User talk:Arianewiki1/Archive 2016

Tetra quark: Déjà vu?
FYI:. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Supernova
Hi. I just noticed you undid my revision to Supernova, and commented that the original text was "perfectly correct." "Galactic" could be interpreted as referring to any galaxy, and "using" is the more common verb for the noun "instruments", so I would contend that my suggested wording is easier to understand by a layperson.

Thanks Patrickwooldridge (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but you will find that 'galactic' only refers to the Milky Way, as say the galactic centre or galactic plane or galactic year. I.e. In Sagittarius or cooordinates L & b or 225 million years, respectively. There is no confusion I know of, and it is stated in the Penguin Dictionary of Astronomy, as such. The reversion is actually justified. Thanks for bothering to question this revert. Cheers! Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Fights
Hi!

I find we are more-or-less kindred souls here at Wikipedia, which is why I think it good for me to try to mediate your conflict with who has provided some much needed input into other astronomy-related conflicts I have had. It appears to me that your main complain is with reintroduced errors into article text. I definitely agree with that. However, it also seems as if other changes that are probably uncontroversial have been swept up in the revert warring at WR 31a. Is it possible to add some categories and templates uncontroversially to that article?

Cheers,

jps (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your words here. This is a difficult situation because this editor in this dispute had virtually wiped out the effort of a significant update of WR31a to . I added the image here .  then  replaced most of it with both unsourced and incorrect material to this edit.. I then challenged the edits, added thee catergories and templates that explained why  then did the final edit here..


 * This edit stood for between 12th March 2016 to the 13th April 2016, with making no effort to engage in seeking consensus nor engage with the alleged problems, which I highlighted on the Talk page on the 11th March 2016  The page was completely reverted by , whose reasons were just "Its an improvement."  preceded to make ten edits (all ignoring the issues with mistakes I had highlighted on the Talk Page. I reverted the whole set of edits , stating "You do not have consensus to make these edits. Still more than two dozen mistakes. Reverted back to version Arianewiki1. Discuss on talk page." The page was reverted again by  . This is clear evidence of avoid consensus and WP:GF, and there is little excuse for me to "Undo: if there are mistakes fix them. Don't just turn a useful article back into a stub.", because I did fix the mistakes and pointed out the flaws. This is all made worst by the fact on the Talk page to explain the reversion as "My last word" , where  openly states;


 * "I'm putting back the improved version. I have given up engaging with Arianwiki1 since that author has been repeatedly abusive to me, making demands, chasing down my edits, and simply being difficult where it would be easier to be helpful."


 * These statements are both false, unfounded and not even referenced, and worst made without evidence. It is plainly a personal attack. This easily breaks the rules regarding WP:GF. I complained to WP:AN/3 here, but was advised by that Ymblanter this didn't violate WP:3RR and take my complaint elsewhere by Administrators. I then went to WP:AN/I here , and explained my grievances, but got no responses.


 * By any reasonable approach, by not engaging in any means of gaining consensus, and an editor who is seemingly refusing to do so, just make reaching consensus impossible. The last revert I changed, because it reflects on my previous efforts, as said in the reason to revert: "Don't just turn a useful article back into a stub." implying my edits were somehow trivial. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As I have tried most options to resolve this I cannot see how this issue can be fixed.


 * However, this behaviour extends elsewhere. I.e. Supernova "Remove fluff sentence originating from non-neutral editor (User:WAFred))", which I've replied.


 * This is knowing full well that I had made the original edit. The excuse for the original edit by was "Replace factually incorrect lead sentence (see talk page))", however, made no comment on the Talk page at all. here I properly explained the reason for the revert and the facts why it was correct.


 * "Also changing edits by provactively saying "(Remove fluff sentence originating from non-neutral editor (User:WAFred))" and "remove a rather speculative section apparently written by an involved party", is plainly provocative and ignores WP:GF. If you have proof or evidence of a "non-neutral editor" or "an involved party", it should appear on this talkpage. Who is the involved party? Seemingly claiming some unknown 'User:WAFred' (who doesn't exist) as justification is plainly unacceptable."


