User talk:Aarghdvaark

Aarghdvaark
Aarghdvaark, I noticed you attempted to make several edits to the Plasma Cosmology page. I agree with the attempted changes. Please return to the talk page there and support my efforts to replaced "rejected" with "unknown" Also, please review my Sandbox. Orrerysky (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Munir Hussain
Hi Aargh, I reverted your additions to Munir Hussain and victims' rights. It seems like those belong in an article about the events and trials, not in a biography. But I'm happy to discuss or we can get other input on it. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for redirect
Please see Talk:Lionel_Blackman.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words he means to go back and do exactly what he wanted to do in the first place, impose his own judgment without consulting anyone else. I've given up trying to challenge these people, there's a limit to the amount of time and effort that you can waste while trying to keep up with articles you're more committed to. Opbeith (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You were very welcome to use my name as you did. I'm grateful to you for raising the issue. I find it difficult to resist the temptation to get involved in the arguments. Essentially Lionel Blackman is not an international celebrity but there's enough of interest to be said about him to justify an article. But when every point has to be argued, one reference is never enough, two references undermine the strength of one reference, and you know that the collective Sisyphus's stone is liable to be shoved back down the hill again at any moment, you think - what else am I not doing? I've just cut out of my watchlist a bundle of articles I contributed to that I think are worth being there for one reason or another, but I can't justify more involvement with. Than ks for not taking things lying down! Opbeith (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Jack Straw has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Orphan Wiki 11:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Inserting uncited content into a BP
Hi, please do not insert uncited content into a BLP, please remove it or cite it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, please do not insert it again without supporting citations. Off2riorob (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This stuff is in Wikipedia - see Jeremy Thorpe. Please look for citations yourself before simply deleting old stuff which is non-controversial and expecting other people to clear up after you. Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the content is out now, I have removed it as our discussion, now that the content is removed you should not reinsert it without adding supporting citations. It would be better also if you considered more discussion on the talkpage. If you are considering replacing any content in regards to this topic please be careful to ensure all detail is attributed correctly and all content is cited. As I suggested, please consider discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Jack Straw. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So, why aren't you deleting most of the rest of the article on Jack Straw, which as you can see has few verifiable quotes? IMHO what you should be doing is putting in cite quotes for the bits which you think are not verified - simply deleting stuff is not helpful and it may well be you that ends up being blocked from editing Wikipedia. And since I was the one who started the discussion topic on Talk:Jack Straw I think it is a bit rich for you to say "please consider discussion" when it was you who deleted the section in the 1st place without discussion!Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The content that we are discussing was being discussed and as it was brought to my attention and then I looked at it and considered the undue weight issues and the uncited issues and after some investigation I removed it, after that it should not be replaced without supporting citations. I have added a ref improve template as I agree with you there is other content that does requires citing. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuing ?
You are continuing the same path? You have replaced this opinionated comment..

In 2003 the US-UK Extradition Treaty, considered by some to be one-sided, was negotiated and implemented in the Extradition Act 2003, with the manner of its implementation also concerning concern.http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article680281.ece http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/factcheck+are+ukus+extradition+rules+lopsided/166700

considered by some to be one-sided Such comments are unexplained and unatributed, POV. Off2riorob (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct in it being un-explained; I thought it is such a current topic few people at the moment would need to have it explained, but for the sake of future readers I will add something brief about why it is controversial. But it is not unattributed - I gave 2 sources? So what do you mean same path


