

::Let me give you some real background here, which has been in discussion with several professional groups, and prevent the false naming of objects;

:::"Now I have found a new tricky problem, which I unsure how to solve. It is to do with the open clusters of NGC 2516, 3766 and 3532. It is about the given names of these cluster, being the Diamond Cluster, the Pearl Cluster and the Wishing Well Cluster, respectively. It is based on an extensive article I've almost completed on the southern cluster NGC 2516 in Carina.
:::"I have found that these names were likely fraudulently made up on Misplaced Pages during March 2006, and since then, amateurs in seeing these articles have openly spread the word. Worse they have been related to many popular publications on deep-sky observing.
:::"Yet you will also obviously note since then, has been quoted verbatim in nearly every internet source, including I may add, to the main CDS SIMBAD database. It seems that a fellow by the anonymous name of ‘Reg Carter’ who first quotes the “Diamond Cluster” on 8th November 2008. (no long a wiki author, and posted only thirteen contributions, but all are only related to the open clusters NGC 3532 (C91), NGC 3766 (C97) and NGC 2516 (C96). Each are Caldwell Objects.
:::"Another oddly named Centaurus open cluster first discovered by N. Lacaillé is NGC 3766 / Lac III 7 / Δ289 / Mel 107 (11361-6137) which he calls “The Pearl Cluster” as posted on the wiki site on 23rd March 2006. (I’ve never heard of this before.) Diamonds and pearls… Umm. Yet when you go to the external link, it goes and advertises earring and necklaces. (http://www.pearlcluster.com/ , but oddly the owner of the site doesn’t mention his name to sell the stuff excepting an Amazon link. Searching for the site owner, I found the PearlCluster registration to Godaddy, which suggests the individual is an Australian but whose site is registered at Scottsdale, Arizona in America. Guess what. It was created on the 13th March 2006 and only just ten days from the wiki posting. See http://dawhois.com/site/pearlcluster.com.html for confirmation.) I again looked into the history, and found a seconded user by the name of ‘Seventy-Three’ added this advertising link on 26th April 2006. Umm. So I then did the so-called RBL Check (Real-time Black Hole List) http://dawhois.com/rbl_check/?query=pearlcluster.com , which lists this a “very bad” site. Other investigations suggests this person has some legal issues with his merchandise
:::"Yet another is the ‘Wishing Well Cluster’ for the open cluster NGC 3532, which was also added to Misplaced Pages on 13th March 2006, but also directed to yet another dubious link! This is linked to a registered to www.NGC3532.com, which was Australian registered to Godaddy on 22nd February 2006. This site, however expired on 22nd February, 2012. http://dawhois.com/site/ngc3532.com.html
:::"Another, probably unrelated, is the alleged ‘Bat Nebula’ for IC 2948 (C100), which is better known as the ‘Running Chicken Nebula’ or even the earlier common name of ‘Lambda Centauri Nebula.’ According to O’Meara, he says there was a error in the name of this cluster, where it was improperly named the ‘Gamma Centauri Nebula.’ Yet the Bat Nebula appears at another page selling stuff, purportedly of an astronomical image of this nebula. (One of the earliest reference I could find dates to 8th April 2007 on the IceInSpace site with an image produced by ‘Footprint’
:::"We also see links to ‘List of NGC objects’ tables with ‘Name Added.’ I suspect we’ve all been openly duped!
:::"I knew Misplaced Pages is often quoted as being unreliable, but fraud on this kind of scale is unbelievable! Worst still, all the suckers amateurs have not picked this up even after six-odd years!
:::"Since then I’ve written to the Misplaced Pages management and like to International Astronomical Union (IAU) for their overall advice, but have not changed the wiki source at the time of writing (31st March, 2013.) I hope to receive a reply on how to fix all of this.
:::"It might now mean going through all the websites using these names and asking to delete the references. The entire episode here has left me totally dumbfounded and really angry. I’m also unsure how to undo the damage here. The only way to solve this is to have a registry of names held by the IAU, whose proper name can only be adopted with proof of its common usage.
:::"In the meantime, if true, then all these dubious three or four names here should be now immediately dropped!"

::At the moment, I'm trying to fix the mess in the real world, whose problem almost certainly stems from Misplaced Pages.

My use of words and reasoning here is impeccable, and you still insist on calling me "insincere." As I said, I have expert knowledge on this subject. ] (]) 07:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

: Your use of reasoning is impeccable????? No, not according to ] and the rest of Misplaced Pages's policies. How you fix ''anything'' is through ], not by unilateral declaration that you're an expert, and that you're right. There's a reason experts find Misplaced Pages difficult to edit - and you're simply proving it. (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 12:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

::] Hello, how are you, pleased to meet you. Thanks for the kind introduction. I sorry. I don't know who you are, and I've never heard of your user name before.
::Actually I am trying to show than I am an expert in this area, and am attempting to bring in the real world some order to the naming of deep-sky objects via a submission to the ] who are responsible for the laws governing the agreed policies in naming of objects beyond the earth. Whilst "], not by unilateral declaration that you're an expert" might be true, it is disingenuous to discount this as a method to persuade others (as suggested by ]. I gave an specific example of my expertise. With respect, this does not nurture ], as exactly pointed out to me by ].
:: Kicking someone when being accused of everything under the sun, other than the issue of edit warring, will only persuade individuals of so-called wiki atheism. Sure I don't know all the rules of editing, but there are surely nicer ways of saying that than your statement above. ] (]) 05:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

::Arianewiki1, at ] still causes concern. You wrote: ''"Undid revision 559639532 by Moonraker12 (talk) i'm not intimidated regardless of the consequences. Banned I maybe, but this is a deliberate at falsification."'' This edit has nothing to do with jewelry or pearl clusters or anything. You seem to be angry about the person adding alternate names for this nebula, and you reverted the usage of the Caldwell catalog in the lead. Besides the incorrect aspersion ('falsification'), this is improper editing for a person like yourself who didn't find a single person to support your viewpoint at ]. ] (]) 13:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

:::@ ] I'm am rather disappointed with your response here. You say that "You seem to be angry about the person adding alternate names for this nebula." This is incorrect. My actual response was towards the seeming deliberate REMOVAL of a name for this nebula, where the name ] (or Eta Carinae Nebula) did not appear at all before I made even one edit. (Since then, I have given references to support this, and now it now appears on the page.)
:::::: of ] occurred on 8 June 2013; in the immediately preceding version, the lead sentence includes the name "Eta Carina Nebula", along with several other names that Arianewiki1 removed. -- ] (]) 06:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)]

:::::::Yes, you are correct. I made a mistake in saying that. Bit confused from all the edits and to-and-fro in the responses here. I had no intent to deceive. (Though you might like to read my last important comment stated below.) Sorry. ] (]) 07:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

:::Furthermore, I am happy to answer the charge of edit warring, which you have levelled and then sanctioned against me. Issues outside of this, like accusing me of being 'angry', are unsupported and places me in a negative light. I have contributed to many articles without issue for 1799 items across 104 pages. ] (]) 05:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

'''Re fraudulent names:''' I appreciate Arianewiki1's dedication to accuracy, but I think in this case he has jumped to unwarranted conclusions. I became interested in these names when I saw that they had been removed from the relevant WP articles as "fraudulent". On ] I asked for more information, because "Wishing Well Nebula" does appear on several websites, but Arianewiki1 has not had time to respond there.

So in light of the explanation above, I poked around a bit, and found a more straight-forward explanation: the names are due to Ray Palmer, an Australian amateur astro-photographer. Palmer inaugurated the South Celestial Star Light Project in 2006 to popularize southern celestial objects, and provided new names for several that had no widely accepted popular names. New names are not "fraudulent" -- amateur astronomers coin them all the time. Some catch on, some don't. I have seen all the names above on webpages, "The Wishing Well Nebula" with some frequency. But the vehemence above has needlessly tarnished the name of {{user|Reg Carter}} and completely obscured the actual origin of the names.

{{Collapse top|title=The gory details}}
{{user|Reg Carter}} edited WP briefly in 2006 and again in 2008. His edits are quite straight-forward; mostly he is importing "popular" (unofficial) names from other astronomy sites. He gives sources for all except "The Diamond Cluster".

I followed the oldest link (www.ngc3532.com for NGC 3532), but the link is dead. The Wayback Machine has an archive snapshot from 2006 (around the time of Carter's edit), which says: "NGC 3532 -- The Wishing Well Cluster -- NGC 3532 is one of the finest Jewels in the Southern Sky.", and the page gives a bit of its history, and highlights its appearance as C91 in the Caldwell catalogue (with a brief introduction to that catalogue). The page also yields the following clue: "This site was created as part of the South Celestial Star Light Project".

Googling "South Celestial Star Light Project" leads to a quote on Google Books from ''1001 Celestial Wonders to See Before You Die: The Best Sky Objects for Star Gazers'', Michael E. Bakich, Springer, 2010, ISBN: 1441917764. Here is a name I recognize, for Bakich is the author of ''The Cambridge Planetary Handbook'', ''The Cambridge Guide to the Constellations'', ''The Cambridge Planetary Handbook'', and ''The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Amateur Astronomy''.

