User talk:Arianewiki1/ Archive 2014

Discretionary sanctions authorized for Flood geology
Bishonen &#124; talk 00:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for this. I'll ignore it, because I've done nothing wrong, and I have actively attempted to gain consensus on the topic. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A really bad idea. You've accused an editor of edit warring and said reverting isn't helpful, and then proceeded to make two reverts. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What's a bad idea? Yopienso had changed the page removing the citations requested, and I've corrected the text with what the reference source actually says. Was Yopienso incorrect to change this without discussion on the talk page? Or should I have reversed all of Yopienso modifications for not seeking consensus?
 * As for the reverts, where / when does is say that is OK to do so, when I've was clearly marking a problem with the text, and I'm trying seeking consensus?
 * Question. Why are you not acting is solving the problem of fixing the text in question?
 * You seem here more worried by my alleged behaviour rather than solving the problems faced in the article on Flood geology
 * Do nothing. Is that what you want me to do here?? Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning:Disruptive editing on Flood geology
I'm becoming uncertain whether the issue with your editing on Flood geology is disruptive intent or a competence issue, in view of your many posts on Talk:Flood geology which ostensibly respond to other people's posts but persistently fail to engage with their arguments. I'm thinking especially but not at all exclusively of your comments on the sentence in the article lead that "Most adherents hold to a literal reading of Genesis 6-9 and view its passages to be historically accurate, where the Bible's internal chronology reliably places the Flood and the story of Noah's Ark within the last five thousand years." (Later changed to "Proponents", then by you to "Some proponents", currently again reading "Proponents", and some less important wording changes attempting to make the sentence less clunky, but I'm quoting the sentence as it read when you complained of it.) You apparently believe that it is true that most adherents of flood geology do believe this, but that "the implications of the sentence has been manipulated here to actually infers most Christians believe in Flood geology." Your claim of manipulation and of such an unlikely implication is not only untrue, it's incomprehensible. You give no arguments for it, yet you continue to insist on it to the point of using it as a reason for repeated reverts. You are editing disruptively on both the article and the talkpage, edit warring on the article as well as liberally and spuriously accusing others of edit warring and NPOV violations on Talk. Please edit and discuss constructively, or I will be forced to sanction you to protect the article from deterioration and its editors from the attrition caused by your currect debating style. A sanction would either take the form of a block or a topic ban from pages relating to flood geology and other Creation Science topics.

I should note also, since I'm giving this warning as an uninvolved admin, that you have claimed on Talk that I, along with other editors, have "repeatably [sic] reversed any other User contributions regarding this one line in the Article. They have tried to insist on the wording as to seemingly maintain their own POV (without adding any necessary references), and this has endless debated by them in the Talk pages without compromise." I have responded to this rather surprising statement (perhaps you may not actually have intended the accusations to apply to me, who have only trivially edited the article and had at that point never edited the talkpage, never mind "endlessly debated" on it?) here. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC).


 * I actually give up. No matter what I think or edit here, other users like User:Yopienso can change it without discussion, while anything I argue to support the changing of just two words (now deleted, and the paragraph reedited). Now you threaten sanctions because I had edited some Creation Science topic, which was reverted without discussion. Q. Has User:Yopienso done anything wrong here by editing this page, especially as it is supposed to be 'dissussed' via a Talk page ? (I do ask because I'm honestly now totally confused.) I.e. There is nothing now to be edited because the problem has been 'solved' by someone else? Whilst this whole article has many flaws, changing things midway has just made life more difficult. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I give up too. I notice that you as usual engage with nothing I have said and instead want to discuss other editors. Just please be aware of my warning next time you edit Flood geology and its talkpage. Have you clicked on any of the links you have been given, for instance the ones in the templated discretionary sanctions alert above? They're informative. You might be interested in the Arbitration Committee's final decision in the pseudoscience case here, for instance. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Again. Comment please. Q. Has User:Yopienso done anything wrong here by editing this page, especially as it is supposed to be 'dissussed' via a Talk page ? (I do ask because I'm honestly now totally confused.) I.e. There is nothing now to be edited because the problem has been 'solved' by someone else? Whilst this whole article has many flaws, changing things midway has just made life more difficult. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)'

