User talk:Arianewiki1/Archive 2015

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? Tetra quark (don't be shy) 00:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.

WP:GF 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 Arianewiki1 (talk) 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 Tetra quark (don't be shy) 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 Dispute resolution noticeboard 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! Arianewiki1 (talk) 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 Tetra quark I've started nothing. You were the one caught Please kindly sign post with four tildes, or comments like this will be deleted. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I simply forgot to. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 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 attacksTetra quark (don't be shy) 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 Tetra quark (don't be shy) 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.Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can be really stressful sometimes. It is a free encyclopedia 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 Tetra quark (don't be shy) 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. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 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 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy 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!
 * Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to reality...
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 AWB being resolved ,

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 good faith, 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 AWB 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 AWB 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 Wikipedia, 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 AWB, 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 Wikipedia, 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 WP:DRN specifically addresses. I may have made several 'enemies' by doing this Reyk, 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 Universe, I 110% agree.

Keep up your good editing!

Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've Knowingly Just Broken the 3RRR Rule
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 Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring, 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. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

On a 3RRR Issue
 * @ Tetra quark. 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 edit warring. (Past deeds are totally irrelevant.) You were very clearly advised not to do this, but then the last edit to Isambard Kingdom broke the 3RRR 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 3RRR  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 WP:1RR and WP:0RR with Editing restrictions You don't want to go down that path.)


 * I actually do see some other real issues with both edits of Tetra quark and Isambard Kingdom, 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 Isambard Kingdom, 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 Isambard Kingdom position here either.) Isambard Kingdom 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 WP:AGF, 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 Arianewiki1 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. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Third statement

 * 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 Exoplanetaryscience 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. WP:POINT Why so harsh on Exoplanetaryscience? Why didn't you just fix the wrongly punctuated text?


 * Yes, some 28 minutes later, I did reverted your edit on the Ceres 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 Ceres Article Page, you reverted Kudzu1 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 Kudzu1 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 JorisvS, 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 WP:GAMING and generates


 * Then now when you write here to John, "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, Tetra quark 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 WP:BITE) 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.


 * Wikipedia = cooperation, collaboration and consensus. If you really want to do it alone… well…


 * Truly, this isn't fun anymore… Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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 Exoplanetaryscience 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. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 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 Tetra quark (don't be shy) 18:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fourth Statement

 * 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. IC 1101 and Talk:IC 1101 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 IC 1101. (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 gaming, 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 ASHill 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. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Arianewiki1 (talk) 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 (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 02:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment
Hey Ariane, I just wanted to drop by and say that, without commenting everything you've written here (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. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Who knows. For the past few weeks all I see is someone gaming 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. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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 Tetra quark, 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 gaming, 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 WP:GF, 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.Arianewiki1 (talk) 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:
 * 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.
 * 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 WP:ROPE a read. The editor acknowledged that their behavior was problematic and offered a reasonable solution to avoid it.  That's basically what is expected for an unblock.  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.)
 * I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

---


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


 * Were you aware of these posts I made during the first block? and  I was crystal clear with the 3RR 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 Tetra quark 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 [1] Giordano Bruno [2] List of cosmologists [3])
 * 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? Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

IC 1101
Are you sure you reverted the right edit? 


 * Yes, absolutely. See Arianewiki1 (talk) 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? Tetra quark (don't be shy) 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 like this; a diff would be a link like this. Instead, you provide links like this, which don't do any good. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 02:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

A respectful request
Arianewiki1, as far as you are concerned, User:Tetra quark 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? SkyFlubbler (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No I am not angry with User:Tetra quark, but his bad behaviour is now wearing very thin at the moment. User:Tetra quark continues to basically ignore even the simplest of Wikipedia rules, and has seemingly broken the WP:3RR 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 User:Tetra quark, 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 WP:AWB, 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. Arianewiki1 (talk) 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 Wikipedia, and a strong a statement like this deserves proper substance to back it up, in the form of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentalis (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 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. Plasma physics is also not equivalent to the theory of plasma cosmology. This is not just my view but the consensus in many past debates on the subject.Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am amazed with Pentalis 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. Pentalis, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Pentalis (talk) 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 . [The date here is stamped on the page.] Another is Thornhill's "Electric Universe' released 28th January 2015. I've seen other stirrings on-line too. I'll keep this on watch. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


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

Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Brightest Stars
Hi Ariane,

you posted on my talk page about my edit of List of Brightest Stars. 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? Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @ 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. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 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. Arianewiki1 (talk) 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 [multiple star systems] 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? Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A message
Hello, Ariane!