 * Our previous discussion was about you selecting something (which just to clear up was not written by me) and deleting it for not having citations. Me saying it would be more constructive to use cite tags to allow the author to add something if they were still around. And you insisting that since you'd deleted it now it had to have citations in it Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The same content warring type path. You inserted this earlier and I removed it once, its opinionated and POV and not attributed, it is also a bit of coatracking as what have these issues got to do with Straw,? Nothing ? If you go to the Extradition Act 2003 article you will see Straws name is not even mentioned. Please consider our policies and guidelines and that BLP article are about living people and that we have a duty of care to report in a neutral balanced way about them. Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I said above and I will say again - they are attributed. And they are not POV, just pointing out the controversy. Clearly for there to be a controversy there have to be at least 2 POV, but reporting on a POV is not in itself POV and I have carefully worded it to show that this is an opinion held by some. And to say that the Foreign Secretary had nothing to do with a US-UK treaty is clearly nonsense. I think you are showing a definite POV bias in this Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Henges
With the very greatest of respect, could I ask you not to name various sites as henges when they aren't? Although Stonehenge is popularly described as a henge, it actually isn't (a henge has an inner ditch surrounded by an outer bank; Stonehenge is a reverse of this layout), and the Avebury and Stonehenge WHSs are very definitely not 22km square henges, rather they are a mix of various Neolithic monuments. The largest true henges are Durrington Walls and Marden henge in Wiltshire, and they are only about 500m in diameter.

I apologise if tis sounds pompous or ratty (not intended that way, but short of time and wanted to message you quickly), I just wanted to let you know why your changes to various articles have been so quickly reverted (and sometimes it just takes no end of argument to explain to people what a henge is, and what Stonehenge isn't!). Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But I labelled them as henge monuments, not henges? A henge monument is a mix of various Neolithic monuments, which agrees with what you say they are? And about Stonehenge in particular, there are cases where the exception proves the rule and I don't think it's really up to us to say to the people who built Stonehenge: "Sorry, that's not a henge, you have to put the ditch on the other side". Stonehenge did give its name to henges after all. Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, it isn't up to us to say what a henge is, it's up to archaeologists and reliable sources. They tell us that Stonehenge isn't a henge, and that other types of monument are. A Henge monument is a structure where other types of monuments exist within the henge.  Avebury henge is indeed a henge monument, but the entire 22 square km WHS isn't. Likewise Stonehenge WHS, Stanton Drew (where there are lots of seperate henge monuments - they do not combine to make a giant one) and all the others you have incorrectly adjusted.  I'm not even sure that the Henge monument article should exist, it's just another word for a henge in many relaible sources and not a seperate class of earthworks.


 * If you really really believe you are right, come back with a reliable source that supports what you're saying, but I can save you time now by saying that you won't find one. Please believe me. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I've gone and nominated Henge monument for deletion - I can't find anything to suggest that the term henge monument is used to specify a separate class of monument, and it just creates confusion. Avebury and associated sites with features within a henge are Henge enclosures. Feel free to join in the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Henge_monument Ranger Steve (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, that explains why you thought I'd conceived a henge to be so huge. We do need to sort out the definitions and then fix the rest accordingly. But ignoring for the moment the definition of a henge monument, I'm not sure that a henge enclosure covers things, as that does seem to include things like dwellings - so Avebury isn't a henge enclosure on that definition but Durrington Walls is. Aarghdvaark (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking deeper, the problem is that even archaeologists don't seem to agree. Mike Parker Pearson calls Avebury a henge enclosure in one of his books that I have, but the the Monument Protection Program (listed on the AFD) doesn't. I'd been thinking that a henge monument was just another term for henge enclosure until I actually read the article and realised how wrong it was compared to everyday (and RS) usage of the term.  I'm pretty sure that one can go, and then henges, henge enclosures and hengiforms can be clarified (as much as is possible). Ranger Steve (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the definitions of henges and hengiforms are OK (although I think Stonehenge would be classified as an atypical henge, rather than not a henge, but that's by the by)? Henge enclosure works, but we really need to determine whether it requires/is agnostic to domestic activities. If it is agnostic then henge monument can go. But what about a page on ritual landscape? Aarghdvaark (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Home invasion in Britain
Hello Aarghdvaark, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Home invasion in Britain, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — m o n o  (how's my driving?) 04:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Birkeland twisted pair of plasma filaments.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Birkeland twisted pair of plasma filaments.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Plasma cosmology. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I accepted this block for this reversion, the last of three, but there was no prior warning and I had not violated the three-revert rule WP:3RR. Also in this case there was only one other editor involved and it was a bit odd that he didn't get blocked too - it takes two to tango. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank You
After I got repeatedly attacked by User:Berean_Hunter here, here and here, I started to despair that this place is full of deletionists who love to delete and point the finger at good-faith users. So, thank you for your unbiased opinion here and for restoring some of my faith in this place. Btw, a third editor, User:Coastside, offered his Third Opinion here and we have a lot of points in common. If User:Berean_Hunter is not disruptive yet again, we may reach consensus. --92.118.252.49 (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'm glad to have helped restore your faith in Wikipedia. Cheers Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied
See User talk:EdJohnston Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkey Mountain
Please don't close contentious AfDs, it's inappropriate for non-admins to close anything but very very clear cut AfDs. See WP:NAC. It's also inappropriate for involved editors to perform the actions; it amounts to a supervote. I've undone your bold close and merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up about the 7 days wait mandated before anything is done about the Turkey Mountain inscriptions afd, hadn't realised that before. Actually I thought it wasn't a bold close, and merge was the consensus, but obviously not, so no worries. Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note, I contested that deletion decision too as I felt it should have been a 'merge': Deletion review/Log/2012 August 13‎‎ Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Anthony Peratt (physicist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! LegoKontribsTalkM 08:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Orphaned non-free image File:Birkeland twisted pair of plasma filaments.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Birkeland twisted pair of plasma filaments.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Expertise?
What is your expertise in physcs? I have worked for years in the subject field and follow the literature closely. Do you? If so, where do you work and on what basis do you make judgments on?

