User talk:Attic Salt

Welcome!

Hello, Attic Salt! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dr. K. 00:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Okay, thank you for the welcome. Just trying to tidy things. Attic Salt (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome Attic Salt. Keep up the good work. Best regards. Dr. K. 00:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your current behaviour and support to modify the Introduction with article on Plasma (physics) regarding and that of 141.131.2.3 is suspicious. Be aware that Sockpupperty is against acceptable behaviour among editors.

Q: Attic Salt are you also 141.131.2.3? (If so please disclose this in the Talk:Plasma (physics) 'Request for comment') 23:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

A: Not me. Did that IP do something wrong? Attic Salt (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Attic Salt: Just to inform you, an investigation has been started by me here [1]. Naturally, you have the right to defend yourself against these claims, which you can do there as required. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Saying "Did that IP do something wrong?" is a very odd question in itself. No one has said that at all, including me. Frankly when seeing the veil of canniness or innoccence among editors often does not auger well, especially when seeing newbees begin using or enacting advanced features like WP:Requests for comment to advance a POV. Whist I rely on WP:GF, it is sometimes amazing what is revealed in just a few words. Just saying... Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I know that I haven't done anything wrong. Attic Salt (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for causing trouble, then dumping the case here. I am disappointed with your absolute contempt here, andplaying games. I pity you, really. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inexplicable behaviour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please explain what this means: "Momentarily unretired so that I might contact a CU."

Also I have again removed the Rfc towards the Talk:Plasma (physics), as by announcing that you were retiring announced you were no longer interested in reaching consensus here. I have tried to compromise and solve this article's text issues, but you just display complete unwillingness to even state what the actual problem is - other than that you disagree with it. It is clear you wish to ignore WP:GF, espcially in light of an explaination of difficulties with plasma as a definiton. Why even bother fixing it when your not willing to engage in the process?

Also here is this 'final' unexplained edit [2], which I have had to revert. Here I've stating "Says whom? Where is the justification here?" The edit is plainly could be deliberate vandalism, made worst by retiring and leaving the mess for someone else to fix and repair. It is poor form IMO. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1:, Do you still call this edit [3] "deliberate vandalism"? I wonder how you could come to such a strident evaluation. Attic Salt (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1:, any response on this? Attic Salt (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but I have been fixing two WP:ANIs which has drawn my attention away. I'll respond soon. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1:, Do you still call this edit [4] "deliberate vandalism"? Attic Salt (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1:, Apologies? Do you consider this edit [5] to be "deliberate vandalism"? Attic Salt (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Attic Salt:Please stop posting this. I'll deal with this in due course. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The allegation of "deliberate vandalism" made by Arianewiki1 is baseless. I will proceed without his/her reconciliation. Attic Salt (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

When you accused me of being a sock puppet (though I am not), I felt deflated of enthusiasm for a bit, and so I "retired". But when I was cleared of the accusation, I changed my mind and came out of retirement. I'd appreciate it if your responses on Talk:Plasma (physics) were more friendly and constructive. Since you are so adamently against revising the lede of Plasma (physics), I think getting more editors to look at it is a good thing. Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have formally closed the rfc Talk:Plasma (physics)#Request for comment, as the question easily failed to meet the WP:RFC guidelines, where the posed question was actually invalid. (See explanation there. Notably, the lede already does contain two definitions.) Failure also was not discussing or making a reasonable attempt to work out the dispute is another. I have notified this on the 'Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure (section)' or WP:ANRFC located here.[6] In future, you would be better to consult before making such actions again. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Attic salt, at this point it is pretty clear that you are being trolled. You can remove anything this user posts on your talk page per WP:OWNTALK. Not all editors here are jerks, but occasionally (as is the case elsewhere on the internet) you'll come across someone who just doesn't want to be nice to newbies. VQuakr (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have decided that I am going to concentrate on editing articles. I maight not have posted the request for comment quite correctly, but that article does need attention from multiple editors. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Response to Attic Salt. You wrote: "When you accused me of being a sock puppet (though I am not), I felt deflated of enthusiasm for a bit, and so I "retired"." Sorry. I didn't desire to make you feel that way. However, my suspicions were justified, and my reaction appropriate in saying "Sockpupperty?" because of the request that User:141.131.2.3 should register and your response to the Plasma (physics) (you being a new registered user) were just a day apart and you were contesting the same issue. Also I chose my words very carefully, and actually never accused of sockpupperty. I only suspected it. (If you were User:141.131.2.3, this would only mean you were the same editor but had made a second registration, possibly to promote/reinforce your POV - an unacceptable practice.) When the IP was checked, it was registered to multiple people, so that the cross checking is slight ambiguous.

