User talk:Tetra quark/bin

.... ........

'''................

'''................................

'''This is where I leave all the minor messages, templated garbage and things that I don't like overall

'''................................

'''................

'''........

....

December 2014
Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, PM ME URANUS, does not meet our username policy. '''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.''' A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As a note, I'm in agreement with the editors who have expressed concerns above. You've been working constructively, and I did see your discussion with  here, and I'm convinced you did not intend any particular harm or disruption.  I understand usernames like this one are common on places like reddit, but Wikipedia really just isn't the place for it because it's disruptive.  You can make an unblock request here with a new username that fits with our username policy.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, correct. Sorry, I totally forgot to ask for a name change after Yunshui asked me to. Is that how I do it? Well, sorry for the inconvenience. :)PM ME URANUS (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Done that. I guess now it's up to you to change my name. PM ME URANUS (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, you posted your request to the archives, where it's not going to be seen. I hope this was not deliberate.  Please post it at the bottom of this page.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 17:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it was not deliberate. I'm a new user and Wikipedia is rather confusing to use, you gotta admit. Anyway, I just posted it there now. I hope my name gets changed soon so I won't get blocked again PM ME URANUS (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's definitely true that navigating some of the systems here can be confusing. Thanks for your cooperation— I appreciate it. :)  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 21:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015
Your recent editing history at Earth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 05:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not just me, but ok Tetra quark (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's correct, it is not just you. A lot of people, it seems. Sorry for the templated message above, just want to get the point across. Edit warring is not the right thing to do and will lead to trouble. For now I'd leave the article as-is, and chime in with your opinion at Talk:Earth. We'll have someone uninvolved close the discussion so that there's an established consensus moving forward. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 05:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

3rr
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--John (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Robert McClenon (User talk:Robert McClenon Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. --John (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but can I ask you something? Why wasn't the other guy blocked as well? Thanks Tetra quark (don't be shy) 17:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You were both clearly warned around the same time about disruptive editing. The other editor stopped.  You did not per your 10-edit revert of the editor on Galaxy.  Furthermore, statements like If you keep being immature, I'll have to be immature back. I will just rollback (sequence revert) everything you change on their talk page  and other conduct with this editor make your intentions fairly clear. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have revoked your editing privilege on this page as you were repeatedly deleting the templates, which you are not allowed to do while blocked. I have not extended the block. I would advise you to read and absorb the various bits of advice you have been given. If you return and continue to edit-war, your next block would be for longer. Please don't go down this road. --John (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @ 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)

Blocked
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. --John (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No mistake on my part. Immediately your previous block expired you made 1, 2, 3, 4 reverts at Ceres (dwarf planet). I was very surprised and disappointed that you would do this so soon after assuring the community that you had learned from your last block. If you are going to continue to edit here you need to totally rethink your approach. --John (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No no no. The first time I could comprehend the reasons etc, but this time I'm going to complain. Look, it wasn't an edit war. I never actually broke the three revert rule. That was just a small conversation in the history page, which is prettu common on wiikipedia.


 * You see, my reverts weren't even to the same person. As you might have noticed, I reverted Kudzu twice because I didn't write a correct summary last time. My reverts to Kudzu and arianewiki1 weren't even related to the same thing