The quote is from Bakich's discussion of NGC 3766 (p. 91):

"It received its common name, the Pearl Cluster, February 15, 2006, from amateur astronomer and popularizer Ray Palmer. On that date, he founded the South Celestial Star Light Project to help fine-tune the names of Southern Hemisphere celestial objects. His reasoning is that astronomy must appeal to people, not be complicated or boring. People (especially young people), Palmer theorizes, will remember and relate to a sky object's popular name more than any of its catalog designations. I agree, and I'll be calling NGC 3766 the Pearl Cluster from now on."

Ray Palmer has a newer site: http://www.thecosmicartgallery.com/ that highlights several of his photos, some of which use the names in question. He's a member of the Astronomical Society of Western Australia, and one of his photos was featured at . I have not been able to find a web source for his original list, so I can't verify that "Diamond Cluster" is his invention -- but by the same token, there's no reason to suppose that Reg Carter invented the name either, even though he provides no source for it. His other edits show no propensity for invention or promotion.

The link that particularly bothered Arianewiki1 was Carter's source http://www.pearlcluster.com for "the Pearl Cluster", currently a commercial page advertising jewelry from the Pearl Jewelry Store. But Wayback shows that back in 2006 the url pointed to another South Celestial Star Light Project site highlighting NGC 3766, in a page very similar to the one for the Wishing Well. The domain had evidently been abandoned around 2012, and then picked up by Pearl Jewelry (who probably have no clue that there's a link to it from the bowels of WP).

{{Collapse bottom}}

-- ] (]) 16:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@ ] I gratefully and do appreciate your extensive comments here, which will prove very useful to what I am trying to do. The quote and 2010 references will aid me extensively in my external IAU submission. I knew of many of the statements beforehand, as my earlier quote was just a summary showed the weakness of people willing to use Misplaced Pages as a promotion tool. As for Reg Carter, I have information attaching him directly to the alleged commercial site. Also the Astronomical Society of Western Australian has no knowledge of the naming of these clusters. Also the photos you allude to are being sold for profit, and the names were probably added to sell these pictures.
The issue is that the naming of celestial objects are recognised by places like SIMBAD on the proviso they are commonly used names that have existed for some time I.e. Many decades. The problem is not that people cannot give names to these objects. They can. The problem is if some name is created, is that their can be confusion in where it is used. It is problematic in astronomical papers and abstracts, and finding said objects in search engines. A litany of annotations makes organising data very difficult for all. This is why the IAU is wishing that the naming of astronomical objects be discouraged. (See Next comment.) ] (]) 06:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

:::When the current unpleasantness blows over, I would like to continue this discussion of Palmer's names. I don't discount the possibility you raise, but I would like to see the evidence. "I have information" doesn't give me much to go on! Concerning your question below about renaming the article, I'd recommend letting that go until the block expires and then raising the issue on ] as a move request; that's the correct venue. -- ] (]) 10:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

'''IMPORTANT'''
'''@ ] ] ]

According to the IAU site "Naming of Astronomical Objects" http://www.iau.org/public/naming/#nebulae, and here recommend the names of deep-sky objects (via link) should pertain to the following list entitled "A Collection of Some Common Names for Deep Sky Objects" http://messier.seds.org/xtra/supp/d-names.html

Misplaced Pages already has a page ], which only found when defending myself against this ban. Here is says;

'"Common names] See ] Common names should be used for article names in preference to official, IAU-sanctioned names where the former are widely used and are unambiguous.'''

(Isn't this statement written incorrectly. It is very confusing.)
Eta Carinae Nebula is the IAU common name, therefore justifying as the page title.

(I'd assume that Carina Nebula, would be the secondary name, and this justifies my actual claims to change it!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(astronomical_objects)
In this list, by the way, appears "Eta Carinae Nebula" but no "Carina Nebula." (Also none of the others appear in this list.)

Clearly I've made an error in judgement not understand the intricate rules in editing.

:'''Q1 Should I submit a third appeal?'''

:'''Q2. Should the ] header for the article be changed to Eta Carinae Nebulae, based on this clear evidence?'''
] (]) 06:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

===Look===
Here's the bottom line: Misplaced Pages runs on ]. If you propose an edit on the talkpage of an article and 15 other people say "no", then it means "no" - even if you have 3 PhD's and have actually ''visited'' the Nebula. Yes, this means that consensus ''does'' often over-rule verifiability. On Misplaced Pages, we don't care about your credentials - we only care about the credentials of whatever ] you're using to prove your edit. Misplaced Pages is actually very unfriendly towards academics for this very reason - we never permit ], which drives academics batty.

You may indeed be right about the name of the whatever - however, if everyone else has '''reliable sources''' that say otherwise, you will (and pretty much always will) be out of luck. Right now this is a mere 1 week block for continued ] because you believe you hold the ] - that kind of behaviour is unacceptable on this project, and will lead to more blocks, no matter how right you think you are.

Since the cornerstones of unblock requests are a) understanding why you were blocked and b) promising to never repeat the behaviour that led to it, you do not yet seem to be ready for an unblock - your edits above make me believe you're simply going to try again. As such, until you understand the block, don't submit a request - eventually you'll lose access to this talkpage.

By the way - you're right, you've never heard of me before: when you submitted an unblock request, it advised admins who patrol requests for unblocks - and I'm one of them.

In short, STOP trying to show that you're an expert in the field: it actually turns people off. Try instead to show that you're an expert in providing ] - now ''that'' turns people on around here (]<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">]</span>]) 09:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

== You mentioned me? ==

My notifications here say that you mentioned me at ] -- not sure what that's about since I don't see my name on the page. Did I miss something that I should have been paying attention to? ] (]) 22:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

== FAR notification ==

I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. ] (]) 18:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "]".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] <sup>''] / ]''</sup> 03:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

== Removing talk page comments ==

Is there a reason why you ? ] (]) 17:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No. I am aware I removed anything of yours at all. I look into it and get back to you. (If I did something silly, my immediate apologies.) ] (]) 19:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I might have done this accidentally. Sorry. Retore it as you like. :) ] (]) 20:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
:No worries, I figured it was either a mistake or you thought I was trolling. Cheers! ] (]) 22:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
== December 2013 ==

] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
:List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
*<nowiki>that is defined as 1 ], which is the average distance from the Earth to the Sun</nowiki>{{red|'''&#41;'''}}<nowiki>. From these two values, along with the rules of trigonometry, the unit length of the [[adjacent</nowiki>
Thanks, <!-- (-2, 0, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

==Discretionary sanctions authorized for ]==
{{Ivm|2='''Please carefully read this information:'''

The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding ] and ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> ] &#124; ] 00:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for this. I'll ignore it, because I've done nothing wrong, and I have actively attempted to gain consensus on the topic. ] (]) 06:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
:A really bad idea. You've accused an editor of edit warring and said reverting isn't helpful, and then proceeded to make two reverts. ] (]) 08:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

:: What's a bad idea? ] had changed the page removing the citations requested, and I've corrected the text with what the reference source actually says. Was ] incorrect to change this without discussion on the talk page? Or should I have reversed all of ] modifications for not seeking consensus?
::As for the reverts, where / when does is say that is OK to do so, when I've was clearly marking a problem with the text, and I'm trying seeking consensus?
::Question. Why are you not acting is solving the problem of fixing the text in question?
::You seem here more worried by my alleged behaviour rather than solving the problems faced in the article on ]
::Do nothing. Is that what you want me to do here?? ] (]) 14:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

==Warning:Disruptive editing on ]==
I'm becoming uncertain whether the issue with your editing on ] is disruptive intent or a ] issue, in view of your many posts on ] which ostensibly respond to other people's posts but persistently ]. I'm thinking especially but not at all exclusively of your comments on the sentence in the article lead that "Most adherents hold to a literal reading of Genesis 6-9 and view its passages to be historically accurate, where the Bible's internal chronology reliably places the Flood and the story of Noah's Ark within the last five thousand years." (Later changed to "Proponents", then by you to "Some proponents", currently again reading "Proponents", and some less important wording changes attempting to make the sentence less clunky, but I'm quoting the sentence as it read when you complained of it.) You apparently believe that it ''is'' true that most adherents of flood geology do believe this, but that {{tq|"the implications of the sentence has been manipulated here to actually infers most Christians believe in Flood geology."}} Your claim of manipulation and of such an unlikely implication is not only untrue, it's incomprehensible. You give no arguments for it, yet you continue to insist on it to the point of using it as a reason for repeated reverts. You are editing disruptively on both the article and the talkpage, edit warring on the article as well as liberally and spuriously accusing others of edit warring and NPOV violations on Talk. Please edit and discuss constructively, or I will be forced to sanction you to protect the article from deterioration and its editors from the attrition caused by your currect debating style. A sanction would either take the form of a ] or a ] from pages relating to flood geology and other ] topics.