As for "Since you are so adamently against revising the lede of Plasma (physics), I think getting more editors to look at it is a good thing." I think that is a bit unfair. There has been no given reason to change it, even though I've now presented my arguments and logic several times. (You've said almost nothing.) Worst I even compromised, and seeing it, you again promptly changed it to your way of thinking.[7] This questioned statement is openly unqualified and uncited, whose order avoids the Introduction premise of going from simple ideas to more complex ones. Worst, plasma's principal generation mostly occurs by heat, whoses degree of ionisation depends on particle density, and how it reacts in turn with the generated fields. (Distinction of hot and cold plasmas, oe even Nonthermal plasma) Clearly simplifying this is difficult. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I am getting pretty tired of this. Attic Salt (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Towards Happier Times...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You said "I am getting pretty tired of this."

Frankly, so am I, because I too want to edit other things.

Some positives. If possible, please ensure statements are factual and neutral, as not doing so just sets temperatures rising. I.e. I never said nor "accused", I've actually only "questioned."

Clearly, I was totally wrong in my initial assumptions. I sincerely extend my apologies regarding the comment on socking. I might be sometimes over zealous, but believe me, it was never personal. Yes, and I was very aware of the danger of being concerned with socks. I.e. WP:NOTCLUELESS With some of these plasma related page, over the years of editing, I have run into several socks, some of whom have had agendas and damaged articles against policy. A lot of these have been with popular pages like Plasma cosmology or Constellation I.e. [8] or [9]/[10] After a while you get suspicious and jaded, and then you just tire of the attacks and the wasted time fixing it.

I have looked at some of your edits, but the vast majority are positive and useful contributions. Keep it up!

If you need advice on unrelated matters or support when editing, or have a question or two, feel free to ping me or post it onto my talkpage. Any doubts, and many editors will often chip in without hesitation. Cheers.

Note: I'll now point you towards a example of my discussion on debating continuous issues. I.e. Talk:Plasma Cosmology#Edits of 25th April 2017 It shows I'm neither 'being a troll' nor a jerk, but perhaps just a bit too enthusiastic. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Your approach does not actually encourage the discussion you claim to seek. Please think about it. Attic Salt (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to think about. Discussion isn't my aim. Just being honest. Sorry to dissapoint you. 22:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, here you suggest that you seek "engagement": [11]. I just don't think your approach encourages other editors to actually engage you. Attic Salt (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_closure_of_RfC_by_involved_editor_.2B_alteration_of_others.27_talk_page_comments

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please look at Government

That article desperately needs more editors. And apart from commenting on the new RfC, I'd recommend not editing at Plasma (physics) for at least the next week to let things cool down. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your addition to Vacuum tube has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. . Please see WP:COPYLINK. Glrx (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but just for clarity, I did not add "sentences or images". I added a link to a book that I found on the internet. Still, I thank you for alerting me to the fact that some links should be discouraged for copyright reasons. Attic Salt (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just restored your link. Apparently the publisher did not renew the copyright in 1969 so the book is now public domain. Hard to believe that McGraw-Hill would do such a rookie mistake (that's what made me think it was a copylink vio), but I just finished searching the copyright renewals for 1968, 1969, and 1970, and did not find the renewal. Also looks like archive.org has an online copy of the book. Mea culpa. Glrx (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. The book looks like a good source. Thanks for getting back to me. Attic Salt (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

If you had not replied to the message, I would have just deleted it as my mistake. Glrx (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

potential games

Please do not take down the reference to Anderson, Goeree, Holt from 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:9184:6E6F:3252:F8EA (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Very well. Please stop adding citations to what appear to be your own papers. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

quantal response equilibrium

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please do not vandalize the article by taking down the explanation of the lambda parameter. You clearly do not understand the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:9184:6E6F:3252:F8EA (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You continue to vandalize this article by removing required citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.19.39 (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You removed a quote from a paper saying it was "not a critique of QRE...", which is listed under "Critiques". Please read and understand papers before altering posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.22.207 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop citing your own papers. Attic Salt (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, user Attic Salt posted and/or reinstated a reference to a paper under "Critiques", and the content of the paper stated in the conclusion "This should not be mistaken for a critique of the QRE notion itself." This should be considered when assessing the quality of their edits and claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.22.207 (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

thermoeconomics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You removed content that explains the links connecting econophysics and thermoeconomics, but did not remove the links themselves. Please refrain from impulsive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:9184:6E6F:3252:F8EA (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The definition of ion

I appreciate your input in rolling back the recent changes. However, could you please elaborate a bit as to why the edit was tedious? It seems to me that the newer option removed contradictions, and was in fact shorter than the original in its introductory sentance. Perhaps we could think of an option that fits everyone? I am not too keen on keeping 'An ion is an atom or molecule that...' since it is factually misleading. A similar example would be 'A cation is an anion that has lost the necessary amount of electrons' (this is pushing it a bit far though). The point is that the current wording implies ions as being a subset of atoms and molecules (false) whereas they are all subsets of the concept 'molecular entity'.