 * Can I be really honest with you? I think you're kind of stalking me a little. That's normal stuff on wikipedia. That's not really an edit war. I mean, I don't even have words to describe what I feel. I had lots of things planned to do on wikipedia today and I do find it very unfair to be blocked for two days because of a normal edit interactions. I'm sorry but I do intend to be more insistent this time Tetra quark (don't be shy) 13:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So even after two blocks you still have not read WP:3RR? That's surprising. It says, in a highlighted pink box, in part: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Well, you have two days to read it this time. I suggest you do so. --John (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Man, I don't want to be blocked for two days because of small stuff like that. I'm sure you know that the only reason I got blocked again is that you've been stalking what I do. I beg you, please unban me. The edits on Ceres were not a big deal or anything, I'm sure you know that Tetra quark (don't be shy) 13:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Today I have to make a banner template on WikiProject_Lede_Improvement_Team, continue expanding my new article which is about Universe Sandbox ², put more pages in the scope of WikiProject Cosmology etc. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 13:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for pinging you again, but please reply. I'm about to punch a baby Tetra quark (don't be shy) 13:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, against my better judgement. First, have you read WP:3RR yet? 3RR is not "small stuff"; it is, along with WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO, as close as we have to an absolute rule here. If you have read it and understood it you will see that you were in the wrong. If you see this, you can then look at composing a proper unblock request. Not that it matters but you may also wish to consider that far from "stalking" you I was alerted to your recidivism by another user. People really don't like edit-warriors here, and they won't tolerate them. Don't be one. You've got off to an unfortunate start here, but I can tell you have potential or I wouldn't waste my time writing this to you. Learn how the community works, and start working with us rather than against us. I'll leave your talk page editing privilege for now, in case you want to frame a proper unblock request once you have properly thought about this stuff. Good luck. --John (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Also, sorry for being insistent in asking for one. I wish I weren't so temperamental over certain things. It's just that I'm kind of addicted to editing. So, I'm going to write a new unblock request now. I may be a fairly new member and my first language isn't English, but the "good" things I've done definitely compensate the "bad" things (I'm definitely not working against you). I've made lots of improvements to the lead sections of articles, I created the WikiProJect Cosmology, added the banner in many talk pages, created the Cosmology Portal, discussed the content, etc. It would be a shame if I was blocked for two days. Oh, and I hadn't read the 3rr page. I always thought that it referred to three reverts in a row over the same part of the article. Well, that's it. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 15:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't know you applied that rule so... strictly. Although one of the reverts was used just to provide a better edit summary, technically there were four rvs. Well, this was all just a big misunderstanding of my part. The thing is, I've "learned my lesson" now. Now that I understand better how the 3rr works, I don't see much point in staying away for two days. Couldn't you unblock me now and use the current block as a warning or something? I've got the gist of the thing now (edit: I decided to ping John as well. If you think I'm being annoying, just block me from my talk page as well. Like I've got much to lose)Tetra quark (don't be shy) 17:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So, I know you've been making many good-faith efforts to build articles. That said, edit summaries are a bad means of communication.  Don't revert to illustrate your position to one or many editors on some editorial or content matter.  Use the talk page, particularly if your own edits get reverted.  If there is a misunderstanding about the changes to a particular article, you need to explain your reasons and ask questions on the talk page first, and wait to revert back when some agreement has arisen.  I am glad you now understand how 3RR works, but in saying that administrators have applied it strictly and trying to pass it off as "technically four reverts," you are trying to minimize the consequences of your behavior and make it seem less problematic than it actually is.  So no, I don't think it's a great idea to unblock you.  Furthermore saying things like ...please reply. I'm about to punch a baby are way out of line and I don't really care if it was meant as a joke. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I'm not saying you have applied it strictly. I mean, I'm not trying to justify myself. When I said technically four reverts, I wasn't trying to defend myself saying I was right. Perhaps I should have used better words. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 18:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's good to know, and I agree if that's how you felt, you could have been a little more clear. So, now that you understand 3RR and how it is applied, can I ask what you're going to do in the future when you feel frustrated by other editors over reverts? I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My first language isn't English, so sometimes I don't pick the right words to express myself, even though the sentence still is coherent. Well, in this specific case I wasn't frustrated. What really got on my nerves was the edits in the universe article. I've told this to to some other editors as well: I consider myself to be a pretty comprehensible and mature person, believe it or not, but I have this bad habit of lowering myself to the level of immature people (that probably makes me immature too). I have a hard time dealing with insistent people, both in real life and on the internet, and that makes me kinda angry when there is no need to. Being angry will only make things worse, as it did right now. So, regarding your question, I would do what I did in universe. After I had edit warred, I left a message in the Astronomy Wikiproject asking for somebody else to copy edit the article for me, so I wouldn't have to do it myself. The problem is that I had the idea to leave a message there too late. So basically I intend to let other people change the articles so it won't be a 1x1. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, I hope I used the right words to explain myself Tetra quark (don't be shy) 20:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

...anyone?Tetra quark (don't be shy) 16:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want more opinions, John is absolutely justified in the block. You say you were aware of the 3RR, but I'm not convinced you understand it. As the very first line of the rule states, reverts to a page don't have to be related to contribute to the 3RR. Unless you were reverting obvious vandalism or one of the other exceptions to 3RR, it doesn't really matter whether or not you think your edits were constructive - edit warring itself is destructive in the long term, and is not well-tolerated by anyone. While you think your edits may have been in the right (and maybe they were), clearly there are other editors with valid opinions who thought the article was better with their edits. Part of the reason 3RR exists is to make sure discussion takes place in these cases. Yes, you've got plenty of good edits, but that doesn't excuse edit warring; if John or I were to break the 3RR today, we'd be subject to being blocked, too. It's only a two-day block; take some time off, read and understand edit warring, and then you're welcome to continue editing. You say you're addicted; might be best to take this block as an opportunity for a mini two-day wikibreak. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 17:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that 3rr was so literal. I always thought it referred to three edits in sequence over the same part of the article. Well, in the meantime I'll edit the Portuguese wikipedia, but it is not as fun Tetra quark (don't be shy) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * 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)


