User talk:Arianewiki1

ARCHIVES of Arianewiki1
Archive 2008-13
Archive 2014
Archive 2015
Archive 2016

Archive 2017

Scaling

Unfortunately my topic ban from 2012 prohibits me from taking part in the discussion at Plasma Cosmology. For the record:

I have never set out to mislead, vandalise or artificially "bolster" Plasma Cosmology, and would remind you of WP:AGF.
I don't recall ever linking from Plasma scaling to Plasma Cosmology, or even mentioning it in the plasma scaling article, because I agree, that it would be inappropriate.

There is more I could say, and back up with references, and agree with you on some of your points, but I have probably already overstepped the mark, per the conditions of the ban. --Iantresman (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I have never set out to mislead, vandalise or artificially "bolster" Plasma Cosmology," Firstly my apologies as I did not mean you specifically. From the history of this page alone, it is easy to be concerned about keeping these pages stable. Looking at the text history, you were the one who introduced it. All I did was state the facts to support my request.

As for, "I don't recall ever linking from Plasma scaling to Plasma Cosmology." Correct. Someone else did that later. Thanks for asking me to clarify. Cheers.Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Out of interest, if I tried to get my ban lifted, would you have any objection if I contributed to the discussion? --Iantresman (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iantresman:I don't exactly know the circumstances of the topic ban, so it depends on what you've actually done. However, I do agree there are few editors with the expertise to edit many of these kinds scientific pages, especially towards adding new pertinent citation to the text. Like most bans, there is an appeal process, and you'd have to explain your reasons and what would be different if you were reinstated. Perhaps you could state your case to the Admins and offer to be restricted to WP:0RR or WP:1RR to show WP:GF towards the ban restriction, and then see how it goes. Already knowing your scientific chemical/plasma knowledge from your other previous edits, this would be quite reasonable, and I would absolutely be inclined to support your request. (I'm not an Admin, so I cannot guarantee nor lift the ban, though.) The contrition in the lead to the section here, IMO, also would be favourable to such a course of action, and your edits since then are certainly positive and useful. (Feel free to use this reply here if you think it would aid you with your request.) Just my thoughts. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Laurdecl ^talk 09:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPA warning

Hi. You can't use the word "grooming"—obviously, outside of actual physical (personal or social) grooming, the word has an extraordinarily bad connotation, and is therefore taken as a personal attack. So, this is your first-and-only warning about violating the NPA policy. Please use an alternate word, if you must (conditioning, etc.). El_C 10:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban with Laurdecl

Please just keep away from Laurdecl's general orbit. There's already some animosity, so I think it would be for the best. If you find that you must comment on Laurdecl edits, please don't do so directly. Seek a third opinion. But generally, there are plenty of science and other articles on Wikipedia without you crossing paths with Laurdecl again. El_C 00:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you El_C; I agree with you. Arianewiki1, please don't see this as punishment: the intent is to prevent further disruption. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the ANI thread as it has outlived its usefulness. Now there's no longer any reason for the dispute to continue—out of sight/mind. El_C 14:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Again, I agree with El_C. Arianewiki1, avoid your nemesis. The ANI thread is closed: don't reopen it, and don't rehash this discussion elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you!

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For working tirelessly to improve the astronomy content on Wikipedia, you surely deserve this barnstar. Thanks for all you do and keep up the good work. If you ever need any help, please don't hesitate to let me know! jps (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sorry for using the bad word 2003saisaketh (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Sh2-297

Hi Arianewiki1. I've created a DYK nomination page for Sh2-297. Feel free to make whatever changes you think are necessary to either the nomination or the article. OtterAM (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sh2-297

On 20 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sh2-297, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a protostar in the Sh2-297 nebula is driving an outflow of gas more massive than the Sun? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sh2-297. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sh2-297), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cite Journal: Explicit Et Al. usage

Hi, User:Arianewiki1. I've picked up on a few of your edits in which you have used the cite journal tag slightly incorrectly. I'm currently working on rectifying these issues and would appreciate if in future you could do the following: instead of using et al. when listing authors, add the seperate parameter "| display-authors=etal |" to the tag, and remove the et al from your author/editor list. Editors has exactly the same thing, using editors instead of authors. You can get more information on the usage of this tag over at Template:Cite journal#Display options. Thanks! Keira 1996 03:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

Err, which sockpuppet are you referring to here? Also, I am in two minds about constellation infobox having nearest star, but if we're going to change all constellations on that better have a discussion first. Most would probably agree I suspect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Sock puppet is here.[1] Discussion on promoting 'Dutch pages/constellations' is here.[2] Per rules, these contributions can be quickly removed.

As for nearest star in some constellation is based on exactly what? Magnitude, naked-eye, what? I cannot find any reference or cite for this. Also saying adding No. of Messier objects in southern constellations is just silly. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I agree with removing uncited stuff - and as I said, I think others will agree on the nearest star thing. It's just a matter of consensus on some of it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reverts

You recently undid several of my edits, without adequately explaining why.

The common name is not common does not make sense. The word 'tentatively' as used in the sentence that you reverted to does not make sense. You may search the astronomical literature to verify that the galaxy is known as the Fireworks galaxy. Why did you make this edit?
Unexplaned removal of images. I did explain it. I linked to WP:IG, which is a policy and thus something all editors should be familiar with. So why did you undo my edit?
Unexplained edit, I did explain it. Why did you break the sort order of the table, and put in bold a scattered selection of arbitrary words in violation of the manual of style?
Unexplaned edit and violation of 3RR. Firstly, I did explain it. Secondly, the 3RR is not violated by three edits over nine days, it is violated by four reverts within 24 hours. And thirdly and most importantly, given that you had earlier described these fanciful galaxy names as "vandalism", "abhorrent" and "self-promotion", why did you undo my edit to force them back into an article? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]