I should note also, since I'm giving this warning as an uninvolved admin, that you have claimed on Talk that I, along with other editors, have "repeatably reversed any other User contributions regarding this one line in the Article. They have tried to insist on the wording as to seemingly maintain their own POV (without adding any necessary references), and this has endless debated by them in the Talk pages without compromise." I have responded to this rather surprising statement (perhaps you may not actually have intended the accusations to apply to me, who have only trivially edited the article and had at that point never edited the talkpage, never mind "endlessly debated" on it?) . ] &#124; ] 17:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

:I actually give up. No matter what I think or edit here, other users like ] can change it without discussion, while anything I argue to support the changing of just two words (now deleted, and the paragraph reedited). Now you threaten sanctions because I had edited some ] topic, which was reverted without discussion. Q. Has ] done anything wrong here by editing this page, especially as it is supposed to be 'dissussed' via a Talk page ? (I do ask because I'm honestly now totally confused.) I.e. There is nothing now to be edited because the problem has been 'solved' by someone else? Whilst this whole article has many flaws, changing things midway has just made life more difficult. ] (]) 17:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

::Yeah, I give up too. I notice that you as usual engage with nothing I have said and instead want to discuss other editors. Just please be aware of my warning next time you edit ] and its talkpage. Have you clicked on any of the links you have been given, for instance the ones in the templated discretionary sanctions alert above? They're informative. You might be interested in the Arbitration Committee's final decision in the pseudoscience case , for instance. ] &#124; ] 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

:Again. Comment please. Q. Has User:Yopienso done anything wrong here by editing this page, especially as it is supposed to be 'dissussed' via a Talk page ? (I do ask because I'm honestly now totally confused.) I.e. There is nothing now to be edited because the problem has been 'solved' by someone else? Whilst this whole article has many flaws, changing things midway has just made life more difficult. ] (]) 18:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)'

Actually, I'm quite aware of the difficult issues with ] I.e. . See my part in discussion with ] ] (]) 18:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

:Hi, Ariane. I think my edits have been uncontroversial. Wrt to "some proponents" v. "proponents," I purposely did not write "''all'' proponents." That would be too strong. But, "''some'' proponents" is too weak. Eliminating a qualifier denotes that, ''generally,'' proponents of flood geology hold to a literal interpretation of Gen. 6-9. I'm a little surprised at the way you're mentioning me here since yesterday you sent me a "Thank" for my editing.
:I think that maybe if you take a deep breath and listen to the input, you'll see where your fellow editors are coming from. Best wishes, ] (]) 18:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your useful comments. I should say I thanked you for removing the word 'reliable', which was the main point of contention that others had argued against and simply reverted my changes. The issue is that the Bible is unreliable on the alleged age of Noah's Flood. I added the range only to show this was the case. You have show my POV was more likely correct.
:::As my question on you towards ] it is not personal but about the process. I.e. You can make changes with impunity, while I'm threatened with sanctions, when your statement then seemingly perfectly agrees with mine! (Seemingly, if I edit now, according to ], I'm passed off as dead!) ] (]) 19:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
::I forgot to mention my revert of your edit wrt the time of Noah's flood. The lede said, ". . . the Bible's internal chronology to place the Flood and the story of ] '''within the last five thousand years.'''" (My emphasis.) My source says, "Noah's Flood (about 4,500-5,000 years ago)". Those two statements are not contradictory: 4500-5000 is within the last 5000 yrs. I felt your revert there was simply contentious. Judging by your edit summary, "The given reference says 4500 to 5000 years ago not 5000 years. Changed," perhaps you read too quickly and didn't notice the word "within." I don't actually mind if it says 4500-5000; what I mind is contentious or sloppy editing, which I perceived on your part. ] (]) 18:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

== Edits incorrectly called vandalism. ==

You recently removed the common names for planetary nebulae ] and ] citing vandalism. I have reverted your edits, the common names are correct and I have added references to that effect, please assume good faith.] (]) 14:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the source of this is "Imaging the Southern Sky : An Amateur Astronomer’s Guide" By Stephen Chadwick Ian Cooper" on pg.70 (2012) . This is not the common name of the cluster and has not been used commonly by anyone. It is among the fictions generated by these authors, which are causing great problems with usual naming procedures. All these names are bogus. Including 20 others. As such, they should be removed. ] (]) 16:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

== IP editor at plasma cosmology ==

]. ] (]) 15:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will no longer make comment to this disruptive editor. ] (]) 16:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

== Hi ==

Since you're an astronomer, tell me: Is ] really the largest galaxy? It says so on several different websites and videos, but people keep removing that information as well as its diameter (5.5 Mly) from the article claiming that the information is false. Can you somehow prove to them why it is the largest galaxy known? '''] (])''' 20:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

:The diameter of ] is 860,000 pc or about 860000*3.262=2.8 Mly See the wiki page ]

:According to NED<ref>http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/forms/byname.html</ref> radial velocity is 23368±26 km/s, making this 1554 parsec per arcsec. If the galaxy is 90×35 arcsec, the maximum size is 1554×90 or 139.860pc or 456,000ly (0.46Mly.). BY 1554*35 or 54,390pc or 177,000ly (0.17Mly). I.e. 140×54kpc.
::'''Therefore, 5.5 Mly is improbable if not impossible.'''

:Note; Is suggest they wrongly assumed the size was probably in arcmin not arcsec, which would give ~5.5Mpc.

:Largest spiral galaxy I know, as stated in the literature, is '''NGC 6872''' in Pavo, being 160kpc., (each arm spans an enormous 80 kpc.), so it very easily dwarfs our Milky Way’s mere 16±1.5 kpc size by a factor of five!

:: See article entitled <ref="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20130110.html" “NASA’s GALEX Reveals the Largest-Known Spiral Galaxy”</ref>, stating; "''The spiral is 522,000 light-years across from the tip of one outstretched arm to the tip of the other, which makes it about 5 times the size of our home galaxy, the Milky Way''."

:This is therefore already bigger then ] too! ] (]) 21:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

== Invitation ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid Black;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''You've been invited to be part of ]'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
Hello. Your contributions to Misplaced Pages have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the ] for more information! Cheers

''{{resize|96%|'''] (])''' 19:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)}}''
|}

== Metallicity ==

Sorry but you flooded the page with citation needed tags. You know, not literally every sentence that is written needs a reference. If you really are concerned about the references, add the template below on top.

Also, what does X and Y means? Is it really a necessary detail? '''] <sup>(])'''</sup> 00:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

{{more footnotes}}

::Please do not revert pages carte-blanch like that again without discussing it on a talk page.

::You also quite boldly removed a modification of text with relevant citation confirming the statement given, which the earlier version did not.

::As per the editing, I had not finished what I was doing, which was getting references to support the statements.
] requires some time for others to edit, which you seemingly just want to disregard.

::X, Y and Z are clearly the parameters for, Hydrogen, Helium and Metals (many sources) I.e.

::"'It is convenient to define the fractions by mass of hydrogen X, of helium Y , and of heavy elements Z. Therefore, Z = (mass of heavy elements)/(total mass of all nuclei)… in some object, objects or region of space. We therefore have X + Y + Z=1... For convenience, chemical abundances in the Universe are often compared to the values in the Sun. Solar abundances give X = 0.70, Y = 0.28, Z = 0.02 by mass. (And by number, 92 % H, 8.5 % He, 0.09 % heavy elements.)''"
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~wjs/MTH726U/chap4.pdf ] (]) 00:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

:::Sorry for seeming rude. It's just that I'm so used to reverting crap that I might have become a little arrogant. You're doing a great job there '''] <sup>(])'''</sup> 03:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

== AWB Violation/ Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not? ==

== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] (]) 13:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

==reply==
I didn't get in a content dispute. You were the one who started everything.

Anyway, I'm not sure if you've been pinged, but just letting you know I've left a reply there

This is an unsigned comment by ]
I've started nothing. You were the one caught
Please kindly sign post with four tildes, or comments like this will be deleted. ] (]) 15:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

:I simply forgot to. '''] <sup>(])'''</sup> 16:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

:The discussion is about the word universe, not moon or sun. They are proper nouns and should be capitalized. Also, refrain from making personal attacks'''] <sup>(])'''</sup> 16:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

==request==

PLEASE let's continue the discussion here. It seems like it's more about me and you than anything else. I really, really don't want to start a fight. Please rely, and don't forget to ping me. Thanks '''] <sup>(])'''</sup> 17:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

:Don't bother, I have referred you for edit warring and falsely accusing other users. Sorry to say, but it is a fight you will certainly lose.] (]) 17:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

::Misplaced Pages can be really stressful sometimes. It is a 💕 afterall, so it is always necessary some comprehension among users otherwise this whole place will turn into a warzone. As I said, I really don't want to get into fights and I want to discuss this in a rational way. The problem is that you've really made personal attacks to me, like when you said I'm a new user with a toy. That is offensive and there is no excuse for that. Let's discuss this in a mature way. Please reply to me again, tell your concerns '''] <sup>(])'''</sup> 17:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