What are your thoughts? Thanks. RasmusBE (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Single purpose account and reference spam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please explain why you keep removing valid references to reputable journals. If you continue doing this, I will have no choice but to report you to the Wikipedia administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ed 850, You appear to have a single purpose account, doing only one thing: adding citations to articles by Ezzat Bakhoum. Please note, adding reference spam is not what Wikipedia is about. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sir: I only added 7 references, in pages that desperately needed references. If you look at those references, you will see that they are very relevant to the topic. This is not the same as "spam". Please do not blindly delete references before checking them first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please consider making contributions to Wikipedia that are not self-serving. Attic Salt (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid that, again, you are making statements and "conclusions" without checking the facts. Did you look carefully at any of the references that you deleted? If any of those references does not add value to the encyclopedia, then I perfectly agree that it should be deleted. - Ed 850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you look carefully at any of the references that you keep deleting? Obviously you didn't. Your behavior is not professional. I am waiting to receive JUST ONE COMMENT from you explaining why a reference is bad or irrelevant. Think about that before rushing to delete. - Ed 850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:Refspam, barely cited (just 2or 3 citations). Attic Salt (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this your reason for deleting the reference (the paper received only 3 citations)? Well, it received only 3 citations because the topic itself (amateur nuclear fusion) is not a very popular topic. This doesn't mean that the paper is bad or irrelevant. Once again, I ask that you LOOK (that is, READ) the reference before rushing to delete. This paper, by the way, is the first practical implementation of the device that Elmore, Tuck, and Watson never built! It definitely belongs on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Mr. “Salt” and Mr. “Fountains”: I tell you what, go ahead and delete all my contributions. I am not going to waste any more time in such an amateurish place (that is obviously controlled by biased individuals like you). There are more serious venues out there where scientific work is accepted and respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed 850 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Francisco Franco

Attic Salt, Spain had no "Fascist Party" per se but instead the "Falange Española," more Catholic and conservative than anything else. The word "fascist" is quite charged, the party merged into the Movement was the "Falange Española," not the "fascist party." I think the page should revert back to "Falange Española" as the party merged by Franco into the "Movimiento." And, simply linking for page view "Falange Española" will then allow the reader to learn the nature of this party rather than simply using the word "fascists." Please comment before I make this revision. 199.227.97.254 (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What the? Only the most revisionist historian doesn't consider Franco's government fascist. 50.111.49.250 (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Digital physics

My edit to Digital physics was undone by you. You gave no reason, though; I have therefore reverted. If you have a valid reason, please give it. 86.187.162.170 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I thought I would send over a kitten of encouragement. Thanks for your contributions!

VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Astrophysical plasma edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your recent editing history at Astrophysical plasma shows that you are possibly engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No violation, waste of time. Attic Salt (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No violation. Waste of time. Attic Salt (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inexplicable behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Attic,

Where is no "Reference Spam" in Entropy (information theory) page, but the examples of effective applying of Shannon entropy to physiological system. What's the problem? How we can solve this strange situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.17.224 (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:REFSPAM. Attic Salt (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Improper use is not related to description of effective applying of Shannon entropy to physiological system on the page about Shannon entropy! So, how can we solve this strange situation?

You wait for other people to add citations to your work after they become significant. Attic Salt (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Strange. I don't promote the works, just applying of Shannon entropy to physiological system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.17.224 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Horne Hybrid Reactor

How is the first continuously operating, superconducting IEC fusion device not relevant to the related articles?

I will do some research and work on a proper article to link to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron3000001 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of combustion scientists category

Hi, Salt, please comment on this, if you wish, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 29#Category:Combustion scientists. Thanks, Eleuther (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Billy Graham, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Take it to the talk page. It's not in the lede. Reference WP:OPENPARA and MOS:HONOUR when you start that discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz: Well, that is quite the warning. I removed redundant information from the article on Billy Graham. The info (KBE) is already given in the info box on the right-hand-side, immediately below his name at the top of the box. Why does this info need to appear twice? Why escalate this to an accusation of "vandalism"? Attic Salt (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely the right warning too. In your opinion, the information is redundant. I provided you with the manual of style that shows that it's not redundant. If you don't like that, argue at the MoS, but don't edit war on a specific article. It's not a conversation I'm going to have with you here either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz: I'm not going to argue about this. But I do recommend that you calm down. Attic Salt (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks

		Gothic miniature barnstar of carved wood
		Thanks for all the help on the Gothic boxwood miniature‎‎ page; much appreciated and keep on going. Ceoil (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it is a fascinating article. I will probably tinker away on it for a few days. Attic Salt (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I might take this to PR - do you think its ready or still has gaps. Ceoil (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

come on the list is not long at all

the list is not long and very precisely summarizes what lagrange did — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.211.211.170 (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Whilst editors can edit any page, I request you avoid modifying my edits unless you see they are grossly wrong. There are several edits made by you that have completely changed the written context, and during my recent block, you've seemingly gone out of your way to dramatically modify articles in which I've made multiple edits. e.g. Alpha Centauri, Constellation, etc. edit like [12] and all of these[13] are riddled with so many errors and wrongly made statements. Even this contextual [14] "However, some of the early constellations were never universally adopted, whose popular usage was based on the culture or individual nations." to this "Some of the early constellations were never universally adopted. Stars were often grouped into constellations differently by different observers,..." Another is inexplicably change is this [15] (Do you realise that the change in the boundaries before was just encircled around some constellation and the IAU through Delporte instead placed the boundaries by defined by right ascension and declination" That is what the 1930 cite says!!!!)

Also in future avoid using absolutes in statements, especially when there are alternative or general accepted explanations. e.g. In changing "The word "constellation" seems to come from the Late Latin term..." to this "The word "constellation" comes from the Late Latin term..." completely changes the whole context. Why repeatably do this? Your own excuse is "All the sources I've checked indicate that this is true (though the translation "set of stars" is a summary of multiple definitions. So remove "seems to".)"[16]

Yet you had changed text to suit saying this "The 48 traditional western constellations are Greek. " Even when the main text says under 'Constellations in the Ancient Near East': "The Greeks adopted the Babylonian system in the 4th century BC. A total of twenty Ptolemaic constellations are directly continued from the Ancient Near East. Another ten have the same stars but different names." (that you had also changed![17]) I.e. The statement is now false!

You also changed this [18]"The Babylonians were the first to recognize that astronomical phenomena are periodic and apply mathematics to their predictions" to "The Babylonians were the first to recognize that the motion of the planets could be described in terms of periodic mathematical functions." Why? Planets were not the only things that were periodic, but the rotation of the sky was periodic and predictable too. e.g. The used maths to predict the rising and setting of stars and constellations. The motive was calculations for astrological purposes - like the zodiac. The Ancients Greeks adopted this into their system.

Worse are dozens of edits like [19] or this[20]. Even silly clangers like this[21] show little knowledge or any wisdom.

So in future, if you must, please avoid changing edits for the sake of it, and if you have doubts on meaning, then use the talkpages. If you still disagree, get adequate consensus. Really, the time needed to fix all this mess that has been left behind is a waste of your and other editors efforts. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Readers might peruse the rest of my talk page (above) for several other contributions provided by Arianewiki1. Attic Salt (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent Provocations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Ritchie333: Attic Salt. This current argument on the Constellation article being made by you is plainly deliberately obstructive - and you've knowingly recently targeted this particular article because you know I have had a long editing experience trying to improve it. Example of common clearly usage already is under Western world. This single given reason "Western" is capitialised to be implicit, else it reads as western - being a cardinal point/direction"[22]. As for saying "I'm just trying to tow the Wikipedia convention." is only just being really difficult to prove a point when there is a clear contradiction and a reasonable counterargument. (I've now placed a response on the MOS talk page to formally resolve this.[23])

Yet knowing the indefinite WP:1RR restrictions on me after returning from a current block, I feel this is blatantly taking advantage of this situation. e.g. Dismissively saying "Thanks for you interest on this issue." looks like deliberate and further provocation. Worse you are making zero no effort to get needed consensus at all, and simply revert anything you disagree with, knowing full-well I can do little about it.

Further evidence of this kind of abuse appears here[24], with the snide little remark "Doesn't sound right to me." e.g. ad hominem. Yet you know that on this subject I have significant expertise.

I have openly pinged admin Ritchie333 here to show the many targeted edits and continuous reverts made in the Constellation, which seem only made to trip me up so I will be just blocked again.