 * I don't really have anything to add here other than that I would counsel you, Tetra quark, not to edit out of emotion. I've found myself getting worked up and angry over content disputes and whatnot on Wikipedia in the past, and it's ultimately destructive. You'll burn yourself out on editing really fast that way, if you're anything like me, if you don't end up getting yourself into trouble like this. It's not worth it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. The difference is that in this case I literally didn't know I was doing something against a rule. Thanks for the message Tetra quark (don't be shy) 18:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I recommend reading through and adopting WP:DGAF. This is more easily said than done, though, as it requires the proper world view and mindset, but it's a shorter read than WP:Edit warring. Both prevent this sort of thing from happening.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  19:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Template:American English from talk pages
Hi again. What was that statement based on? --John (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'll advise you to give me a warning rather than blocking me again if that's the case. You know, just making sure.


 * But basically there doesn't seem to be much need in adding that banner,considering that most articles are in American English. It just takes up space. Also, it's kinda arrogant to claim that the Moon has strong ties to the US. It implies that the US owns the Moon or something just because they planted a flag there in a controversial mission. I personally give more credits to the Soviets for getting there first with an unmanned probe. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 20:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:ENGVAR and refrain from removing tags like this in the future. Now, please restore the tags you removed, unless there is evidence that they were improperly placed. --John (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (Responding to your ping on my talk page) I am the one who reverted two of your removals of this template from Talk:Apollo Lunar Module and Talk:Moon. Reading your response does nothing for me. The template (and its sister, Template:British English) means exactly nothing more nor less than that the article is written in that English variant, and does not imply US ownership of anything. (Neither do the US flags being there; please read Lunar Flag Assembly. The US signed a UN treaty that says no one owns the Moon. It is not verifiable that the Apollo missions were "controversial" (politically because of flag planting.) JustinTime55 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And by the way, how do you expect me to know all the dozens of WP: pages? It is like reading a book before editing. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 21:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Mmm, well I expect you to know your way around before you start making mass changes to articles that other people have written. Also, I was just looking at your changes to the capitalisation of "universe" while this discussion was under way. I hadn't noticed that before. What was that about? And what was "controversial" about the Apollo programme, as a matter of interest? I am serious about strongly requesting that you undo those edits; you absolutely cannot make mass edits and tell others not to do things when you do not know the guidelines. Undoing this mistake will be a good gesture. --John (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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 Tetra quark (don't be shy) 22:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. I honestly couldn't care if the American English banners were in the right place or not. That's not of my business and all I did was revert the changes and pretend that nothing ever happened. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 23:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that is appreciated. In future, please wait at least 48 hours and have it agreed that there is a consensus before even considering making mass edits like these. I can help you further if you are having problems. In the meantime, please review WP:CONSENSUS. I am sorry there are so many "rules" to learn, but we are a mature community and did not create all these millions of articles over the years without some procedures. I can tell you want to improve the project, and that is great. Let me and others help you to see how to do it constructively; recently, I've seen several instances where your involvement has created friction and controversy, and I'd like to help reduce that. --John (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the massive list of Wikipedia guidelines and policies - you don't have to read them all beforehand. I'm sure there are pages that I haven't seen before. The key is to read these pages as you need them - most everything has some sort of relevant policy or guideline. If you're dealing with language banners for the first time, take a few minutes to find information on them beforehand to see what the norm is. The MOS is your friend. You'll be able to make better decisions and will have a new bit of editing knowledge for the future. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 00:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)

Your Reducing Image Sizes
I notice you are tending to reduce image sizes. I.e., changing them from 400 to 300 pixels square.

You might think you make the pages better, but those with visual impairments probably will find them far more difficult to see. This is important, especially with figures which contain drawing with text, to have them large enough without requiring to in zoom too much. I could not find the guidelines for this, and if they don't exist, they should. I know from experience, it annoys the hell out of them!