::Also, is it that difficult to notice that there ''was'' a consensus? Read everything above my comment "@Dondervogel 2: Fine, I guess that's the final decision then". It was a simple decision. You can't make everyone bow to your opinion. You're a huge minority. Also, the long messages you post make you look extremely arrogant. Stop trying to say you didn't attack me personally. It is ok to admit you're not 100% right all the time. By the way, consider this message as a constructive criticism, not an attack. '''] <sup>(])'''</sup> 19:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

:::Please stop so openly lying. Everything you are now saying here is just spin, personal attack, and open provocation.
:::All my statements made on the ] are verifiable, regardless what you say or do.
:::Since you continue to deny the problem, there is little point discussing this further.
:::Clearly, any decision or sanction has nothing to do with me, because it deliberateness of what you've done to force on this issue.
::::If you have any other issues, there are procedures you can enact if you want too. Go right ahead, and good luck!
:::::] (]) 20:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

== Neutral Advice on Recent Events Towards Tetra Quark's Talk Page ==

== Back to reality... ==
<small>
Although I'm probably the last person you want to talk to, I thought it best to leave some encouragement for your editing, especially with the recent issue of the use of ] being resolved ,

Misplaced Pages editing and decisions made towards editors can seem very personal, unfair and unjust. Believe me, I have suffered many times over the years myself, hit with complaints, bans, and losing arguments on astronomical use of various nomenclature. (See my talk Page!) Your great enthusiasm and willingness to improve articles is to be applauded, and I would encourage you learn the procedures and participate in the discussion on the various Talk Pages. Succeeding in Misplaced Pages is to learn patience. If you think something is a good idea, pause, think about it, then pause again. If unsure, seek advice, before committing to an edit. As also pointed out to you, one of the other key points in editing is to assume ], which always a great start. (Sometime in the heat of the moment this goes out the window, but it is a logical necessity to maintain community between editors. In this past experience, I probably failed to do this.)

Your only big 'mistake' was to implement ] far too quickly, which is a very powerful tool. Changes on a global basis should be made over a long time, because the changes cannot be reverted or fixed by the normal one edit at a time editor.
Also if I had objected to the changes, then using ] made you obliged under it usage, to debate the problems until some form of consensus is reached. I didn't get that chance, because you had already made the changes. It affects my future editing, because I have to know the 'new' rules, and I have to understand why this syntax should be maintained. In my own writings away from Misplaced Pages, I am very conscience of my writing style, and face these dilemmas all the time, especially if submitted for a published formal papers. The other issue with capitalisation of names, which no one has talked about is that lots of them can be very difficult to read, whose scanning seems like it is always at the beginning of a sentence, and this makes it difficult to read. Whilst the letter of the law is to capitalise everything, it has to be used wisely. Writing 'earth' sometimes makes sense to any reader, but it is the context that is more important.

A second issue was the attempted to seemingly cover your tracks to avoid scrutiny. But you always have to be transparent and open about what you do or what you are attempting to do. The moment you don't, you'll find you just lose trust. I too, learnt this the hard way.

Regarding ], I'll be making some suggestions towards more safeguards for its use. I.e. Say 5000 edits to allow access and improved mentorship. I do hope, sincerely, when you get more experience, you will get access to this resource again. With the steps you have gained since coming to Misplaced Pages, I have little doubt that might not be too far away.

In the end, you might now be pretty angry with me, and this will unlikely change at the moment or soon, but the procedures of editing has always been the central issue, which the ] specifically addresses. I may have made several 'enemies' by doing this ], mainly by exposing my position in the way I have, but I'll have to live with that. We both regretfully have made some big mistakes in the last few days, but we just have to move on and learn from it.

Yet we still have to get on as a community of editors, so I'd encourage you to read
A final one, which I read during this dispute, because I thought I may have crossed the line, were. These now are bookmarked in my browser, too.

As to you plea towards the lead section of the article ] , I 110% agree.

Keep up your good editing!

] (]) 00:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)</small>

== I've Knowingly Just Broken the 3RRR Rule ==
<small>I have just broken the 3RRR to prove a very simple point.

It says; "...please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. "

I'm attempting that, and to be consolatory towards past actions..

If you feel so strongly about this, I would recommend that you ], and I'll likely be banned for 24 hours. You are within your rights to do so.

That is entirely up to you, of course. ] (]) 02:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

] (]) 02:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

'''On a 3RRR Issue'''
:@ ]. I would suggest you starting heeding the advice given to you by these Administrators here. You should be clear that the sanction of this block is only for ]. (Past deeds are totally irrelevant.) You were very clearly advised not to do this, but then the last edit to ] broke the ] warning already under place. There was little else that could be done, and there is no option but to block. (I even showed you a direct example me knowingly breaking ] just to show you how it work. On the linked page in this post of mine, it clearly says; "''Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.''" Yet you just deleted it, my post, and ignored both. Repeated reverting can be placed on you by ] and ] with ] You don't want to go down that path.)

: I actually do see some other real issues with both edits of ] and ], several which are legitimate on both sides. To solve this, once this block is lifted, I will be quite happy to mediate between you two editors with these articles so you might gain some reasonable consensus. (I have taught and written papers on astronomy and cosmology, and am well versed in many aspects on the topics you are doing.) This is the mature thing to do, I'd think.

: Your statement in regards the review of the block, where you say; "''As if taking my AWB permission for legitimate edits based on rules wasn't enough, now you block me.''" To solve this you still need to try to understand and accept why the AWB permission was withdrawn. The mass edits were made, perhaps legitimately, but you simply ignored the conditions in gaining a consensus, '''clearly breaking the conditions''' of AWB's use. I.e. You did break the rules. You were warned several times but other users, which you in your haste, ignored. It is very clear you are very bitter about this decision. Really. You need to just accept this sanction, acknowledge it and why, learn from it, and then move on. Otherwise, you will ultimately end up in the place you are now, excluded from doing anything at all.

: Also please stop using User Talk pages as a places to aggravate people on their edits. If you must argue on edits, do it on the '''Article Talk pages''', where other editors can chip in and help gain consensus on disputes. If you need help, ask someone neutral for advice, because often they don't know or understand about the topic, and can give candid viewpoints. At the moment, no one has a clue about which edits are problematic or even what is wrong.

: Again. Please stop using your or others User Talk pages as some kind of weapon. Deleting things you don't agree with or hiding your attacks through deletion or archiving only makes you guilty by not being open and transparent . I.e. It looks like you are hiding things. Remember, even if you do remove things, there is always an historical record in the View History. (I too, notice that when the 3RRR Edit Warning was issued to ], and then hid your discussions '''over just ten days''' with this editor and the 3RRR Edit Warning, by archiving just his page.. This doesn't help ] position here either.) ] might be wrong, but that isn't what this block is about.

: I have recently gave you some honest advice in the attempt to help you get past some of these issue. Yet your response was "''too long, didn't read''", then just instantly deleted it. The moment you were blocked, the first thing you did was to delete it?, Was it hoping, I assume, so others would not see it perhaps? Avoiding an inkling of truth? If that wasn't bad enough, you then attempted to deleted the templates when you already have a block placed on you. Did you think no one would notice, especially an Administrator who had imposed a ban? '''How would you feel. if the positions were reversed, and you did this to them?'''

: In the end, I not here to lecture you or berate you for past or current sins. '''I do see great potential towards positive contributions here''', which are greatly needed in this area of expertise. You are obviously both enthusiastic and knowledgeable, but you need to temper the seemingly breakneck speed in which you need to change things. This is not meant to be a race.

: Please learn to be more conciliatory to other users, always ], and be tolerant of other viewpoints (even if they are annoyingly wrong.) Honestly on this last point, I too, am guilty of violating these problems from time to time. Once I was where you are now, but I've slowly been trying to changing my attitudes. (Just see my own chequered past, on the ] page. Nothing has been removed form it since 2008. I'm not proud of it, but it reminds me of my past foolishness so I can learn from it.)

:: The adage, "''For things to change, I must change.''" is the only advice I can give you.
:: You choose. I can do no more. ] (]) 05:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)</small>

==Third statement ==
<small>
:::I really don't know why I'm doing this, but in response to you saying, "''I'd like more opinions on this''", well I'm going to be straight down the line here.

:::You said to an Administrator "I wouldn't get into an edit war again, if that's your concern.", but less than a 1 hour 33 mins you reverted ] edit, where you said "''Thanks, but the sentence is not well punctuated and also it is unnecessary."'' followed by "We assume that people are going to read the article." What kind of attitude is that? Is it necessary to insulting to another editor. ] Why so harsh on ]? Why didn't you just fix the wrongly punctuated text?

:::Yes, some 28 minutes later, I did reverted your edit on the ] page, because there was no need to be so abrupt. I said to you, "''Fix the structure if need be, don't just delete''." Here is where you should stopped and discussed it, or allowed me time to fixed the punctuation or talk to me, but no. You instantly reverted my edit within two minutes. That is when you started edit warring. That was all it took.

:::Ok that might seem pretty trivial, I'm fairly tough skin, but you must of known it was provocative. Yet only four hours later, on the same ] Article Page, you reverted ] edits twice within five minutes, with abrasive comments. Again that is edit warring.