I am here to tell you that User:Tetra quark 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. SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * See. The rest is up to Tetra quark, not me. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Yunshui 雲 水 13:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

3RR - only warning
You are so far past 3RR on User talk:Tetra quark 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 WP:3RR with administrative action. Yunshui 雲 水 13:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There you go. There has been one more revert. Tetra quark (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
This doesn't give me any pleasure, you know. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yunshui 雲 水 14:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Modifying another's comments in userspace
Hi Arianewiki1. I know that I started reverting your strikes of Tetra Quark's worst comments on his or her talk page. I meant to post here with an explanation; sorry it took me so long. There are a few reasons I've done so: 1) editors normally have wide latitude to do whatever they please -- even if it's a bad idea and reflects badly on them -- in their own user space and on their own talk pages. 2) Even if the offensive words weren't on TQ's own talk page, editing others' comments is not normally acceptable, and is almost never acceptable when you have an explicit request from the editor not to. 3) WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL doesn't actually say anything that allows you to revert swearing or insults made by another editor. The relevant wording is "Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Saying "f--- off", while very much inappropriate, is not derogatory towards you. In fact, it just reflects badly on TQ, and his/her refusal to remove the content despite repeated requests by at least three editors, including me, makes him/her look even worse. Let that speak for itself, take the high ground, and give TQ's childish comments all the attention they deserve (none). —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 15:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree.


 * WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says "... an editor who is making personal attacks, and does not stop when you ask them, may be warned by an administrator and subsequently blocked. Saying: " Look: F--- off. Who the f--- do you think you are, you little s—?"


 * This isn't a personal attack? Is this not derogatory?


 * Look worst? How? All I've learnt day is that Wikipedia is an unsafe working environment, who protects those who care more about their 'rights' rather than treat others with civility. Yet the most distressful things is that young kids in school read Wikipedia, and one of them might come across of these disgusting comments. What does that teach them, eh? Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) I certainly respect where you're coming from and agree that there are some issues with the Wikipedia working environment. But my feeling is that those comments say a heck of a lot more about the editor who wrote them than they do about the editor they were directed at. And every editor involved in this except TQ seems to recognize that; now a fourth editor has chimed in to suggest that he knock it off.
 * Wikipedia does in effect have a policy of allowing editors to be jerks in their own user space. But similar comments or edits get edited away almost always and almost immediately in article space (the ones that kids in school are generally reading) and often on talk pages other than the editor's own talk page.
 * For better or for worse, I for one will certainly remember this incivility whenever dealing with TQ elsewhere; this behavior will leave me with no tolerance for inappropriate behavior from this editor anywhere outside his/her own userspace. And remember that TQ's swearing got him/her blocked (and eliminated any chance of a review ending the block early) when the comments were made; I'm pretty sure that any remotely similar comments in the future made by TQ outside of userspace would result in a long-term block because such comments would be harming the encyclopedia. Again, I encourage you to take the high ground. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 16:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yunshui 雲 水 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses My apologies for the breaking the 3RR rule towards fixing this issue of incivility. I have deserved the sanction here, and now accept it. I will avoid doing this again.

However, I am still rather concerned with the responses to solve the issue of the derogatory remarks made against me. So far the only advice has been to ignore Tetra quark, even though he has repeatably violated WP:CIV. The issues I have specifically highlighted in my second request to be unblocked. I have tried several means of fixing this, which I find unnecessary. I am unable to make the case to support this, as Tetra quark has either delete my comments or archived them, mostly seemingly to avoid having the structure of the conversation understood. I wrote in good faith, and the response was a derogatory remark which I find unacceptable. When I tried to correct this, he just deleted it. This is clear evidence showing that I tried to solve this problem without success.

Even this latest discussion on his User Page is been archived, in an attempt to hide the issue. According to TQ; "To conclude, I'd like to say that the main reason why I don't want the text striked is that I am not very fond of ariane, and I don't want to see him making changes on my page." This is direct evidence of avoiding WP:GF.

The struck out text is because it is offensive and uncivil, and should have nothing to whether you like some one or not.

After this block is lifted, I will request advice is how to fix this issue when uncivil comments can be imposed on a User, and somehow also be 'protected' from not removing it.

WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL fully says; "In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of another editor, it may be appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Some care is necessary, however, so as not to further inflame the situation. It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor."

The bold statement clearly says I was to do this action, but it is seemingly interpreted differently by different people. (It was the justification for reverting, that I did explain to TQ some of the edit comments.)

So the 3RR block I do accept. The incivility is not acceptable, which is made worst by not being able to defend against it with such total disregard. My actions have been considered and fair, and I have left adequate time for TQ to correct this.

