Talk:Barnard 68

Dark Cloud
 Dark clouds appear so because of submicrometre-sized dust particles, coated with frozen carbon monoxide and nitrogen, which effectively block the passage of light at visible wavelengths. Also present are molecular hydrogen, atomic helium, C18O, CS, NH3 (ammonia), H2CO (formaldehyde), c-C3H2 (cyclopropenylidene) and a molecular ion N2H+ (diazenylium), all of which are relatively transparent. These clouds are the spawning grounds of stars and planets, and understanding their development is essential to understanding star formation. [2][3]  This paragraph does not appear appropriate, as it is general information, and should be in the dark cloud article. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

100% correct. I removed it. I also moved sentences around and added a section header. Looks more like a Wikipedia article now. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I copied the original wikitext of the above removed paragraph to Dark nebula (to which Dark cloud redirects). 84user (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Debresser (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnard 68
You tell me to discuss changes? Have a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects and at the fact that everybody is reverting your edits. Do not try to wp:OWN the article. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think the average reader needs this background information, the right way to do so in an encyclopedia is to insert something like this:

, which gives.

Debresser (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"everybody is reverting your edits" Everybody!!? Please refer me to a Manual of Style ruling rather than TELLING me what the ""right way" is. I don't think your way improves the page. ciao Rotational (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC) PS I don't own the article, but then neither do you, and I certainly won't stand around idly when I see the page being senselessly hacked about.

By the way, I meant Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects above, obviously. Three other editors have expressed their disagreement with you. Apart from that, look around! This is the way things are done. Debresser (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But since you asked for it, the Manual of Style says "Unspaced multiple equal signs are the style markup for headings. The nesting hierarchy for headings is as follows: the automatically generated top-level heading of a page is H1, which gives the article title; primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on." So it says clearly there is an order to be followed in headings. Hope this satisfies you. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Edit warring: warning
I've just looked at Barnard 68. It is plain that (a) multiple people are reverting you and (b) you are re-adding text of a general nature that applies to all dark clouds that is present in the dark cloud page. It isn't at all clear to me why you are doing this. Having looked at the talk page, I can see your "opponents" explaining why they have removed the text; I see nothing from you explaining why you are restoring it. Your edit comments to the article ''Come on!! Stop your nonsense!!'' etc are similarly unhelpful and indeed incivil.

But to come to the point: don't restore the text without explaining yourself and making some attempt to build consensus, or I will block you William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the talk page, I can see your "opponents" explaining why they have removed the text; I see nothing from you explaining why you are restoring it. Kindly see here. You tend to make snap-judgements without looking thoroughly into the background of the dispute - blocking and threats of blocking are decidedly unhelpful and getting dangerously close to an abuse of your power and privileges.

When I started this article I felt that the paragraph, which Debresser has repeatedly removed, gave information which the average reader may find helpful. This particular paragraph was removed by Debresser and copied across to the Dark cloud page - this was done without consensus or discussion and when I suggested discussion before removal, an outburst from Debresser followed. I don't recall that you issued any warning to him and your lack of evenhandedness is disturbing. Rotational (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested what the community will have to say about this. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure why this was moved here, doesn't really add to any constructive discussion! Jenuk1985  |  Talk  17:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a duplicate topic section, since there's already a discussion section on this very topic called at the top of the page, which Rotational declined to participate in. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What are "blocked background Milky Way stars"?
What in the universe are "blocked background Milky Way stars"? Is that poorly worded, or is that a thing?? If it is a real thing, it should definitely link to some explanation! An internet search reveled nothing as well.

Here is the original sentence, still!...

Despite being opaque at visible-light wavelengths, use of the Very Large Telescope at Cerro Paranal has revealed the presence of about 3,700 blocked background Milky Way stars, some 1,000 of which are visible at infrared wavelengths.

Anybody?
 * I changed 'blocked' to 'obscured' Fig (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Boötes void confusion
Went looking for citations on confusing the Boötes void and Barnard 68; most were either Reddit, Facebook or YouTube. Found 1 on the Daily Star, a deprecated source on Wikipedia. Conversely, found a Forbes article that correctly describes Barnard, rather then going into some void nonsense. Here's the 2 different articles if anyone wants to do anything with it. Personally, I don't feel comfortable using the Daily Star as a reference.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/huge-mysterious-void-space-spotted-25046162

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/05/no-this-is-not-a-hole-in-the-universe/?sh=5642a4052e40

Silverleaf81 (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)