:::Now you might claim you didn't know you were edit warring, but ] came to you AFTER all this and rightly said, "So User:Tetra quark has reverted me a couple of times now on this, so I figured I should bring it to the Talk page." That is inviting consensus, and after that, discussion did reach some kind of odd consensus. Good move, but you should of thought of that before you even got to that point.

:::Now to the tough bit. Your latest response "''Oh, and I hadn't read the 3rr page.''" is simply suicidal on your part. You have been told many times about this now. I even bother to write a lengthy reply to this issue while you were on your short ban, and now it is clear you just didn't read it! Then to add insult, after your last ban finished, the very first thing you did was dump my post, have it reverted by ], reminding you of "''try learning from it instead of deleting it.''" Realising reverting edits mightn't be a good idea, you thought get around this, you create "The Bin", leave a heading "''This is where I leave all the minor messages, templated garbage and things that I don't like overall.''" My efforts, who cares. Administrators advice, who cares. I'll do it my way. (This is ] and generates

:::Then now when you write here to ], "''I'm so annoyed and embarrassed I had to go through all this''."

:::Yet now you think it is perfectly OK too beg for forgiveness for your actions, when you have turn up the provocation as far as it could go!

:::Yet the mistakes go on. In this appeal you accused an administrator of "''I think you're kind of stalking me a little''."

:::Yet what really digs at me is the statement "I hope to get my AWB permission back soon, as I believe I was using it in a fair way etc." You lost AWB permission because you would not listening to other Users advice with its requirement of getting consensus. Let it go, and take responsibility for your own actions. Nobody did this but you.

:::All I'm starting to see is someone who clearly has no respect for anyone, and I don't want to think that. Really, the only problem you have, ] is this "get out of my way" attitude, with no sign or want to reasonable understanding of others when it comes to editing articles. Some people are brilliant at editing, some are less sure, while some are doing their level best or are still learning; but treating those with disrespect because you disagree is quite unacceptable. (Read ]) Humiliating editors means they do not return to edit. That is not good. Please show kindness and contrition when working with other people here, and dump this "get out of my way." attitude.

:::Misplaced Pages = cooperation, collaboration and consensus. If you really want to do it alone… well…

:::Truly, this isn't fun anymore… ] (]) 18:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Arianewiki1}} ''You said to an Administrator "I wouldn't get into an edit war again, if that's your concern.", but less than a 1 hour 33 mins you reverted ] edit, where you said "''Thanks, but the sentence is not well punctuated and also it is unnecessary."'' followed by "We assume that people are going to read the article." What kind of attitude is that? Is it necessary to insulting to another editor.'' '''] <sup>(])'''</sup> 18:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

::::Do you even know what an insult is? That's an acceptable way to change someone's edit. Edit summaries are supposed to be a brief reason for modifying something. Also, please, stop copy & pasting messages on my talk page '''] <sup>(])'''</sup> 18:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)</small>

==Fourth Statement==
<small>
:::::What are you up to now? Why do I ask? I.e. "''Most people agreed with the capitalization of "universe" under certain circumstances and I capitalized it. Pretty simple. Right now I'm busy adding some references to Earth's orbit, so later I'll rv my edits. The talk pages can wait a little..''" Eh? Discussion on now says otherwise. Please respond to you reasoning here, as the statement you make is not factual nor verifiable. Statements must be evidential not just hearsay.

:::::Please learn what consensus (Portuguese 'consenso') is all about. It is not when YOU decide, but when a GROUP decides. If you have doubts, I'd suggest you talk to someone in the community (not necessarily me) that supports your conclusions. I've noticed you tend to state a problem, leave others to debate it, then use, it rightly or wrongly, just to validate your own point of view. Not appearing neutral ultimately counter-active. You seem to do this, then move onto another issues. I.e. ] and ] is the classic example. You move onto something else, leaving others to solve the problem, but you don't add anything more. Please stick to one or two topics at the moment, be involved in the conversations, make others feeling they are engaging in the subject. I.e. Discussing the true size of ]. (I've done this all day, you have contribute literally zero. You stated the debate, but you have seemingly little interest to solve it. The same goes for the capitalization of "universe" debate. You claim one thing, but you have contributed very little for more than a week.

:::::At the moment, like this template, your jumping all over the place, leaving the suspicion you doing something untoward. You might no be, but you leave that impression. (This is not a criticism, but an observation.)

:::::Furthermore, I would also advise you of ], which you continue to skate around. Frankly, it is starting to cheese people off. People are not suckers for this. Frankly, I appreciate wanting to contribute, but modifying templates on a whim is not very wise. If you want to remove or add templates, please discuss before doing so. Exploiting the system looks really terrible. You maybe doing this accidentally or unknowingly, but be aware others like me are concerned about it.

:::::Your contributions are to be applauded, but I still see no good evidence why I (or others) would want to trust you. Honestly, a little tweak here and there, to gain trust, would change people attitude to what you are doing. It would really change my views!

:::::Also I did reverted one of your edits today. You began to discuss it on my User page, but you contributed nothing further to solve the central problem. I ask you to the discuss in solving this issue. Both ] and me have discussed the technicalities, but you've added nothing to the contributions. You earlier stated you would like a consensus on galaxy sizes, but have said nothing else. We are doing the hard work, and you now stuffing around will templates. Please explain why?

:::::Please take these words as a guide, as it will help your edits in general. Cheers. ] (]) 09:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)</small> ] (]) 23:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::I see that my name was invoked here, but I want to state for the record that I take no stand in this debate. (In fact, I really don't know what this talk page discussion is about or who "you" is, since the comment is in its own section, not part of a thread.) So, readers of this comment, please don't interpret the use of my name as evidence that I endorse one view or another. —Alex (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

== Comment ==

Hey Ariane, I just wanted to drop by and say that, without commenting everything you've written (some of which I agree with), it's rarely helpful to write long bouts of advice like this while someone is blocked. If I were blocked, I wouldn't want to feel like I was being talked down to, and that's the kind of impression I get from it, even if the advice is sound. A lot of advice is being flung at the editor, and I don't think they require any more at this time. ]] 18:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

:Who knows. For the past few weeks all I see is someone ] the system, looking for things to use to improve his influence - templates being the recent one. He's really angry just because I'm in his way with ABW. Call me crazy, but I don't feel really safe with this editor. On my own User Page appears this. Is this not being talked down too? Near the end of the recent ABW argument, I seriously wanted to delete my account here. Even now, from the mask of a block, he's stating "Also, please, stop copy & pasting messages on my talk page." I have two messages there, the rest he deleted! He's saying this to make the impression I'm the one deleting the messages!
:In the end, if someone doesn't say something, then who will? Unless he curb his current behaviour, he'll be gone within a month, anyway. Nah. Better things to do. :)
:Thanks for the comments. ] (]) 21:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|I JethroBT}}

I've just found out you are an administrator, and I wish I had known, because I would have answered much differently than I did. I nearly made a mistake in what I was going to say, especially seeing the notification lights increasing in number. I was pretty stressed when deciding if I was doing the right thing, but I did not for ], but for me. (At least I have a record, that is not burying deep in some archive, as to hide past sins.) I'm more seriously concerned with this editor's ], especially with attempting to find anything to impose or exploit towards global editing. I don't think he has figured out what consensus means, and jumps into decisions far to quickly. So far, I have little indication of contrition towards anyone else, except seemingly for advantage.

You say "''If I were blocked, I wouldn't want to feel like I was being talked down to…''" I agree, I but I tried avoid that twice before, and the guy just got arrogant. He had amply opportunity to know about edit warring, in writing with evidence, and of its consequences. He saw ], then spat it back in your face.

I suppose he might make a good productive editor (I've even said so), but his current gestures are might hostile.

Also next time could you also consider announcing who you are, before pointing out guidance to other users like that. I wasn't going to say or do anything wrong, but it frankly felt like entrapment. All it does is make you suspicious of everyone. I don't like that feeling.] (]) 02:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
:Let me unpackage some things here, but let's not allow this situation to occupy too much of our collective time. To answer your questions below:
:*{{tq|Q. Have I done something wrong here?}} Not at all. My above message was just a suggestion and not a warning of any kind. You can take it or leave it. And yeah, I'm an admin as you've discovered, but I don't really like to formally announce it. It's not my way to lord it over people like my opinion matters any more than any other editor's when it comes to how to help editors become more productive. I try to be observant and thoughtful, but my judgment can be just as faulty as anyone else's. Your response was fine, and it should not matter whether I am an admin or not.
:*{{tq|Q. What should I be doing instead?}} You can keep on doing what you've been doing: Editing and working with others to make astronomy articles better than they are. And if there are editors who are disrupting that process, you can try to engage them as you have been.
:*If you want to understand my rationale behind the unblock, give ] a read. The editor acknowledged that their behavior was problematic and offered a reasonable solution to avoid it. That's basically ]. If an editor fails to follow through on it, or if they are truly gaming the system, they will get a much longer block, and admins will be less likely to believe in any future assurances that "it won't happen again." Also, their fluency in English was not a factor in my decision (but keep in mind there is a large gap between English being someone's second language and someone having a poor grasp in English.)
:]] 09:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

-------

::Hi ]I just read you conversation with ] and your discussion to unblock. I'm unsure why you did this? If ] was having real problems with English, then why was he using ] to edit multiple articles? He was also arguing on capitalisation of English words, like sun, moon, earth, and universe. , and implemented without consensus. The ] was withdrawn from his use.