You also comment on 4:3 screens Aspect ratio (image), which seemingly are decreasing rapidly in numbers. Since 2008, all computer monitors are 16:9. All 4:3 monitors production ended in 2013. See Display aspect ratio, especially discussion on. This is an unjustifiable reason to reduce image size in my opinion. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think I understand. You say I shouldn't make the images smaller because of a minority of readers who have vision impairments, but you say reducing the images because of a minority who still use 4:3 screens isn't a valid reason? Tetra quark (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I suppose people with vision impairments have fewer options to upgrade than people still using 4:3 screens. You should probably read WP:IMGSIZE and WP:ACCESS before doing any more of these edits. --John (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I just reduced the image a little. Most lead images aren't that large. Please leave me alone. Jesus Christ. Tetra quark (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears that John has adopted you as a Wiki Mentee. I'm glad he's doing this, and I would take it as a compliment.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  17:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's nice of you to say, Tom. Tetra quark, you've attracted a fair bit of attention due to the nature of your edits, as several have pointed out. I blocked you for edit-warring and you came right back and edit-warred more. Your second block was commuted as you said you had learned how to do better in future. If people don't help you, you're liable to make more mistakes. I sense a great willingness to help, but you have a tendency to rush in and make sweeping changes without doing your homework on things like MoS issues and behavioural guidelines and policies. If you continue, you will get into more trouble. Having invested this much time on you, I am reluctant to see this so I will try to guide you away from any other mistakes before they become serious. I always watch the contribs of a user I have interacted with while wearing my admin hat for a while, but there is nothing to worry about. I haven't warned you or mentioned admin action, just here giving advice to help you. As regards Jesus Christ, I am an atheist and a rationalist, but I greatly admire many of Jesus's sayings and teachings. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these, and then, even better, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; these are words to live for and I think they apply very well in this community. --John (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps your intentions are good, but in my view it's even disrespectful to be on somebody's back all the time when that person is just trying to contribute to a project like this one. I may have made mistakes in the past, but please, avoid leaving messages on my talk page unless there's a serious issue you have to warn me about. My contribs so far are in accordance with my experience on this website and you should either be a mentor for all new editors or not be a mentor at all. To conclude, I'm just waiting for you to read this so I can move yet another embarrassing discussion to the bin. Tetra quark (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I'm a pretty skeptical guy as well, as you could probably tell from my userboxes. Tetra quark (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with John's statement above, Tetra. It is not disrespectful to refer you to policies and editing guidelines you are not aware of, especially when your edits conflict with them. We are trying to help you become a better editor, and it's frustrating because you view our advice as disruptive and unnecessary. I acknowledge your changes here and elsewhere have been made in good faith, but you must accept that you are learning, and that you are going to make mistakes. I've been editing for several years and still make mistakes. When someone reverts me, I take it as an opportunity to learn something first rather than treat it as harassment. I don't know everything, and while my personal judgment is decent, it's not perfect either. I urge you to view reverts through this lens, because I promise it will save you much trouble. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't have a problem with advices and orientations if it is from diverse people here and there, but it is annoying when the same editor keeps an eye on everything you do. That edit was supposed to be very simple - I could have even tagged it as a minor edit - and now look at what this has turned into. You're nitpicking stuff.


 * PS: Examples of the nitpickery on my edit: 1) most articles have fairly small images (which I call "adequate size") and you see no one enlarging everything. 2) If a few users have vision impairments, that's their problem and I couldn't care less. If the images can't be made smaller, then why not make the text larger as well? People with vision impairments will have difficulties in reading, which is the main thing. Oh and while you're at it, just remove all the text already and put figures, illustrations and sign language pics because there are people with dislexia. I hate to seem hostile but apparently there is no other way to get my point across Tetra quark (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Tetra quark "If a few users have vision impairments, that's their problem and I couldn't care less." Saying this is an unacceptable statement, not by only me, but anyone with vision impairments. My father has vision issues, and I care very much that he has equity in access in material. Now if you read what I said, is that you should consider this, because it might be a problem you might not of thought about. I also notice you are trying to add clearer or correctly colour balanced images, and that is a really great thing. I.e. The new picture of the Earth was infinitely better. As to "People with vision impairments will have difficulties in reading, which is the main thing.", Well that is exactly the point. Having problems with the text, they look at the images even more. I.e. A pictures worth a thousand words. As for "I hate to seem hostile but apparently there is no other way to get my point across." Why even want to be hostility? We are honestly discussing editing issues and decisions of style. You seem to have some many good ideas, its just some of them are questionable. Aren't we allowed to discuss them? I think you just expect us just to "get out of the way", because this is how it appears to me? Why? Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for the compliments on the Earth image I uploaded. I'm glad you liked it. Regarding what I said about people with vision impairments, I didn't mean that like, in real life. I said that in relation to Wikipedia. Sure, vision impairments are a problem and sometimes a major annoyance in a person's life, but that's something that they have to deal with. I don't think that enlarging the images because of a minority is worth it Tetra quark (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