 * If you have any suggestions on how to fix this say so, for all I see is an editor trying to force the issue - tantamount to taunting to get a reaction. That's the way I see it. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm a bit confused as to the interpersonal drama, but understand that Wikipedia can amplify this over other issues. My major question is whether or not the rather uncontroversial categorization and templates included on WR 31a could be restored. You know, the standard infoboxen and categories. jps (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * They could, but some of the information is absolutely wrong too. The so-called "interpersonal drama" is this user refuses to engage in consensus, and the personal attacks to justify edits is completely unconscionable - especially in light of the evidence. Really. I only edit here, should not be expected to teach all the basics too. (See reply on WR31a Talk Page.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally get your frustration. Let's see if we can work it out. jps (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NGC 4394, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M85. 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) 10:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Utter shambles
You know, you could avoid raising the blood pressure of other editors simply by choosing more neutral language for your comments. "This article is an utter shambles" is not necessary to call attention to its needing work. Just dial it back: "This article needs work, to correct the following problems:". I was guilty of similar language early in my career, and discovered fairly early that it is counter-productive. -- Elphion (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, but I made these edit back in 31 October 2014 (UTC), waited a whole month, then fixed many of them myself - 39 edits in total. Pity there is no grading system in here, and also it took 18 months for someone to comment. As for the need for "neutral language", I thought that applied only to actual edits, however, if I make heavy-handed comments, it is rear occurrence. At least I countered it with suitable edits to fix them. The article is still confusing with lots of irrelevancies. Sadly it crosses multiple articles on nebulae, and if it is to be fixed, it will take lots of work. Frankly this article needs expert hands, but it is much better than it once was. Thanks for the comments, though. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Removed see WP:DTTR Hello, I'm ThePlatypusofDoom. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It expressed how I felt, and the consequences of defying WP:GF. This user is attempting wedge politics here. User is being divisive and has made deliberately attempts to avoid the central issue. I will likely be reverting your edit. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand that you were frustrated, but insulting the COI editor never helps. Keep a cool head. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, you do not need to violate WP:NPA to violate WP:CIVIL. incivility is classified as "rudeness, personal attacks, or disrespectful comments". Your comment falls into the "rudeness" category.

Removed see WP:DTTR Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Sebagr can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. ''Do not alter other editor's comments. Be calm and respectful. See WP:NAM'' ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it was 'rudeness' at all, and if you think that was true, then please use WP:ANI.


 * Furthermore. Do not alter other editor's comments. Eh? I have NOT altered nobody's comments at all. Please show evidence of this! User talk:Sebagr is making continued false statements about what I've actually said. My actions with the reverts was perfectly justified. Providing actual evidence couldn't be construded as harassment. (I have been really very careful in my responses here. I'm actually more worried about outing this User.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed the templates (per WP:DTTR)., I am curious to know where did Arianewiki1 alter the comments? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought She changed them under the section called COI:Confirmed but I might have messed up. If that's true, I apologize. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I really can't see any modification there. I know not to interfere with other's talkpages, and if I did, I would extend apologies and say so. After the possible claim of harrassment, I went to the page to remove parts that could be interpreted that way, only to find it was gone. I did add a new subheading, so the text would not be confused, between the two parts appropriate too each section. Other than that, where is the problem?? Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If I haven't done this, then can I correct the revert then + new strike outs? If the argument goes to the Astronomy Talk page, the reasoning in why it is unsuitable is properly explained there. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, except for the "Utterly disgusted" remark. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but the discussion here isn't about that segment. I would appreciate you mentioning it on the Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, because has now used it to out me there. I did notice that the dates were mixed up and one of your messages seemed in between the two different segments of text, but how that occurred I can't explain. Glitches happen.


 * One point of your removal of other's text, is that editors should not modifying other's Talk pages unless you retract your own words. Furthermore, you should inform the User and ask them to retract it before just removing it altogether, unless is is clearly offensive, like obscenities of threats of violence. Really you should have stike out the text with < /s> not removed it.


 * Lastly, I am also slightly offended by the gender play expressed in some of posts in this current dispute, especially all the she/he garbage. After being outed years ago, and I just removed the gender question altogether. If you see someone like this, it is better to be gender neutral. I.e. they - 'they said' NOT 'she (or he) said'. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I use She/He instead of "They" Because I want to be gender-neutral. "They" Just sounds wrong to me. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just going to articles like Gender-neutral language :) Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

COI matters
Hi Arianewiki1. I work on COI matters in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. I've just had time to give attention to the COI matters you raised about the links that Sebagr has added to Wikipedia. You have identified this as potential COI editing and done the legwork to demonstrate that it is COI editing, and that is a good thing. Thanks for doing that.

The goal of our work at COIN is to help manage conflicts of interest - the core of that is working with the editor who appears to have a COI to have them disclose any COI they have, and if they one, to educate them about the COI guideline so that they propose content changes where they have a COI for others to review, rather than directly editing. So this is very similar to academia, where disclosure and peer review protect the integrity of academic publishing.

The process is generally educational and we try to approach it that way; most people actually want to do the right thing, and just need to be made aware of the issues.

Lemongirl and Platypus of Doom have done a good job following up on the case you brought. I just finished reviewing everything, and the case is just about done. Sebagr has posted to WT:AST and is awaiting feedback there.

I'd like to ask you to disengage from the matter. As I said you did a good thing to bring the case, but to be honest, you are taking a very confrontational approach, which is adding friction and drama to the process that isn't helpful. While Sebagr has been resistant, they are coming around. There are larger issues at play here as well that I will describe if you wish, but it would be better for everyone and the project if you were to disengage now.