::Were you aware of these posts I made during the first block? and I was crystal clear with the ] rule, and even exampled it. Instead he delete it, and claim not to have read it.

::Even I had earlier concerns, stating on 11:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "My other minor issue is thaaft Tetra quark is likely to have English as his second language, after his native Portuguese. (I'm concerned with the implications of these changes.)"

:::I.e. The words of ] 04:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC) (note the contractions)

:::"It seems like all the edit summaries have called the attention of more people, which is understandable. I will try to answer to all of you above. First of all, I want you to keep in mind that I didn't edit those articles based on my preference. All I care about is to do what's more correct. As you can see, I asked here which way we should use the word and I didn't influence anyone in my message (although I left my opinion).
:::So, according to the MOS, it's ok to capitalize words like "sun" when they are in an astronomical context (As in "the Sun is a main sequence star") and it's not ok when it is not. The word sun, for example, can be used to refer to stars in general as well ("our sun is our primary source of energy". Implying -> there are other suns), and yes, it should be lowercased. When it comes to the word "universe", the same rule can be applied. There is the Universe (which means, the totality of existence) and there are other uses of that word that can refer to one universe in a multi-verse, or used in a philosophical way, or even when referring to wildly different things like "Miss universe". Even though MOS doesn't have an specific example that mentions the word universe, it's pretty clear the same rule should be applied, as everyone above my last message has agreed.

::: @Peter Gulutzan: that was a first step at changing the word. In the find and replace feature, I typed in "the universe", considering that pretty much all of the cases in which that term is used it refers to the Universe. If I hadn't put the "the" there, it would take a really long time to sort what words should be capitalized or not; that's why "Einstein's static universe" wasn't changed. I do intend to do more detailed edits soon. (Update: I've made the changes in a few articles. Take a look: Albert Einstein Giordano Bruno List of cosmologists )
::: And no, I'm not changing anything inside quotes, file links, templates, refs, link targets, and so on. I really may have capitalized the word "sun" inside a quote accidentally"

:: Surely, this far from being someone with poor grasp of English?

:: Q. Have I done something wrong here?

:: Q. What should I be doing instead?

:: Q. Are you an administrator? ] (]) 01:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

== IC 1101 ==

Are you sure you reverted the right edit?

:Yes, absolutely. See ] (]) 02:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

::And by the way, how the hell do you expect me to add a reference to a wikilink added? '''] <sup>(])'''</sup> 02:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

== Unhelpful links ==

Hi,

A few times you've posted edit links on talk pages, I think meaning to provide a direct link to a specific version of a talk page or a diff. A version of a talk page would be a link ; a diff would be a link . Instead, you provide links , which don't do any good. —Alex (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 02:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

==A respectful request==

], as far as you are concerned, ] is my close friend. He is a great contributor. And he is a mature user.

For some unknown reasons, he became extraordinarily mad and disrespected you. He has forgotten his goal, and started to attack users which come to stop him. He was never like he was before. Something changed on him, and I've seen it.

So in place of Tetra quark, I, his friend, was so ashamed of myself, to you, and to alllof my other fellow Wikipedians. For his sake, I am now saying, very sorry for what be has done. I felt regret and qas so ashamed of you.

My friend is a great potential admin in the future. Mabe what he needs is training and more time. Please don't be angry of him. Please forgive him for my sake. Promise me, go give him another chance. If you indefinitely blocked him, I myself will retire. Can you do that for me?

Thank you, Your Honorable. Please leave me a message on my talk page about your decision. No hard feelings. Regards? ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|SkyFlubbler}} No I am not angry with ], but his bad behaviour is now wearing very thin at the moment. ] continues to basically ignore even the simplest of Misplaced Pages rules, and has seemingly broken the ] rule now five times. His return will be his very last chance, and this was not stated or caused by me, but as stated by an Admin. As for the rudeness and abuse, this is not the first time I've seen this kind of bad behaviour from this user, to me or towards others. The disrespect he showed to three other users, and on Admin – well if he comes back he'll have to do some swift talking…
:Every time I have tried to guide ], he has plainly ignored any advice, and claims to to have read it, replies with hostility, or hides my posts in his "Bin" or just deletes it. I would like to edit cosmology and astronomy articles too, but have recently lost nearly all interest because of the many disruptions, especially the indiscriminate carte blanch use of ], and the now endless arguments on style. (Worst he now seems to may have posted a pornographic image in the Commons, which if true, is clearly an unforgivable act.) Why should I (we) even bother anymore? We'll see. ] (]) 21:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

== Plasma Cosmology ==

Ariane, years ago (2013) I deleted this fragment of the article:
"As of 2014, the vast majority of researchers openly reject plasma cosmology because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted cosmological theory."
Because it was contrary to the source provided at the moment.
Years later (now, 2015), I find the same paragraph again, without any source to back it up. Please kindly provide a source for your statement, or several if you would be so kind.
I understand to you it may seem obvious that the theory is openly rejected, but verifiability is key to Misplaced Pages, and a strong a statement like this deserves proper substance to back it up, in the form of citations. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{ping|Pentalis}} I thought this was already quite self-evident. If I (we) could find some recent plasma cosmology articles, peer-reviewed, and directly accepted by astronomy or astrophysics source. There are none, and the last was nearly twenty years ago. I.e. The last acceptable paper here was by Peeratt in Astrophysics and Space Science, in 1995. No mainstream cosmologist or astrophysicist accepts it. Moreover, citations should be proven for the '''acceptance''' of plasma cosmology, not the other way around. No one talks about plasma cosmology in the mainstream, so getting a statement to verify this by citation is difficult. (But you probably already know this, which is probably why you are asking.) If you want to change it, you better get some good consensus on the article's talk page, before actually doing so. From past experience, most editors here do agree the statement is both factual and true.

:Equally, can you show that "the vast majority of researchers openly '''accept''' plasma cosmology because it does match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted cosmological theory."" Can you provide any relevant citation for that?

:As for "''Because it was contrary to the source provided at the moment.''" Eh? What does that actually mean? What 'source'?

::Note: IEEE papers and pseudo-astronomy/cosmology sources ''are not'' supportive or acceptable citations for plasma cosmology. ] is also not equivalent to the theory of ]. This is not just my view but the consensus in many past debates on the subject.] (]) 22:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

:::I am amazed with ] response here. The first post above appeared today, but his last response (an edit) was on 24th July 2013 was an edit removal of this this actual quote, and the citation given with it.. I removed the did reference but not the statement, which is factual, true and clearly self-evident. I cannot find who added this references, but it seems this occurred during one of the rapid edits during 2011-12. This statement, and the variants, give information on the lack of support for plasma cosmology today. Even the plasma cosmology proponents complain things like lack of funding, etc., does not support plasma cosmology either. ], but why do you want exactly discuss this now after all this time?

::::Because years ago when I first heard of "Plasma Cosmology" I was curious on what it was about, and did my edit after I followed the source accompanying the statement. Now years later I came to do a small fix in an article in the Spanish Misplaced Pages and followed my old edits curious to see what happened to them, and by poking around I ended up here. I didn't edit the statement now because if someone put it back it must be with good reason, so I came here to find out. I understand your explanation of the problem with providing sources to a negative statement (there is no X), as opposed to a positive one; I guess that's more a problem with the design of Misplaced Pages than with the article. I would like if there was a way to show, without directly citing someone else's words, how to verify a statement (like what you just said about the absense of plasma cosmology articles in mainstream publications), but there's no way to link to such a search since that would be "original research". So, I'm happy with your explanation, I'm sorry if I came off as rude. I also can't see a better "cure" for the article now, so I think it'll have to stay as it is. ] (]) 01:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

:::Comment: More amazing here is the wiki-style designed update dated Sat 14 February 2015 to the Plasma Universe.com . Another is Thornhill's "Electric Universe' released 28th January 2015. I've seen other stirrings on-line too. I'll keep this on watch. ] (]) 01:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

:::: I wasn't even aware of those websites (in case that's what you thought) ] (]) 01:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

] (]) 01:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

== List of Brightest Stars ==

Hi Ariane,

you posted on my talk page about my edit of ]. I replied, but you didn't respond. The reason why I think my edit is correct is that it is in line with the conclusion of the rfc on the talk page . As per the conclusion of the rfc, "This involves listing Capella, Alpha Cent, Castor etc. at their combined apparent magnitude for the systems." Is there a reason I don't know of why you are ignoring the conclusion of the rfc? ] (]) 01:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

:@{{ping|Aarghdvaark}} Sorry. I wasn't aware of the edit here. I'll look at this tomorrow. I'm nor ignoring you, I'm just unaware of an issue. Happy to help now I know about it. Cheers. ] (]) 01:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|Aarghdvaark}} I do agree with the rfc. I reverted it because it explained the reason for the difference, not to defy the rfc. Earlier versions of the article were constantly being reverted because editors didn't understand the difference, so I wrote this so the question was in black and white. Call this preemptive editing to resolve define the issue. I thought this was explained, but I may have missed it somehow. I meant no disrespect to you at all, and I do appreciate your contributions. If I've offended or seemingly diminished respect towards you, I extend my humblest apologies. Cheers. ] (]) 13:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

:::No worries Ariane. But I think the article as currently written is not as the rfc decided. The intro states: "This is a list of the brightest individual stars determined by their average apparent magnitudes in the visible spectrum as seen from Earth. This is not the same as a list of the brightest stars as seen with the naked eye ...". But the rfc states: "This involves listing at their combined apparent magnitude for the systems." To state the obvious the article now gives the magnitudes of individual stars, whereas in the case of multiple star systems, the rfc decided on giving the combined magnitude of all stars in the system - i.e. a list of the brightest stars as seen with the naked eye. That was why I deleted that bit in the intro - it did not agree with the rfc conclusion. I think you would need to swap the meaning of the bit you wrote around so it meant the opposite of what it currently says? And then of course all the entries in the list would need to be changed too. Thoughts? ] (]) 08:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

==A message==

Hello, Ariane!

