User talk:Arianewiki1/Archive 2017

Scaling

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

1. I have never set out to mislead, vandalise or artificially "bolster" Plasma Cosmology, and would remind you of WP:AGF.
2. 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)

"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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• • 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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! Keira1996 03:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

Unexplained reverts

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

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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)

"You recently undid several of my edits, without adequately explaining why." Sorry, not quite right. I undid your edits because you completely avoided using these article Talkpages.

Worst, you actually did not explain these at all, as the edit summaries are all blank. (e.g. you say "I linked to WP:IG" Where did you say this? Note: All the excuses given above I cannot verify at all.

I also do take you to task on these deletions on your talk page here [3] and here [4], which really looks like deceptive conduct to avoid proper scrutiny. Covering up your blocks on Talkpages is also against policy.

I do strongly suggest that you become a registered User, as others have suggested, which would greatly help others interacting with your edits. (Regular users often find we are reverting vandalism all the time by unregistered users having lark.)

Lastly, your open hostility and combativeness towards other editors is not welcomed and unhelpful, regardless of being right or wrong. Saying things like "Don't be stupid." [5] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [6] (then delete it to avoid scrutiny!]. Editors here are all volunteers and should not be subjected to such behaviour, and it avoids the trumping policy of all - WP:GF - good faith.

As I see no reason to revert your edits here.

Please do reconsider your general attitude here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting someone's edit because you think they should have used the talk page is not acceptable. You undo someone's edit if it has no positive benefit to the article at all. There is no policy which supports your actions.

All my edits were explained. See the summaries: it is known as the fireworks galaxy. it is not know by that other nonsense name from a nonsense list that someone has been spamming galaxy articles withremoved fictional designationWP:IGremoved incorrect bolding and made table sort correctlyremoved nonsense

So the questions remain. Why did you break the sort ordering in a table? Why did you make a sentence make no sense? And most significantly, why on the one hand did you describe the addition of made-up names of galaxies as "self promotion", "abhorrent" and even (incorrectly) "vandalism", and then on the other hand put them into articles yourself? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The edits here are not the point, it is your own poor attitude and adversarial behaviour here that is questionable. This is what is not acceptable. (As for the rest of the diatribe here plainly avoids WP:GF.) Furthermore, I never put these names in these galaxy articles, as you falsely claim above. e.g. "...and then on the other hand put them into articles yourself?" Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You did. I already linked to your edit. Here it is again: [7]. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish. I never "...put them into articles yourself". I reverted your edits because you didn't explain the edit. All you said was "removed nonsense." This should have appeared on the article's talkpage, when it was first challenged, where you should have gained consensus. You gave absolutely no explanation to KNHaw nor Winhunter either, who thought this was likely unfounded. Instead, all you did was insult them. Making false or deceptive claims wins you no friends. As I've said, it is not the edits, it's you crumby behaviour that I question. Get it.Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Plasma (physics)

For the record "non-consensus edit" is not a wikipedia policy. In fact there is a policy that specifically forbids that: WP:BOLD. It is inappropriate to revert edits without a specific reason, and the fact that an editor has not asked for permission is not a valid reason.

If there is a specific concern, please state it. Otherwise please find some constructive way to contribute to Wikipedia.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What nonsense. Really. I don't respond to threats. Please see Plasma Physics talkpage Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Plasma (physics), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tigraan: So prove this. Notably, "as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting.", how does this apply to a retired User? How can they be irritated exactly? Rfc applies only to active Users! Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you are striking and removing multiple other users' comments. Knock it off immediately. VQuakr (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tigraan:@VQuakr: I removed this Rfc because User:Attic Salt declared he was 'retiring', and by doing so is indicating that they have no interest in solving this 'presumed' text issue at all. There is no problem with how the Introduction text has been worded, especially when the definition of plasma is so fluid and is subject to interpretation. I have also formally responded to Attic Salt here.[8] under User talk:Attic Salt#Inexplicable behaviour. As such this Rfc is finished, and the User is highly likely only doing this just for a dramatic reaction or gaming the system. I.e This is a IMO just meatball:GoodBye and a insincere departure. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Plasma (physics). VQuakr (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Arianewiki1 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Title:

Free State of Galveston

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Free State of Galveston. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

I created the Free State of Galveston article originally, brought it to FA, and periodically check in on it and update. I resent in the extreme deliberate vandalism. Whatever issues you are trying to work out please do so elsewhere.

--MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not involved in this edit dispute (and have never edited the article in question), but the accusation of "vandalism" is unwarranted: this is just a difference of editorial opinion between Arianwiki1 and 141.131.2.3 (who seems to think s/he owns the article). -- Elphion (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@141.131.2.3 and 141.131.2.3:@Elphion: I don't respond well to individuals who threaten or intimidate others. Saying: "I resent in the extreme deliberate vandalism.", when there is none, is especially grievous. It avoids needed WP:GF (My own response is just prove it.) Your 'conservancy' claims here clearly shows real issues with WP:OWN. The Free State of Galveston is already blotted and overstated (See the article's talkpage), and the series of recent edits add unnecessary minutia, which is mostly fails the needed WP:NPOV. This article is about "...a whimsical name given to the coastal city of Galveston in the U.S. state of Texas during the early-to-mid-20th century" in the period of 1920-1957.