Thanks again for raising these issues. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Truly bad call. Terrible. Closing this was premature, because I had evidence this was a deliberate manipulation of adopted policies, where the User was deliberately circumventing these for advantage. I am "very confrontational" because this behaviour was utterly unethical, where a User was specifically avoiding the truth at any cost just to achieve a particular goal. Worst, PlatypusofDoom short circuited the process, for what reason I'm unsure, but it made me look like an incompetent idiot. Attacks like this one here are classic examples of manipulating the process, because individuals can gain much personal benefits of 'notoriety' or profit from promoting their wears - a growing and worrying damage to the Project. As to your 'opinions' they are quite unwelcome. If you have a problem, you should follow the necessary procedures, rather than shut people completely out of the process for expediency. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You pinged me here, so apparently you want to talk some more. Would you please clarify - what outcome did you want exactly? Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

COIN closed
Jytdog has closed the COI case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Really bad call. Railroading people out of the discussion, and then supporting closure to avoid scrutiny is not the way to solve problems. This User should have been prevented from editing astronomical pages, but now has options to continue to promote. Worst you stopped me from placing the entire evidence, satisfying what? Protecting someone who is clearly following an agenda. So please in future, just avoid interfering with issues unless you comprehend what you are doing. Open your eyes. All you did was make me look like an incompetent idiot, and support profiteering by a manipulative individual over a bunch of volunteer editors who have their hands tied behind their backs by artificial self-inflicted and imposed ethical behaviour. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It was not my decision to close, although I supported the closure. It was Jytdog, who is probably the most active editor on COIN. Please, take the warning about your confrontational manner to heart, as some editors may not want to work with you. Also, please read WP:AGF. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You have been blocked twice before, so I urge you to be WP:CIVIL. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yet another threat. You are quite welcome to try. It appears more like victimization here, threatened by someone who made a deliberate deletion on another's talk page. I have never been blocked for being uncivil, so I ask you to immediately draw this wrongful slight. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * PoD, leave it alone. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not a threat. There is a difference between a threat and a warning. Look, what's over is over. Just don't be so confrontational again, as many editors will not want to work with you. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 18:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, my point wasn't that you were blocked for not being civil. My point was a third block is normally harsher than blocks 1 and 2. Also, blocks for violating WP:CIVIL are normally harsher than other blocks, and you aren't normally a very civil editor, as you seem to misinterpret warnings as threats. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

SN 386
It's unclear to me why you would revert my fix to SN 386, just so you can apply the exact same change yourself one minute later, both times with edit summaries insinuating that I had done it incorrectly. Eleuther (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed one wrong designation, then found another requiring a second edit. It is officially 11.2 NOT 11.22. If I've erred, I'm sorry. Nothing personal. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What's the point of making up a story like that? The edit history is right there for all to see. I corrected 11.22 to 11.2 in the two places where it occurred. Three days later, you reverted my change, thus restoring 11.22 in the two places. That can't be described as "removing one wrong designation."  There were no wrong designations to remove.  That's called reverting another editor's work with the revert button.  Then you went in and manually changed 11.22 to 11.2 in both places, which can't be described as "then I found another requiring a second edit."  Net result of your two edits to the article: no change.  Plus two edit summaries (and now a third remark above) lecturing me that 11.2 is correct, as if I needed to be told that.  (PS. I spent about an hour studying this before making the initial change.  A possible origin of the problem is a typo in the TOC of the journal where the 1997 Torii, et al. paper appeared: The title in the TOC has G11.22, even though the abstract and the paper itself have G11.2 everywhere...) Eleuther (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "What's the point of making up a story like that?" is avoiding WP:GF. I made an error somewhere, I've apologized. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

List of brightest stars
I don't know what's going on that you think citations aren't needed. But continually re-adding a controversial statement after being reverted without addressing it on the talk page will eventually result in administrative sanctions. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 22:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've explained the position of these edits above in this Talk page. (See 'Given Magnitudes of Variable Stars'.) The reason why this text was added was to stop the changes by other editors quoting magnitudes from numerous random sources which was problematic in early editions of this article. It solved it. Definitions of maximum magnitudes of variables is not clear cut because some variables present repeated maxima at a particular magnitude while others have differing maxima through each successive period. In the latter example, the maxima is stated as a mean value of maxima observed over many cycles. This is clearly explained where I gave "...the reasoning behind this is that all variable star magnitudes quoted for visual magnitudes are based on mean maximum brightness. (See Fig 36. "AAVSO data" pg. 76 "A Variability Study of the Typical Red Giant Antares A" by T.J.D. Pugh (April 2013), where the tops of the light curve is +0.96 magnitude.)" It is that simple. It is not controversial at all. There is no consensus to revert this edit. (This is not 'personal research' but example how such values are derived. It would be 'personal research' if I added this to the article. It is but an example.)


 * As for the silly threats of "administrative sanctions" – well go ahead. This individual in question has stated that they have no wish to discuss such changes with me any further - either in article Talk pages or their own talk page. As they refuse to engage in the process, I've no choice but to revert those edits that are clearly incorrect. Furthermore, as they cannot state any reason why this is wrong by facts nor actual evidence to the contrary, there is no need to remove it. Unless they do, there is no chance of "administrative sanctions" being applied if they are unwilling to: "without addressing it on the talk page."
 * Your comments here add nothing to solve the current impasse, other than an indirect threat, which ignores the necessary WP:GF. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 00:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)