If the path keep going this way, WP:DR will be the only option. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If your appeal to MOS regarding comes out in favor of “Western”, then I will accept that. I did consult the MOS before I made my edits, and I have just been following what I thought was the accepted style. Attic Salt (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This is almost a complete admission of both avoiding WP:GF and/or avoiding consensus. Saying "I thought was the accepted style.", when you have been independently explained why[25], been told how it did change the context, and the responses above - all in light of all the direct evidence - shows my supposition of deliberate motive. After this particular recent edit[26], and in light of me telling you this[27], shows my complaint is valid. Desist this current behaviour. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Good morning. Regarding whether or not "western" should be capitalised, my saying "thank you for your interest in this matter" was, I admit, pointy. I apologise for that. I have, at times, struggled to contain my responses to you, given what you say and do yourself (see this talk page, just for example). Regarding my saying "doesn't sound right to me" in an edit message, that was poor word choice, but it was not intended to provoke you, and it certainly wasn't what you describe as "ad hominem". I was only trying to understand something, but the information I had at the time didn't make sense to me. More generally, I am editing articles on astronomy, natural sciences, biographies, and other subjects because I find them interesting. I plan to continue. I hope you and I can get used to each other. As for not responding to every one of your points in my previous response, please recognise that I was using my cell phone, laying in bed, trying to sleep. My previous response was incomplete. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No one expects the Grammar Nazis!

toe, not tow. Cheers. -- Elphion (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC) er talk:Legobot|talk]]) 04:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

truncated data

There is some discussion at Outlier#Exclusion. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

New York

Please discuss your seemingly disruptive edits to the New York City article. If you revert again, I will report you for edit warring. IWI (chat) 17:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

How are any of those edits disruptive? Attic Salt (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing the title of a section for example, in a way that is against standard is disruptive. Reverting a revert of Castncoot is edit warring, discuss with him before adding that back. IWI (chat) 17:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? The section is about both weather and climate. Attic Salt (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So it does. IWI (chat) 17:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So it does? Attic Salt (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I added it back. Many of those edits were subtle, Castncoot said you were being investigated also. IWI (chat) 17:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m not being investigated. Castncoot accused me of being a sock, but that was spurious. Attic Salt (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Changing the context of sentences like you have is (possibly) akin to POV pushing, and is not directly constructive generally anyway. IWI (chat) 17:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Now you are making things up. I explained every singkevedi. Attic Salt (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Did he make a SPI report though? IWI (chat) 17:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

SPI was negative. A waste of time. Attic Salt (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)work? Attic Salt (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that’s fine then. IWI (chat) 18:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, not really fine. After all, you reverted my edits without understanding the content and without understanding that Castncoot’s accusation was found to be spurious. Perhaps I should ask him to stop making such accusations so that people like you won’t revert hard work? Attic Salt (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not revert the edits due to those accusations, I reverted them due to the way you tend to change the context of sentences, which is borderline subtle POV pushing IMO. They’re also not directly constructive anyway; they don’t add anything to the article. IWI (chat) 21:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

ImprovedWikiImprovment: It’s copyeditting. I was removing odd over the top issues, such as excessive use of "world's" and "global" (sometimes used more than once in a sentence!). Each edit was explained in the edit summaries. Also fixing misguided emphasis on various geological issues, as well as fixing errors in discussion of wind. Have you actually reviewed these things, or is are your concerns only vague? Attic Salt (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Gothic boxwood miniature scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Gothic boxwood miniature article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 21 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 21, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious

"Fewer words, same meaning."

Thank you for large-scale copy-editing of complex articles such as Physics, Photon, Alpha Centauri and Gothic boxwood miniature, with exquisite nuanced edit summaries such as "'perhaps' not needed for a 'speculation'", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Attic Salt (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice to meet you! Feel free to copy-edit "my" articles anytime if you have spare time. One is up for peer review, and others for GA, - look for "quality" on my user page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2189 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for your share to Rigel! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Following Other Editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Last and final warning. Please stop following my pages that I am editing, because it is clear you are deliberately targeting me. The article on the star Deneb just targets my series of edits, complaining about the grammar, acting like a grammar nazi, but yet again ignoring or changing the whole context. Here[28] there are six incorrect revision - not counting or understands the word 'culminates.' Deneb culminates on 23rd October at 6pm and 07th September at 6pm.[29], for example. The rules of harassment are applicable here, especially when it looks like [[WP:Hounding|hounding] Either tag problems, comment on a talkpage or leave a note in the article page: but don't just revert edits if you don't understand the context. No one is expected to educate those who are unable to be competent on the subject matter - as it wastes your time and mine. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This is interesting. You accuse me of following you and targeting you. In support of this accusation, you cite edits on the Deneb article. But please note: Your first edit on Deneb article was on 30 March 2019. My first edit on Deneb was 27 March 2019, three days before your first edit. Then you say I've made 6 incorrect edits to the content on culmination. In support of this accusation, you give a summary difference of 6 edits [30]. But let's please recognise, the difference you give only encompasses 1 edit that I've made: [31]. That's right, just one edit. The other 5 edits were made by you (not me): [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Ironically, you then go on to suggest that I'm incompetent. This does not make any sense to me. Attic Salt (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another clanger.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The edit on the star Deneb here[37] is another example of acting like a grammar nazi, but yet again ignoring or changing the whole context. Saying ""Dredge" for convection is a bit of an odd metaphor" shows complete lack of knowledge on the subject matter. (Please read Competence is required ) Dredging is a technical scientific term used in stellar evolution, which is explained in the sections on the Red-giant branch phase and Asymptotic giant branch phase. Again: Either tag problems, comment on a talkpage or leave a note in the article page. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 2019