3RR
Tetra quark, it takes two to tango and you are not helping yourself by furthering the edit war here. I'm warning you, as I've just warned Arianewiki1, that continued edit-warring over this page will result in blocks. Yunshui 雲 水 13:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's fine, as long as you don't let him edit this page again. I hope you can help. Cheers Tetra quark (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Arianewiki1 is responsible for her (I'm assuming "her"; Ariane is a woman's name where I come from) own edits, just as you are responsible for yours. If she does revert the page again, please avoid giving into the temptation to continue edit-warring. Yunshui 雲 水 13:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (You might also, of course, give some thought to removing the text yourself; I wouldn't imagine it's your proudest work on Wikipedia and you are entitled to redact your own comments on this page. Might be the olive branch that's needed to cool this whole situation off. You may want to consider it.) Yunshui 雲 水 13:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should work with me here. I'm not obliged to allow people to deliberately make changes to my messages on my own talk page. As I said, I hope you can help me. By the way, I advise you from experience to not waste much time and energy on such issues from people who, as you said, just want to to put log in the fire. I'd much rather have you take some action already instead of caring about such trivial, unnecessary conflicts. I'll take my own advice and I'm not going to say anything else from now on Tetra quark (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please continue with the 3RR if you think that is the correct course of action. I'm happy to have this up for open discussion. Facing 3RR for such incivility by a User who thinks it is "I'm not obliged to allow people to deliberately make changes to my messages on my own talk page" will not win any friends.
 * I've followed the right procedures, and have acted accordingly. Reverting it is perpetuating the incivility. Solution can be easily solved. Just remove the incivility, and we can all get on with it. Cheers.Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prudent action. In future, I hope you can block him again in case he decides to edit my talk page again; I have the right to be left alone. Now if you don't mind, I'll remove the strikes one last time and we're done with this whole unnecessary issue. Tetra quark (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ....fine? Tetra quark (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, no; reverting again would constitute your own continuation of this pointless edit war. Leave things as they are, and get on with something else. Yunshui 雲 水 14:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's correct. I have the right to leave my messages as I want them to be. I did mean "fuck" and "shit" at that moment and context, and if any action should be taken, it would be taken at that exact moment (John didn't do anything, for example), not weeks later. It's not ok for other users to change that, especially in my own talk page. Also, it'll be the last time I do it. Tetra quark (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just making sure because I don't want to be blocked as well, so I hope you comprehend my point. Are you cool? Tetra quark (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm so cool I'm practically The Fonz, but continuing an edit war when the other user has been blocked is still continuing an edit war. I'm sorry, but in the interests of fairness I'll be obliged to issue a matching 24 hour block to you if you carry on, as I warned you above. I'm not taking sides with either of you here - my interest is in preventing disruption to Wikipedia, and that's what this has become. What possible good is achieved by having those words unstruck? How does it improve Wikipedia's coverage of cosmology? How does it improve the relationship between editors? What - beyond enforcing your sheer hard-nosed determination to have the last word - would another revert achieve? Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 14:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * you say a revert is meaningless, but if so, what would be the problem of one more? Who cares? It's just a line in the history page. You may be thinking I'm being insistent, and I understand that, but the issue is more complicated than simple strikes.... whatever. Once again, I morally have the right to leave my talk page and my own messages as I want them to be. So... are you ok with that? Ariane is blocked anyway and I'm sure he won't revert again in future when his block is finished. Thanks Tetra quark (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if the page is supposed to be this way, what's the point in blocking ariane anyway? The point of blocking him is that he won't keep making his undesired changes. I intend to leave my messages as they were in the beginning, so is it ok? Come on, it's pretty simple Tetra quark (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not happy about it, but on reflection, WP:3RRNO does grant an exemption for pages within your own userspace. I guess, therefore, that you're within your rights to revert again. I don't think it's a good idea to do so, and I don't recommend it, but the way the policy's worded you do have that right. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 14:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what's reasonable afterall, right? So ok, I've reverted this one last time, now LET'S FORGET ALL THIS DISCUSSION. Let's move on with our lives. 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. I leave him alone and I wish he would do that too. So... yea, cheers. Tetra quark (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tetra, you should remove the derogatory comments you've made about other editors. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)