Q. Where should I go to discuss Wikipedia policies on Civility and improving/ changing the policy of WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL?

(I have written this on my User Page than the Admin page, as I cannot edit there.)

As for the statement "Neither of them was being particularly civil" by User:FreeRangeFrog in unfair. I may have broken 3RR, but I've always tried to remain civil to solve the issue at hand. Please show evidence of the contrary in this 3RR dispute, please. Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * While others might have a more panoramic perspective of Wiki rules than I do, it does seem that the phrase you have highlighted from WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL justifies your recent striking out of derogatory comments on Tetra's talk page. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I really didn't want to leave a message, but if you don't mind me asking, why do you always make a big deal out of everything? That "issue" you're reporting isn't even related to the articles and doesn't affect the functionality and structure of the website. Honestly, you're the only one who seem to care about something that passed almost unnoticed. Even John (the admin I told to go f--- off) didn't do anything about that, so what makes you think you're the one who has to do something? Rethink about all this drama you're doing. Oh and btw, enjoy your block. Tetra quark (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That snide little sign off damn nearly earned you a block yourself; I would strongly suggest you strike it, apologise and then stay the hell away from Arianewiki1 for the forseeable future. Your conduct during this affair has been, frankly, disgraceful; if anyone needs to "rethink the drama they are doing", it's you. Yunshui 雲 水 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "That snide little sign off damn nearly earned you a block yourself" That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Anyway, I don't think you're interpreting the situation the same way I am. First, I do stay away from arianewiki. He/she/whatever was the one who, out of nowhere, decide to go strike my messages long after that discussion was over. I am not obliged to allow changes on my talk page just because some user deliberately decided to change it. Also, what drama am I making? I'm the one who advised you not to care much about this whole thing. Also, I said numerous times that a certain message would be my last one. I'm being forced to participate in this discussion because of you, mainly. Tetra quark (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In view of the outcome of the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion, I believe you (Arianewiki1) should be unblocked, and I will be acting on that in a few minutes unless there is a strenuous objection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Responding to your question, I'll refer you to User:NE_Ent/Notes_on_civility -- specifically the lack of clear consensus on what will and will not fly. Generally, direct attacks on editors can be addressed but general grumpy / venting / whining / profanity is tolerated. No latitude is given in article space, less in article talk, perhaps a little more on noticeboards, and wide (but not infinite) latitude on a user's "own" talk page. I'll sometimes give it a single shot by editing another's talk page -- using redacted, not strike through. However, I ignore any blowback and won't edit war over it. Maybe then a single post to their talk page; after that you have to use noticeboards with diffs and wikilinks to prior discussion if you're aware of them. NE Ent 03:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked
As a result of the discussion on the noticeboard, Tetra Quark has been blocked indefinitely. I don't see any reason to leave you blocked any longer, and therefore I am unblocking you.

I don't know whether Tetra Quark will be allowed to edit again, but if he is, I am sure you will use your best efforts to avoid interacting with him.