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Game theory: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. If you help document editor misbehavior via warnings, we can better make a case to admins to block the editor involved and end the vandalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I will consider this, yes. I'm not very good at the template thing. Indeed, it is actually very hard for me to find the templates I might occasionally need. To me, at least, this part of Wikipedia is not very well organised. Attic Salt (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Undermining Editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Ritchie333: I getting pretty sick of your 'barge through everything' you don't agree with and the problematic attitude to defend it. e.g. Any thought of some compromise edit or simple mistake finds a revert of everything - regardless of the context or your understanding. Try and satisfy the disagreement, and you just revert it again. Even when the facts are reasonably presented, you make it impossible to solve. (See 'Third Introduction Paragraph' here[38]) Reading the whole section finds just the same wrong unchanged text here.[39])

Evidence of this behaviour include;

• This modification[40] and saying "Arianewiki1, it is probably a good idea not to revise other's comments" is petty and trivial. Really, when I modified it I said "I've fixed your reference(s) above for clarity." What harm did it do? If anything it strengthens your own argument.

• As for demanding edit summaries, I no longer write them since 12 June 2018 (Administration advise actually.). As H:FIES makes clear, it is not a requirement to provide edit summaries. That section notes that it can increase the risk of edits being reverted if their purpose is unclear, but does not authorise this. As H:ES says "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.." Further complaints about missing edit summaries by you will be perceived as deliberate harassment and avoiding good faith. There is no justification to revert any edit just because it does not have an edit summary.[41]

• Again don't just revert edits if you don't understand the context. Example edits like:

1. This[42]
2. This[43]
3. This recent wrong claim: "Put back in "cooled" that was taken out by Arianewiki1 (without explanation). Note that "cooled" is consistent with progression across the HR diagram and consistent with cited source."[44] which now requires this[45].
4. Another is this[46] where you cannot seemingly comprehend by saying "These stars" (meaning Rigel Ba and Bb) "forming" a physical triple star orbiting its bright supergiant primary. Very confusing, as it sounds like you are saying that two stars (Ba and Bb) are a triple." (where Rigel B and Rigel B are your insert!) It has been repeatably told to you that the triple is Rigel Ba, Rigel Bb & Rigel C - plainly counting three different stars. So why keep doing this? The only response to break this and also avoid edit warring is this[47].

Yet now you try and claim: "Please consider proofreading what you write and try to write more clearly. And you can stop trying to discourage me from editing."[48]. I've never done anything like this, and it looks more like personal attack. I'm only trying to get consensus. Yet you can't even understand the simplistic difference that two stars make a double star and three stars form a triple star system!

Competence is also a requirement for editing here. So instead of just reverting everything you don't understand, ask questions, and you might just learn something new in the process. Saying "I don't have a strong opinion on the subject." only confirms this view. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I do think you should use edit summaries. Attic Salt (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New ANI/I

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Attic Salt (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Just an important clarification (in case you might have thought this was harassing post and triggered your actions below), it is mandatory to inform an editor of an ANI via notification on their talkpage, as stated here.[49]. There is no requirement to respond these. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are banned from my website. Tigraan has already noted (see below) the exception you indicate. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

No. First, this is not your website. Secondly, if you bothered reading the message above, the exception to the rule about staying off talk pages is mandatory warnings like the ANI message. If a person takes you to ANI, they have to post a message on the talk page of that person. It's not harassment. So, please stop editing Wikipedia. If you continue to edit here, you need to read what editors tell you as well as the many links to Wikipedia guidance. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You are right. This is not my website. I should have said "talk page". Please note, however, that Arianewiki1's comment comes after Tigraan (see below) has already made the same comment. Attic Salt (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The ANI turned out to be a waste of time. Attic Salt (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You can ban people from your talk page

In case you did not know: WP:NOBAN's traditional interpretation is that if you ask someone not to post to your user talk page, they should comply, except for mandatory notices (such as ANI threads etc.). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and I've considered it. I'm curious as to how deep the hole will be dug. Attic Salt (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Arianewiki1 banned from this talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Arianewiki1, I hereby ban you from my talk page. Attic Salt (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: OK, but there are much nicer ways of doing this. You can simply delete any posts made from me from your talkpage, as per WP:USERTALKBLOG. WP:UP#CMT says "If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." If your worried about the length of the responses on your talkpage, then simply archive any or all of your earlier posts. Regardless of what you do or don't do, every submission and response is placed in the revision history anyway.