I ask because your last edits on galaxy rotation curve seem to be introducing serious errors.

Junjunone (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Junjunone, from what you say above you are a paid-up member of the astrophysics community who believes that only people like you should be allowed to edit astrophysics articles, but you are confusing Wikipedia with Scholarpedia. Also the link between user names and real-life should not be made - there are a lot of Trolls out there. The sentence you are trying to support, see Talk:Galaxy rotation curve, is at the least so badly formulated that a reasonable reader would think it wrong - and you don't seem to have read the paper you used to back it up since it didn't back up your case - rather demolished it. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Junjunone asks for me to be topic banned from galaxy rotation curve
Hello,

Your last contributions to galaxy rotation curve on both the article an the talk page were so atrocious that you should not be editing the page. I have read Topic_ban and have determined that this is the best course of action. Since your edits are disruptive and you have indicated that you are not an expert in this material, I believe a topic ban is the only course of action.

Thanks,

Junjunone (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Junjunone has officially made a proposal that you be topic banned. Please respond to that proposal at the "Topic ban User:Aarghdvaark" section of Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239.  Nyttend (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

""Apparently, I am supposed to ask for a third opinion first, but I cannot find the place to ask for an expert. If someone could help point out a way to do this through Wikipedia, that would be good. What we would need is one of the authors of the papers cited or a general expert in dark matter/baryonic matter simulations to comment. Junjunone (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As noted on the "Topic ban User:Aarghdvaark" I responded by accusing Junjunone of being a sock of ScienceApologist . This was not supported by the admins at the time.


 * See also Junjunone's seemingly reasonable query about the automatic notability of IEEE Fellows, which I believe was actually part of an attempt to delete an article I had created on Anthony Peratt, see Talk: Anthony Peratt.


 * Junjunone turned out to be a sock of ScienceApologist, see and User:Previously ScienceApologist. For more info on the pseudo-sceptic ScienceApologist see . I must admit there were times when I wondered whether he was simply winding up mainstream astronomers to see how uncritical they were, so I completely agree with the quote in the linked page by Henry H. Bauer: "ScienceApologist gives a self-description that raises the suspicion that he, she, or they is or are in reality a Trojan Horse designed to discredit all who claim to defend science. I could not reach a conclusion as to whether or not this self-description was written satirically, because it is so perfect a send-up of the most extreme scientism — "scientism" being the quasi-religious belief that contemporary science is the place to get true answers to everything."


 * I actually think Junjunone's edits of Galaxy rotation curve are good edits and that they are consistent with what I was saying all along. The irony is that if he had engaged in constructive edits all this could have been avoided. Instead he seemed to enjoy winding people up, though as noted above I am not sure that I was his real target.