You particular edits here[c] and here[9] are problematic - the first being with an inaccessible weblink. Information without means of verification looks like WP:OR and WP:SYN. This is supposed to be a WP:FA article, but now continues to stray in neutrality and length. Whether you got the article to WP:FA or not is irrelevant, and it is likely you've only said this to enforce some WP:OWN.

I have again reverted these seemingly unjustified edits, and consider the reason of "Please stop vandalizing the article" as unproven. If you disagree, then use the Talkpage and discuss. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Arianewiki1, I truly don't understand where this is coming from. This seems to be some kind of rage reaction though I do not know what the source of the rage is.

You started this by acting in bad faith. You reverted my work with no explanation and seemingly without making any effort to determine whether there was any justification. To be frank, there is no way to take that except a personal attack (though again, I don't know what the reason for that is).

Regarding the inaccessible weblink, if that was a concern you certainly could have asked for information about that link. Reverting in such a situation is generally not good form (and certainly contrary to the WP:BOLD guideline).

If you prefer different wording you or otherwise wish to provide contribute constructively then feel free to offer your own edits. But if you do not want to take the time to do the work then please move on. You do not own this article.

--MC 2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Elphion:@Grayfell:@TheValeyard: Ah... User:2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F. You say "You reverted my work with no explanation..." Umm. So are you admitting you are a sock of 141.131.2.3 ? Worst you reversed the same text when you should of used WP:BRD process. You also make just four edits here Special:Contributions/2605:6000:EC16:C000:40F6:9247:A3DD:B27F] on one day after 141.131.2.3. Under WP:SOCK it says; "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (or simply socking). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus,..." You response above doesn't accuse of "vandelism" but you did for the reason on the revert on Free State of Galveston. e.g. "Reverted vandalism by Arianewiki1"[10]. Sock sounds likely, methinks. Is this true?

(I'm not so silly to fall for WP:3RR here.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Australian rules football

• "Popular contact sport" popular compared to what? This is WP:W2W and meaningless.
• "played in Australia" goes without saying. It's also played globally. List all the countries or none.
• "or simply called football or footy by its adherents" pointless distinction to make and somewhat misleading. Adherents and non-adherents alike ("adherent" is really not the best word choice here) refer to the game by several different names, "football" and "footy" being just two of them. Simply state what it is referred to and move on.
• "Points are scored by kicking the oval-shaped ball between two opposing sets of tall posts, six points between the larger two inner goal posts and one point between the inner posts and the smaller outer or point posts" is long-winded as hell. Learn to condense per MOS:INTRO.
• "The game features frequent kicking, marking (catching) or handballing (hand-passing) of the ball, physical contests, and often has, fast player movement with high scoring." The mark has already been explained (and linked) further up, as has the hand-ball. You've taken a strong, concise closing sentence and made it clunky and repetitive.

You may think it's WP:OWN, but I don't think you made a single improvement to the lead. Instead (in my estimation) you burdened it material that was excessive, repetitive, awkwardly written and incorrect. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and the Mouncey issue should be on the AFL page.

Ummm... How glib. "... I don't think you made a single improvement to the lead." plainly openly avoids WP:GF. You are supposed to gain consensus better done using WP:BRD. Yet to add 270 odd characters then saying "excessive, repetitive, awkwardly written and incorrect." is plainly silly. Evidence via the article history shows the multiple reverts of many editors that indicates WP:OWN and gatekeeping. Multiple demeaning of other editors (as above) suggests this is true. Pray that WP:TBAN by an admin doesn't come back and bite you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I've watched the page since 2012 and over that time numerous other editors have made significant revisions without any reaction from me. In saying that, I'm largely responsible for the article's current state, from images to references. Sorry if it seemed like I was avoiding GF but I don't want to see the article drop in quality. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@HappyWaldo: In saying "I've watched the page since 2012", can be interpreted as admitting WP:OWN. As for: "...over that time numerous other editors have made significant revisions without any reaction from me.", the number of reverts in the history over the last six months says otherwise. Again: "Sorry if it seemed like I was avoiding GF..." is wrong. Plainly evidence says you were, similarly as saying : "...but I don't want to see the article drop in quality." also avoids WP:GF, as all Users has the same aim.

Either properly follow editing policy or policy will be enacted against you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

All of my reverts from 1 Jan leading up to lead issues: improper capitalisation, re-integrating a sentence-long subsection, vandalism, belongs in disambig, vandalism, error, vandalism, errors, repetition of material. So roughly 1 per month. How much should I add back to not be accused of WP:OWN? - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@HappyWaldo: Suggest again you read WP:OWN and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR if you wish to know and follow policy. When "An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not." is defined as WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. We can test this if you like. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I gave reasons why the edits weren't justified. You failed to address any of my points, just wrote them off as glib. You're clearly sour about being proven wrong. Stick to what you know (physics?). Bye. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@HappyWaldo: Not a very bright action disengaging discussion. You're stretching into WP:PA and blaming me for it. Solutions here are narrowing very quickly. WP:OWN is now obvious. You now have a choice. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri

You changed: In about 4000 years -> Viewed from the Earth in about 6200 BCE

I suspect you meant 6200 AD (or whatever the politically correct abbreviation du jour is), not 8300 years in the past. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've now changed it. Thinking about too many things at the same time. Cheers.Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)