I am here to tell you that ] has removed on his talk page your created section "3RR Violations & Disruptive editing, Disrupting the Project, Civility: User:Tetra quark:" You said that it must not be removed, but he did.

Please, sir. I am still pledging to you that do not block him indefinitely. Who will lead the Cosmology Wikiproject? Anyway, I will respect your decision. I am so ashamed. ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|SkyFlubbler}}{{ping|Tetra quark}} See. The rest is up to ], not me. Thanks. ] (]) 10:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

==Talkback==
{{talkback|Yunshui|ts=13:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)}}
]&nbsp;]] 13:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

==3RR - only warning==
You are so far past 3RR on ] that I could legitimately block you both right now. I quite probably should. One more revert, and I will. You're welcome to discuss the issue - here, on my talkpage, or on any other talkpage outside TQ's userspace that you see fit - but if you continue to behave in a disruptive manner by blindly reverting, I will enforce ] with administrative action. ]&nbsp;]] 13:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:26, 31 January 2023

Archiving icon
ARCHIVES of Arianewiki1

Archive 2008-13
Archive 2014
Archive 2015
Archive 2016
Archive 2017
Archive 2018

Archive 2019

Plasma cosmology revert

Hi! I reverted your revert of my edit on plasma cosmology: but just wanted to confirm with you what you may have found problematic about the edit. The wording previously implied something a bit more "opinion-y" about a fact associated with astrophysical plasmas. I know controversial articles like this can be confusing, so just wanted to start-up the conversation here in case there was a mistake or something.

jps (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

3o Dispute Request

ignore the automatic undo notice

Sorry. A slow screen refresh resulted in me accidentally undoing you here Meters (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Easily done. Thanks for the heads up. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed editing restriction: Article edit summaries mandatory for Arianewiki1. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Crux and the Coalsack Nebula

Hello, Arianewiki1,
I just added a new section to the talk page for the article Crux, which you worked on just yesterday (as I write this). After I wrote it, I looked back through the history of the article. It looks like you were involved, in 2015, with the point I make in my comment. So I wonder if I could get you to have a look at it.
To elaborate here just a little on the point of my comment, I'm quite sure I've worked things out correctly as far as compass directions go. What I'm not certain about is, where the Coalsack would be, in the diagram. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates on Rigel

I understand exactly what the templates are for. However, I removed one of them, because they appear as exactly duplicates on the article, with no visual differences at all. One tag is all that is needed when there is an issue involved (such as NPOV content), especially when they appear exactly the same. I won't be reverting; however, should someone else remove one of the templates, you shouldn't try to reinstate it. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 Thanks. I was careful with this. Under Nomenclature here is linked to talkpage Sections. 'Necessary reverts' and 'RfC: Inclusion of this statement under 'Nomenclature'. There are two problems here, and neither can be resolved easily. Although the tags look the same they are different. Hope this explains this for you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes; I think this is a bug in template:POV: specifying a talk= section in the template (with or without the label) does not generate a link to the section, just to the talk page. I added the page as part of the wikilink and that does generate a section link (but no visual distinction). Elphion (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Nucleosynthesis

Commenting here since this didn't need to go on ANI. Johnson doesn't state that in any few words, but instead made the point in the figure itself, but more importantly in the supplementary data. He gives explicit estimates for the fraction of each element. It's not original research to note that he states exploding stars as the majority source of elements from Oxygen to Scandium, as well as Gallium to Rubidium. So actually, everyone is wrong. In general, I feel this is the best alternative to "everyone is right". Someguy1221 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Right. So it is not Ok to make a generalised statement, but it is OK to revert statement that don't say the contentions. I edited the text to avoid the empass, so that the average editor can read it, but now that is wrong? You have outed me for my behaviour, when the truth is I acted properly, while Attic Salt continues to stray from editorial principles? I tried to avoid the complications but it is just "everoyone's right."? Attic Salt never understood their edits at all, and this is a repeated trait. Yet supernova Tyope II produce spectra that shows hydrogen lines. The assertion is plainly false. If anything, prosecution of these edits nneds to be escalated. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Userpage Typo

You have a typo on your userpage: gember.

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed one-way IBAN for Arianewiki1. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I am gravely concerned with what I am reading about your behavior. It is imperative that you enter this discussion.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 07:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Dlohcierekim. I am too, and I spent the whole day writing a response. VQuakr own ANI is worring me from the POV of their own involvemment, and I don't think they have the full picture. I will be posting it right now. I would like to hear Attic Salt's POV too. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Short Break

Due to the pressures on a current on-going ANI, I need to take a break for a day or so, based on near exhaustion that has been spent over the last several days making various replies. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Banned

Greetings, Arianewiki1. This message is to inform you that, pursuant to consensus here, you are indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages. For more information, see WP:BAN. For additional information on appealing this ban, see WP:SO. Regards, ~Swarm~ 06:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Additionally, you are indefinitely banned from interacting with Attic Salt. This one-way interaction ban shall remain in effect if and when your site ban is lifted, until specifically overturned by the community. This sanction will be logged at WP:EDR. ~Swarm~ 06:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