Actually, I'm quite aware of the difficult issues with Pseudoscience I.e.. See my part in discussion with User talk:Orrerysky Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ariane. I think my edits have been uncontroversial. Wrt to "some proponents" v. "proponents," I purposely did not write "all proponents." That would be too strong. But, "some proponents" is too weak. Eliminating a qualifier denotes that, generally, proponents of flood geology hold to a literal interpretation of Gen. 6-9. I'm a little surprised at the way you're mentioning me here since yesterday you sent me a "Thank" for my editing.
 * I think that maybe if you take a deep breath and listen to the input, you'll see where your fellow editors are coming from. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your useful comments. I should say I thanked you for removing the word 'reliable', which was the main point of contention that others had argued against and simply reverted my changes. The issue is that the Bible is unreliable on the alleged age of Noah's Flood. I added the range only to show this was the case. You have show my POV was more likely correct.
 * As my question on you towards Bishonen it is not personal but about the process. I.e. You can make changes with impunity, while I'm threatened with sanctions, when your statement then seemingly perfectly agrees with mine! (Seemingly, if I edit now, according to Bishonen, I'm passed off as dead!) Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention my revert of your edit wrt the time of Noah's flood. The lede said, ". . . the Bible's internal chronology to place the Flood and the story of Noah's Ark within the last five thousand years." (My emphasis.) My source says, "Noah's Flood (about 4,500-5,000 years ago)". Those two statements are not contradictory: 4500-5000 is within the last 5000 yrs. I felt your revert there was simply contentious. Judging by your edit summary, "The given reference says 4500 to 5000 years ago not 5000 years. Changed," perhaps you read too quickly and didn't notice the word "within." I don't actually mind if it says 4500-5000; what I mind is contentious or sloppy editing, which I perceived on your part. Yopienso (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits incorrectly called vandalism.
You recently removed the common names for planetary nebulae NGC 2516 and NGC 2899 citing vandalism. I have reverted your edits, the common names are correct and I have added references to that effect, please assume good faith.Theroadislong (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the source of this is "Imaging the Southern Sky : An Amateur Astronomer’s Guide" By Stephen Chadwick Ian Cooper" on pg.70 (2012) . This is not the common name of the cluster and has not been used commonly by anyone. It is among the fictions generated by these authors, which are causing great problems with usual naming procedures. All these names are bogus. Including 20 others. As such, they should be removed. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IP editor at plasma cosmology
I've reported him on ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will no longer make comment to this disruptive editor. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Since you're an astronomer, tell me: Is IC 1101 really the largest galaxy? It says so on several different websites and videos, but people keep removing that information as well as its diameter (5.5 Mly) from the article claiming that the information is false. Can you somehow prove to them why it is the largest galaxy known? Tetra quark (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The diameter of IC 1101 is 860,000 pc or about 860000*3.262=2.8 Mly See the wiki page [| Largest Known Galaxies]


 * According to NED radial velocity is 23368±26 km/s, making this 1554 parsec per arcsec. If the galaxy is 90×35 arcsec, the maximum size is 1554×90 or 139.860pc or 456,000ly (0.46Mly.). BY 1554*35 or 54,390pc or 177,000ly (0.17Mly). I.e. 140×54kpc.


 * Therefore, 5.5 Mly is improbable if not impossible.


 * Note; Is suggest they wrongly assumed the size was probably in arcmin not arcsec, which would give ~5.5Mpc.


 * Largest spiral galaxy I know, as stated in the literature, is NGC 6872 in Pavo, being 160kpc., (each arm spans an enormous 80 kpc.), so it very easily dwarfs our Milky Way’s mere 16±1.5 kpc size by a factor of five!


 * See article entitled <ref="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/galex20130110.html" “NASA’s GALEX Reveals the Largest-Known Spiral Galaxy”, stating; "The spiral is 522,000 light-years across from the tip of one outstretched arm to the tip of the other, which makes it about 5 times the size of our home galaxy, the Milky Way."


 * This is therefore already bigger then IC 1101 too! Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)