Best wishes for your future editing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This might be a little tricky - Arianewiki1 is an astronomer with considerable experience and expertise in the area - astronomy and astorphysics is a field that really benefits from some vocational folks, and tetraquark, too, is interested in the field. So this might need some fine-tuning should the latter return. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the unblock, which I now know, I frankly did not actually deserve. The 24 hour block on me was fair and quite correct, because I had completely disrespected Yunshui with my final revert when they had already warned me. I honestly regret this most of all, and have openly extended my sincere apologies. Again, I have acted quite foolishly here, and I will try to learn from the experience to be a better editor. I thank you for your deliberations and patience, and will avoid this User in the future. Best Wishes. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Yunshui 雲 水 08:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please disengage
At this point it's best if you totally disengage from Tetra Quark's talk page and let others in the community address Tetra Quark's comments; I suggest you revert your post there -- not necessarily because the content is wrong but because it's better coming from others, as this communicates that it's the wiki community's viewpoint, not just one or two editors. NE Ent 11:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just reverted it myself. Newyorkbrad unblocked with the very sound advice, to which you said "will avoid this User in the future." Please do so. NE Ent 11:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that is very, very harsh interpretation, especially as I spent an hour or two carefully writing it. The statement "will avoid this User in the future", comes unfair when the User uses their page to justify there position by using me as the lightening rod. How can I "avoid", especially when I am the one being brought up in the conversation? If he wants to be left alone, then he should do so and leave me out of it too. Can someone be effectively banned from a user page, when there is actually no ban against them? Can I be banned from a Users page and be prevented from reading it? I thought User pages are supposed to be interactions between Users (not manipulated as weapons), as long as we obey their proper use there shouldn't be any problem - excepting through some formal sanction.
 * By removing my words (or the other possible option of blanking these words) is precisely the same as what I tried to do with removing the derogatory remarks that I found problematic. (Just an observation)
 * If someone says "I bet ariane is laughing his ass off right now at my face, as he puts fuel in the fire and now he laughs at the results. I swear to god I feel like shooting myself in the head. Lastly, it's not about my temper. If you provoke anyone, they will feel pissed. It's god damn obvious. Ariane was even blocked for insisting on making his/her changes and now I am blocked forever because I told him to enjoy his block?", then I have a duty of care if someone threatens (or pretends to threaten) there life to avoid that. If he thinks I'm laughing at them, causing them to harm themselves, I am then partly responsible. I wrote all that, mostly taking responsibility for my own actions, and explaining how I felt. I also felt I addresses the issues of WP:EQ
 * Regardless, I do appreciate your concern and difficult place in this somewhat grey area, and do accept you are acting in all our collective best interest. My sincere apologies for being so forthright. Cheers. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tetra quark was blocked indefinitely for making highly inappropriate comments to you on your talk page while you were blocked (for a 3RR violation on his talk page). He justified it by saying that he just had to respond to what he perceived as provocation by you. If you then say that you have to respond to his provocation, there's no end in sight. Honestly, one of you has to let things slide and worry about editing the encyclopedia instead of having the last word in this fight. I suggest that you be the one to do so, since you are certainly making an effort to reflect on your role here, something I've seen no evidence of from TQ. I just don't see what good can come from you and TQ continuing this back and forth on each others' talk pages, no matter how well-intentioned your comments are. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 16:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ariane, in the mix of all this mess, I've, personally, found it good to direct my attention back to editing the articles that interest me. Perhaps this is good medicine for us all? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Fermi Paradox
Arianewiki1, perhaps you could bring your interest in astronomy and your critical thinking to the Fermi paradox article. In my opinion, this article could be very interesting. Unfortunately, also my opinion, the article has become bloated with unverifiable speculation. I'm looking, in particular, at the following subsection:. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

On the purgatory of TQ
Arianewiki1, it might be good enough to just leave TQ alone in his purgatory. You can do what want, of course, but that is my thought. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just when I thought TQ would contemplate how to work with others, he comes out of purgatory as multiple socks. Not healthy for him. I will go back to editing. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Isambard Kingdom. The guy seems determined to edit but refuses to do the right thing and retract from his behaviour. I have taken out his rudeness, which he now cannot edit. You'd think he'd just do the right thing, but his unethical or unrepentant demeanour killed any hope of coming back. Wikipedia is much better off without such editors. Again thanks for you kind words and advice, BTW. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes when I get too deep in a verbal fray, I end up getting myself into a difficult situation. Or my words get misinterpreted. This is why I try to edit more and talk less. Everyone is different in how they handle difficult situations, of course. Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverts
It seems you are on a tear of reverting my edits, just because I made them. Do we need to open a WP:ANI case on this? This appears to be a case where your personal animosity is causing damage to Wikipedia. Do we need to get administrators involved? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The change to Sigma Draconis I reverted because an anonymous editor made the change saying "newer source", when he referred to a source two decades older. It didn't claim a better source, it incorrectly claimed a newer source. If you are going to claim better source, please describe why you think it is better.
 * The change to Eta Carinae was a similar unexplained edit by an anonymous editor.
 * The standard is unexplained or mis-explained edits are removed, because they are not justified.
 * The change to the 49'ers season my reverted was simply incorrect. You had no basis whatsoever to re-instate it, and someone else immediately reverted you.