In your own words
I was curious from AN, in your own words how would you phrase your feelings about Plasma Cosmology. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you have chosen not to answer the question. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Got rather held up with Junjunone and his attempt to get me banned from Galaxy rotation curve. Sorry, will get round to answering it. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, my feelings about plasma cosmology is firstly that the scientists who have contributed to this are scientists of the first rank, there is a Nobel laureate amongst them and the others are successful, world class scientists too. Secondly in the particular field of plasma science they are the top scientists. ScienceApologist insists they cannot talk about cosmology because they are not part of the astrophysical or cosmology "community", but he fails to notice that this article is about plasma cosmology, so there is another community involved, and my feeling is that the understanding of plasma amongst scientists from the astrophysical or cosmological community is not as good as that as from plasma scientists - as to be expected really, these guys have to try and control plasma.
 * On a broader note I find Wikipedia's coverage of astronomy poor - on other subjects if I choose I can get lost in a wealth of articles. In astronomy - yes - there are comprehensive and complete lists of stars, asteroids, exoplanets, etc. which are boring but expected, but it is the major articles which do not link together. They rapidly close down if there is a hint of a discrepancy with the authorised view. I found I basically knew everything they had to say, I'm not saying that to say how much I know, but how little real stuff there is in the astronomy series of articles compared to other sections (say series on military history or philosophy or ...). I didn't realise how poor the coverage was until I decided to go specifically looking for counter arguments (which is a valid technique to understand more about a subject when simply reading about it doesn't get you any further).
 * I found plasma cosmology and was appalled. It seemed ScienceApologist and like minded editors had decided that the article had to be redacted and censored, so any inconvenient bits (inconvenient to ScienceApologist's community - which is not the same as the astrophysics community because no science community would welcome people with such closed minds) were to be removed and all that could stay was stuff readers would reject out of hand as nonsense. It was vandalism, pure and simple, so I simply set to to revert the vandalism.Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Abu Hamza-He is a convict.
I have reverted the edit that you made to the above article because Hamza is a convict. He was convicted of several offences on 7 February 2006, thus making him a convict. Thank youMarkdarrly (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. You are correct in that he was convicted of various crimes, but he had served his prison sentence for those crimes. He was still in prison, but that was because of the extradition request. In the end in the UK he was in prison on remand and not because he had been convicted of a crime. A convict (which is almost never used in my experience outside of references to 19C convict transportation etc.) is someone who is currently serving a prison sentence, so I don't think Abu Hamza al-Masri is now a convict. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The way the artcle read was that the only reason the he was in jail was because of the extradition, my revert of your edit made it read so that it included the point that he was a convict during a period of the time that he was in jail - serving an actual sentence for offences he had committed, and was not just in prison awaiting extradition Markdarrly (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment
You have been mentioned at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and related cases
By a vote of 8-0 in response to a request for clarification, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

"Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read 'Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.' Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion."