Whilst I don't think you can technically 'ban' someone from a user page (bad faith), only because it is cutting the means of communicating edits made between editors for the project, yet I'll respect your wishes. In return, I expect you to avoid all of my edits in the future, and remove me from your watchlist (if applicable), so I don't have to bother about responding here at all. (I have also just linked this edit to my talkpage.) Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree to making a bargain just so that you will stop posting needlessly aggressive messages to my talk page. Attic Salt (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rigel POV Templates

There are two templates on Rigel#Nomemclature were added as there are two issues of POV problems within the Rigel article. The reason is to final resolve the POV issues, and we should await investigation by others not associated with these edits in question. It appears listed here[50] and template usage/removal discussion under [2]. Discussion should be made on the Rigel talkpage. Hope this helps. 08:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

ANI Notice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Accidental duplication. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Attic Salt, can you respond at ANI? It's important to hear from you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The ANI turned out to be a waste of time. Attic Salt (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Velocity edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Velocity. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 03:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your accusation of unconstructive editing, consider what you write. It isn't very good. Here's your insistence about a particular sentence at Velocity: [51]. We both know that a vector has both magnitude and direction. And, it seems, for this reason, you want to insert "or vector" into the sentence so that it reads:

Speed denotes only how fast an object is moving, whereas velocity describes both how fast and in which direction or vector the object is moving."

The problem, because of the way the sentence is constructed, the reader will only likely see that "or vector" is paired with "direction", not with "how fast" because it is interrupted by "and in which". The sentence needs to be reconstructed if you want to work in "or vector". Maybe you could do that. But you haven't. The sentence is now just confusing.

Please don't bother responding here. You are banned from my talk page because of the sordid history you have of harassment. Attic Salt (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I actually don't care what you think nor how you try to justify anything. I'm totally had it with the bullying and you making pointy edits. Deliberately targeting another editor's contributions is unacceptable behaviour, and it is clear you are doing so, because there are no edits made by you under Velocity (and a one off edit on Ptolemy) Evidence suggest you have me on your watchlist, and making random reverts just to make trouble. This is the definition of harassment.

All the excuses above are utter nonsense, but what is worst, you know it. In future, keep the hell away from my edits and stop following my contributions.

As for this ridiculous 'ban'. it plainly shows how you are using some pathetic excuse just to avoid scrutiny. Saying "Please don't bother responding here." confirms this kind of cowardice. You claim: "You are banned from my talk page because of the sordid history you have of harassment", but you have the utter gaul to think it is OK to inflict the same behaviour onto others. That kind of hypocrisy stinks.

You've been told: "If you continue to edit here, you need to read what editors tell you as well as the many links to Wikipedia guidance." Keep making unconstructive edits reverts or those that look like vandalism, as you did on Velocity, and you'll keep getting these policy warnings. Leave my edits alone, and I won't need to bother you. Got it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Supernova edit clash

Sorry about that. I think I just unintentionally stamped all over one of your edits. Or possibly intentionally. I think the end result is OK, though. Take a look and see what you think. I'm slightly unhappy about the periodic table we have since it is a little out of date (see Johnson, which gives some supernova yields beyond Rb as well as Siegel which theorises that supernova r-process is dominant) but I can't find a newer public source version. Lithopsian (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Lithopsian, I'm okay with what we have. We'll see how long it lasts. I remain a bit concerned about terminology, however. I've been assuming that supernova nucleosynthesis refers specifically to nucleosynthesis occurring during the supernova phase of stellar evolution. While stellar nucleosynthesis refers to nucleosynthesis in stars, even those that might eventually go supernova, but before the supernova phase. The article seems to wrap up "supernova nucleosynthesis" into any nucleosynthesis occurring in a star before and during the supernova phase. Admittedly, possibly a technical issue. Attic Salt (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't really looked at supernova nucleosynthesis much. I know an "involved" editor did a lot of work a year or two back, then much of it was removed as being too technical and focused on particular aspects. A quick look suggests that the lead is fuzzy on the definition, and parts of the body are poorly-referenced. I see sections with no references at all, always a sign that someone has gone off on a stream of consciousness which may or may not be accurate. It is also (almost) entirely focused on core collapse supernovae. Nucleosynthesis also occurs inside type Ia supernovae, there are fundamental differences, and they deserve more visibility in the article. Although there is inevitable dependence on the composition of a star before the supernova occurs, I think the definition should make more clear that we are primarily talking about the synthesis of elements during the supernova event itself, so roughly from the onset of explosive fusion in a core collapse or the (re-)ignition of fusion in a white dwarf. Dependant on references agreeing with me. In supernova itself, maybe some tweaks to the terminology would help to clarify the difference between strict supernova nucleosynthesis, which is hardly discussed, and elemental yields which is heavily discussed and isn't quite the same thing. For example, much of the lighter elements (eg. helium, carbon, oxygen) is the result of earlier fusion reactions, and it is perhaps worth emphasizing that the bulk of the ejecta from type II supernovae is unchanged primordial hydrogen (and helium). Lithopsian (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Lithopsian, Okay, thank you for the response. If you (or another expert) can help clarify the issue of supernova nucleosynthesis, vs the elements formed from normal stellar nucleosynthesis and then, afterwards, dispersed with the supernova, that would be great. Probably easier in the supernova article, where the explanation can be shorter. Attic Salt (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed one-way IBAN for Arianewiki1. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Constellations