 * Go right ahead. Do what you like. I did explain the changes in the edit tag, which is all that it required, unless it is required to be referred to aTalk page.
 * Actually, you also reverted these edits without consulting nor explaining. The Sigma Draconis article is the best example. The newer source was BTW was the same value as the 1991 source, as both were made by Hipparcos, actually. Magnitude for this star is correct - it has to be - because of the historical importance of the star understanding the abbreviation of starlight, for example. As you are unable to explain what magnitude system should be used on the List of Bright Stars and towards the individual stars, almost any magnitude stated from any source at the moment in acceptable. I found 14 magnitude values differing by only 0.02 magnitudes, with the one one outside the range the value quoted on the article page. Seems pretty much conclusive to me.
 * The edit of the 49's season was a unknowing mistake by me which I immediately corrected and apologized for. I had no desire to change it, and I'm sorry that it got confused in the edits. When I saw the error, I immediately changed it back.
 * I do begin to actual question your own behaviour, because you refuse to engage in solving the problems. All you are seemingly doing is get me out of the way. I have edited few magnitude values in articles, but the edits made by both these editors seemed reasonable. One even had at least even had a reference, too. I thought anonymous users can edit if they make the correct contributions can't they?
 * As for stating me having "personal animosity". Nice slight. Well I'm sorry. You better be carefully for what you say or claim, as making such statements if proven wrong, as they generally have the greater affect on the accuser. I'd caution you carefully before considering taking this matter further. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Delta Velorum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asterism. 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) 09:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Plasma Cosmology
Hello Arianewiki1, Regarding: (Undid revision 689133858 by CuriousMind01 (talk) Alfven never speculated on galactic magnetic fields nor there strengths.) I only added a link to the term "galactic magnetic fields", not the text. If you think the text is wrong, please revise the text itself. Thank you,--CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had to revert this part of the page again because the reference does not actually say what (you've?) it says at all. Moreover, these alleged seem an incorrect interpretation, and considering the age of the paper, and not one shred of observational evidence exists to support this (even today!) Magnetic fields may be involved in the collapse of gas in nebulae, but the field strengths are nowhere near what is required for scenarios to be true. (The text above it already clearly says this!) Furthermore, if you disagree, formally discuss it on the article talk page. However, I doubt it would face the actual "acid-test" as is. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW. The values quoted seem to come from the scaling figure, which say 1017, but this doesn't come from that paper. Perrait presumably made that connection, but it is unsupported by verifiable facts. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * fyi, I only added a link to galactic magnetic fields. I do not know who put in the text. The first revert you did only removed my wikilink, not the text. I see now you removed the text also.


 * fyi2 In this article http://scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_field, the author discusses the galactic magnetic fields and plasma and strengths. CuriousMind01 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I know of Beck's work and the papers he has published for many years. Yes, he does discuss magnetic fields and their strength is galactic fields, but the magnitude of them is 10-15 microgauss and even the fields themselves are no actually coherent - they are mostly weak-seeded fields - magnified as high as they are possible at the 10-15 microgaus. Stronger fields and filaments do seem to appear in the galactic centre and the galactic core, but this is only a very small percentage of the total Milky Way. Beck does not mention plasma cosmology here, as unlike the papers now +40 years ago, the field strengths are mostly trivial. Much of the consequences of these fields were supposed to be mapping out the spiral arms, as suggested by Bostock in the 1950s. but looking at the distribution of the field, finds they also have strong field in between the arms - killing Bostock's theory dead. Because the fields are no coherent, their effects on initial star formation is trivial - and they are nothing like what's speculated by Alfven. Two points are here. The so-called "Cosmic Triple Jump", which as a major key, plasma cosmology requires to be true, is clear not strong enough by the observational evidence to greatly influence interstellar clouds. (Gravitation collapse and shock waves from supernovae or the spiral arms density waves likely is the initial cause. After which, when the interstellar cloud, the magnetic field strengthen enough to influence the collapse - often suggested by eliminating much of the angular momentum that resists the expectant collapse.) Secondly, if these magnetic fields are not strong enough, plasma cosmology is in a lot of trouble, because it is in sufficient to account how galaxies are formed and how they great stars. (Looking a intergalactic fields, the field strengths drop to nanogauss (or less), to the extent they cannot provide the necessary current to influence anything. Until the SKA is in operation and measures of galaxies are published will the situation possibly change, but current observational already shows plasma cosmology is wrong.
 * Finally, the reference source for the quote must related to the statement in the text. You cannot just add what might be right, but only quote what the reference actually says. It doesn't, so I removed it till it agreed with it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again.
Our friend seems to be back. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Question on post at WP:AN
At WP:AN, you posted.

However, the section in which you posted it was related to, while your comments appear to be completely about. Was your post meant to go into its own section? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After further review, it appears the post at WP:AN is redundant to the ongoing discussion at ANI, is that correct? In that case, should your post to AN be reverted? At AN, it's off-topic, and adds confusion to the thread in which it was inserted, which is about a different user. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in reply, as I'm tying to reply to the responses. I can't see the problem (too early in the morning when typing this.) Yes, I think your right on your point withdrawing WP:AN. I'll have a look at it. Cheers. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I responded to you there. If your post was in error and you want to remove it you are welcome to remove my response as well. <b style="color:DarkOliveGreen">HighInBC</b> 18:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I just want to draw attention to this edit of mine. If I was mistaken feel free to revert me. <b style="color:DarkOliveGreen">HighInBC</b> 22:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)