For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Dark matter
When something like that happens I'm curious when and who. This is the edit where something went badly wrong. Also Lugia2453 reverted but then was unsure and reverted himself back to the bad edit. Slight Smile  03:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I discovered that vandalism after I'd done some changes! But there were other problems, e.g. "Then, in the late 1920s and early 1950s, Vera Rubin ... presented findings". User talk:DirkXcal had made the dates wrong, but even with the correct dates (late 1960s and early 1970s) it didn't make sense as she only presented her findings in particular years: 1970, 1975 and 1980. So by the time I'd decided it was vandalism I had already done some changes, and it was simpler to track down the individual vandalism acts and correct them than do a revert. I did find the vandalism you point out above and checked I'd got the lot. My main changes are . Also checked that DirkXcals other edits had all been reverted by other editors. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Your question
I didn't want to answer this on that talk page because things tend to get nasty there, plus the rules as per WP:FORUM, but here's an answer if you want it: I've encountered people who claim that Ancient Egyptians were actually 100% black. Then, on the other hand, there are those (all Americans) who apply the near-obselete American one-drop-rule to Egypt and argue that a bit of Nubian (or some other unidentified ancestral black group in other variants) blood makes Egyptians "black". Another common version is that Ancient Egyptians were "originally" black and therefore the blacks were the ones who "invented" Egyptian civilization before they got "usurped" by "invaders". Honestly, that people can't be satisfied with Egyptians being Egyptian instead of biting each others heads off over whether they're "black" or "white" or some other color seems bizarre to me. I think one good way to look at it is to compare it to other (similar in my opinion) nationalist historiographical attempts to "claim" ancient civilizations- for example Hungarians thinking they're descended from Sumerians. African Americans (plus one Senegalese author who thought that his Wolof language a close relative to the Ancient Egyptian language, despite linguistic consensus that there's utterly no close relation) aren't the first to try to "claim" Egyptians either- notably, the Scots once had a myth of how they came from Egypt and Ancient Egyptians were Scots.--Yalens (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Aarghdvaark (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you following me?
You appear at articles I edit, and random discussions I comment in. Are you following me? Perhaps you would like to explain how you arrived at that DRV. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * David Talbott is on my watch list - because of the peripheral link David Talbott -> Electric Universe -> Plasma Cosmology. I was aware of your AfD call, but it seemed to me obvious that the article would not be deleted so I didn't add anything (me just adding a simple "Keep" without any argument wouldn't be any good as Wikipedia is not a democracy). I was surprised when you questioned the closing admin's decision, so I was waiting for the review. OK? Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You just happen to be keeping an eye on every day of deletion review. That seems like a pretty unlikely set of circumstances. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't delete my talk page comments. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Aarghdvaark. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The Plasma Cosmology Article
Hi Aarghdvaak. I have attached an extensive reply to your comment on the talk:plasma cosmology page under ""Non-standard Models and the Sociology of Cosmology". I'd appreciate your input on these comments and useful suggestion for the Article's improvement. Thanks.

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plasma cosmology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metagalaxy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Brightest Stars
I noticed that you have changed the List of Brightest Stars.

This important text was added as an explanation to prevent endless editing of the main list, which was a general problem with editors not understanding specifically with alpha Centauri, who listed them either together or as individual star in this binary system.

Removing it just leave confusion an doubt to other questioning readers.

If you do really wish to modify it, please discuss on Talk Page. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Ariane. I was going to talk about this, as it is confusing. But in scrolling down the previous talk items I came across item 21 a RFC . The conclusion was clear: "Keep binary stars as single-entry. This involves listing Capella, Alpha Cent, Castor etc. at their combined apparent magnitude for the systems." So that bit I removed in the introduction is now wrong. It is also at odds with the bit in the preamble: "Other stellar magnitude lists report individual stars, differentiating those in binary stars or double star systems." Aarghdvaark (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

March 2018
Your recent editing history at Shroud of Turin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * (Moved from my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC))
 * Hi, I have tried to reach consensus, see the section Deleted sentence "However, none of the hypotheses challenging ..." as not sourced. I originally deleted the whole sentence as the majority of the refs in my opinion did not support it. That was reverted. During the discussion I accepted that some of the refs were OK, but I also realised that "it is not possible to come to consensus", as stated in the talk section. I therefore deleted only the refs which I believe are not suitable. This was reverted. I am not disagreeing with the argument of Wdford, rather it is the fact that they are making the argument, not the sources they have chosen. If you cannot reach consensus, what then? Cheers, Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * None of the above is an exception to our edit warring policy. You need to find another way to deal with content disputes even if you are right. You reverted three times and during that time you didn't post a single word to Talk:Shroud of Turin as required by WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD. That's edit warring and you need to stop doing it. Note that I also warned the editor who you were edit warring with. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, got it, I've raised this at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard under Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. I have notified User: Wdford and User: Hob Gadling. Cheers, Aarghdvaark (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science

 * In case you wonder what this is about, I'm simply giving you a heads-up with regard to editing and discussing Shroud of Turin. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC).

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)