@Swarm:
SUMMARY and CLARIFICATION : I'm truly shocked and dismayed by your decision here. I was almost certain it would be dropped or even would go the opposite way. Attic Salt had promised to "I agree not to look at your edit summary and not follow your talk page.", and I requested "I want the harassment and sanction gaming to finish." so "...we can just mutually agree just to stop interacting at all with each other's edits." I pose "Is following Arianewiki1's edits possibly true?" then after this declare "Having said this, I have, yes, viewed your editing history and noted some of the articles you've edited. Honestly, I don't think this is unusual." (and cite how they were doing this! We all move on. (All did you read below the article atop close, because this atop edit ends half-way down the page. e.g. Here .) Even User Dlohcierekim said "I meant above that he'd done a great job providing counter arguments. I don't see Arianewiki's comments as that incivil."
VQuakr launching of this latest ANI was based on this exchange under Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained Where is the abusive behaviour here? I received this notification here, claiming "Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ", but they had stated: "Cleaning up your messes is not harassment, and your repeated false accusations of such are grounds for a block or ban. You don't own your own edits, much less this page, so you should have no reason to expect that anyone, ever, is going to give a second's thought to your requests for others to not modify your work." (My response to Attic Salt was because they reverted one of my edits partly because it had no edit summary.) I just pointed out policy, and adding that to the edit summary was to make a Point.
Was that wrong? Reading this Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Attic Salt shows persistent rv problems without discussion, and they keep doing it by just continuously following my edits?)
You also say: "Evidence to support accusations of hounding is unconvincing, and no one has even spoken up in defense of Ariane, a rare occurrence for an AN/I thread." My responses in this ANI were civil and responded to all their questions. I feel the evidence of hounding via wikihounding were proven, but with examples and Attic Salt openly admitting to: "Having said this, I have, yes, viewed your editing history and noted some of the articles you've edited. Honestly, I don't think this is unusual."
In the ANI I said to them: "OK, but didn't I ask you not to do this? When you placed your 'ban' from your talkpage, I requested this, but the article on Velocity was after this action. As Tigraan advised me not to have you on my watchlist, but now it is OK for you to do that? Can't you this see that is a big problem because it might be seen as targeting as I've stated. It is against policy. You are admitting you are following me. (So my previous ANI, in which you didn't respond BTW, my assertions were likely correct.)"
The ANI I responded to gives examples. The three successive moves to different pages under Response 6 Should I have presented others? Was this not convincing?
You tell me I have to modify my behaviour to return from this indefinite ban, but what else do you do when confronted with actions like Velocity when trying to make constructive edits as seen in this. (Both of them had never edited this page before.) All I did was fix some issues with User:Anomalous+0 submission here. There was no abusive behaviour here. Attic Salt had previously followed me to Talk:Ptolemy#Ptolemy Sources Don't Say He Was Roman (See my response, please.) My next edit was to Lithopsian, who diverted this to Talk:Antares#Magnitudes, asked a simple question (after this edit, and immediately got terse responses. (See ANI Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#OWN Behaviour : Admin Review Request] Look at VQuakr reaction.) Even simple questions are requests are attacked. e.g. This exchange here. Saying simpple things like to VQuakr "The cite needed is to show "magnitude x" is a recognised format. The given cites seem to show mixed usage." accused me "No, it isn't. Don't expect others to follow your arbitrary evidentiary standards just because you say so. This is an editorial decision." I went to the Supernova article and undid this edit, the next edits finding Attic Salt here then accusing me as the one who wrote it. I go to Supernova nucleosynthesis then to find Attic Salt again (Now I'm blocked, Lithopsian immediately goes to Supernova nucleosynthesis, and says: "Undo of Arianewiki rework and subsequent edits - it wasn't great before, but it was better than this, and importantly more accurate" Grave dancing? (All I did was rearrange it, a explain what I did on the talkpage here ) I go to Apparent magnitude and find instead Lithopsian, then back Supernova again, and and a further revert by Attic Salt,so it goes on. I take this to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#Disruptive Editing and Sanction Gaming in Supernova Article because I'm being subjected to abusive behaviour.
Considering that Tigraan says "If you truly believe that a dozen strangers on the internet all hate you for no objective reason, I would advise getting medical help. Seriously. You tick all boxes of Paranoia#Paranoid_social_cognition. Do not think they will lock you in an asylum (they won't) and do not think only wusses seek help (if you start coughing blood, you don't wait it out, you go see a doctor - at least I hope)", and it is not thought as 'abusive behaviour'?
Obviously requesting the ban to be dropped is going to be difficult task solely on the complexity of the interactions. My defence in the ANI is the best I could do. I haven't edit warred, I have used talkpages as required, and do do productive contributions, like Photometry (astronomy) or Photographic magnitude.
Please be more specific with this ban, because I'm still confused where it actually went wrong. e.g. VQuakr made on complaint on behalf Attic Salt, for something VQuakr thought was offensive (it clearly wasn't), they use the first interaction between Attic Salt and me to justify that on a IBAN. Unbeknown to VQuakr, Attic Salt admits to following me from page to page as suspected, but I get a one-way IBAN plus indefinite ban? I do think some of the initial negative responses were unaware of the possibility of hounding in the background. Perhaps they might have responded differently? Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am sorry that you are hurt by this. I have no doubt that you are a person with genuine value, and an editor with something positive to give to this project. I have no desire to hurt you. But I did not make this decision. I don't know you, and I have nothing against you. I am just a random person who reviewed a discussion as a result of a general request. I reviewed the discussion, and interpreted the consensus. Yes, I specifically reviewed the accusations against you, and the supporting evidence. There is evidence. The accusations are not baseless. You did not acknowledge this. I reviewed the proposals for sanctions against you. The support for these proposals was unanimous. You did not have a single third party defend you. This was open for over a week, which by itself is unusual, and yet not one person spoke to your defense. On the contrary, those who spoke against you are not just some random nobodies, but highly established editors in good standing. As I noted in the close, this state of affairs is almost unheard of. And yet you'd expect this all to be ignored, in favor of your own narrative? You need extremely convincing evidence that everyone involved are all conspiring in bad faith to get you banned for some unspecified reason. I did review your defense, but I see no unambiguous evidence that anyone has a motivation to persecute you. Occam's razor: you are a consistently uncivil and abrasive editor, and you've made a reputation for yourself as such. Your behavior has turned every editor who's familiar with you against you, and your self-evident behavioral conduct is to blame. You're not the victim of a cabal conspiring against you. The fact that you mentioned an editor calling you "paranoid", with zero self-awareness, is, I'm sorry to say, telling. Here's what I'd recommend. Self-reflect on your own behavior. Apologize and promise amends. And then demonstrate all of this in an appeal. Offer a reblock clause, where if you don't follow through, you will be reblocked. Get serious about the changes you need to make, and throw yourself upon the community's mercy. Of course, you may appeal with any argument you want to make, and my advice is merely that; advice. My second suggestion would be to just take the SO in 6 months. You served the time, you're ready to come back, the community gives you a new chance. That's usually how it goes. Lastly, and I would not suggest you do this, but I will make it clear to you that it is an option: you may formally dispute my reading of consensus, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Put it to the community. Note that this is not an opportunity to rehash the discussion, but a simple review of the previous discussion as to whether or not my assessment was correct. It's a community review of my reading of consensus. If you want to rehash the discussion, you should appeal with whatever argument you want to make. But if you think I got the consensus wrong, you should challenge my closure. Let me know if you have any questions! Best, ~Swarm~ 05:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Swarm: Thanks for the response. You're not hurting me here, but I did read your response and are even more confused. There are only three editors with issues: Attic Salt, Lithopsian and VQuakr. Attic Salt admits to following and wikihounding, I give many examples, they revert anything they disagree with, you present reasonable arguments , even prove it, but now somehow I'm paranoid? They are shown to be sanction gaming with proof, and even when you express frustration, you are accused of being abusive. How does one feel if persistently followed with everything you write? How does Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained end as it has? I don't see it. Where's this 'abuse' to manufacture such a reaction? (Why do people respond like this? I've done nothing like this nor even correspond with them.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
By my count, 11 editors spoke against you. 0 spoke in your defense, other than yourself. 7 of these 11 spoke against the notion that the IBAN was sufficient, and that the more severe alternative (pitched in the OP) was needed. Lithopsian played no part in the discussion. You dominated the overwhelming majority of the discussion. You dominated the overwhelming duration of the discussion. And yet not a single editor bought into your narrative. I'm not sure how else to say it. There was a unanimous consensus to ban you. The behavior that led to the ban was directly proven in the discussion with diffs. I'm sorry, truly I am, but you earned this, and the appropriate response is reflection, acknowledgement, and resolution. No more blaming! No more playing victim! At a certain point, when literally you have a massive discussion examining your behavior, and literally 100% of the feedback is in support of sanctioning you, and not a single person will speak to your defense, then your response becomes a WP:CIR issue. You just gotta acknowledge the issues raised and make changes. Playing the victim is not credible or viable. You have to get serious. ~Swarm~ 06:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Swarm: Q. "The behavior that led to the ban was directly proven in the discussion with diffs." What behaviour specifically? VQuakr expose was something I did two years ago or was within this latest ANI e.g. Talk:Supernova#Initial Paragraph Issues Further Explained. 11 editors spoke against me, but did they known of the violation by Attic Salt? Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Really? Are you seriously asking what the allegations are? ~Swarm~ 02:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding Block Comment to a User Page

@Swarm: It is interesting to see your reaction to this edit and the subsequent response. Adding this banned tag on my User page here is unacceptable, and I request that you remove this immediately. Rules on this are clear; namely; "Like other pages, anyone can edit it, but users generally do not edit other users' pages without their permission." mentioned here If you want to clearly place a block on a user, then use the appropriate template on the User talk page. i.e Template:uw-block|indef=yes|reason=as the User has been banned by the community. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Banned users get tagged as banned using a standardized template, either on their user or talk page. This is standard, and you don’t get to dictate that I am not allowed to correctly document the ban. I re-added it to your user page so that you would not continue to remove it. Frankly, it was that or revoking your talk access. ~Swarm~ 17:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Swarm: Thanks. Next step oversight via Arbitration Committee. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
If you really want to go to arbcom to challenge the standard practice of an admin putting {{Banned user}} on the user page of a banned user, that's your prerogative. I have no issue with you, nor did I do anything wrong. I'm just the uninvolved administrator who happened to be the one to assess the discussion involving you. I have to say, though, your refusal to understand or acknowledge anything that has been thoroughly explained to you since the ban was enacted, along with your general behavior on this page, strikes me as either a fundamental WP:CIR issue, or willful trolling and disruption. It's exceedingly difficult to ignore this when you were banned for "... a protracted pattern of abusive conduct directed at more than one editor...", and I made a note in my closing summary that "...Arianewiki bludgeons the discussion repeatedly, effectively dismissing all behavioral complaints and reducing all unfavorable commentators to bad-faith grudge-holders and hounders. ... On top of that, I see no concessions from Ariane and no attempts at voluntary improvement." Your conduct on this page fits that profile exactly. You refuse to admit any sort of wrongdoing on your part, you reject direct complaints and explanations as to how you're in the wrong, and instead you go on the offensive and attack your perceived "opponents". In other words, the entirety of your behavior since the ban was enacted, appears to be nothing short of a direct continuation of the behavior that led to the ban. Again, I have nothing against you personally, and I wish you nothing but the best IRL, but I cannot allow a banned user to use their talk page as a platform to continue the same exact conduct that the community banned them for. Therefore, your talk page access has been revoked. If and when you would like to appeal your ban, you may request talk page reinstatement, or submit your appeal directly, via WP:UTRS. Regards, ~Swarm~ 00:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Plasma

Thank you for your explanation on the Plasma page. I've been dilatory about responding because I don't visit my talk page very often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoldnyxnet (talk • contribs) 05:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)