Both you and Lithopsian have reverted my edits to the constellations entry without giving reasons. What do you find wrong with them? Would you like to consult an expert such as AstroLynx for his opinion? FYI, I was trying to get it back closer to where it was in June 2017 before it was messed about with by ArianeWiki, among others https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constellation&oldid=787775346 Skeptic2 (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

I have reverted your reverting of two sourcing on the page. Just as the sources that claim Thomas Jefferson did have illegitimate children are not cherry picking, do to are sources that claim Thomas Jefferson did not have illegitimate children are not cherry picking. The sources are reliable and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.111.151 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mobile Launcher Platform

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mobile Launcher Platform. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Unicode

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Unicode. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Concealed carry in the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Concealed carry in the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit revert

Please read the short description carefully for New York City. I put that the city is in Southeastern New York, not Southeastern US. They are two different things. Interstellarity (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity You are correct. I did not read that very carefully. I apologise. Attic Salt (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

by the way this has nothing to do with importance or articles. i was just bored. delete this if you want Billy rocky fernansa (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion at Temperature

Hi there! I notice you have made an unexplained reversion at temperature. Flow/transfer of mass/substance is the standard expression, not flow of matter. Energy also belongs to matter.--185.53.199.97 (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Da Vinci Globe

I can't find the copyvio you mention, but see my post at Talk:Da Vinci Globe and WP:FTN#Da Vinci Globe. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Cat image removal

I reverted your removal of the image in Cat as there was no explanation for why you picked that one out. The article has many images, possibly too many, but if they are to be reduced it should be discussed first. You should start a discussion on the talk page if you want to pursue this. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

2,500 years

This diff really made me laugh. I don't think it needs a citation, I think it's actually a WP:CURRENTLY violation -- that sentence will be be out of date by the year 2500 :-) - Astrophobe (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Lagrange

Hallo, I reverted your change in the opening paragraph of Lagrange. The issue of Lagrange's nationality/ethnicity has been discussed at length some years ago. First of all, the word "Italian" has nothing to do with the existence of an Italian state, but with the ethnicity. An "Italian nation" has existed at least since the 13th century, and there is general consensus about it. Dante was Italian, Leonardo da Vinci (another famous person who spent the last years of his life in France) Italian, and so on, as much as Luther was German before the birth of a German national state. Back to Lagrange, he was Italian, born in Italy, moved to Germany and finally to France. But the main point is not this, but that the mention of an ethnicity in a biography is regulated by WP:ETHNICITY, a part of the manual of style. In the lead of a biography should be mentioned the ethnicity of a person when he/she became notable, and not the others. In the case of Lagrange this is the Italian one, because when he left Turin for Berlin he was already known without any doubt as one of the most important mathematicians in Europe. Adopting the same criterium, Riccardo Giacconi, Nobel prize for physics born in Genoa, for Wikipedia is not Italian, but American, since he moved to the U.S. before he discovered anything. One can agree or not about this way of defining the ethnicity, and can try to change it (I did some years ago, but without success), but the important thing it is that this is part of a guideline, and as such can be enforced (the last discussion about Lagrange ended with a block of the other person) and spares a lot of discussions and edit warring. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Humor me

I saw your recent contribution to the New York City article. Therefore my question is this: just what is a sandwich? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sally Hemings and the Y chromosome evidence

If you have some better way to phrase the facts, please edit content rather than delete it, as per WP:EW. Thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What you added wasn't more informative than what is already in the article. Attic Salt (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You deleted a high-quality reliable source that directly contradicted the second sentence in the lead.Sbelknap (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a historian and I've studied this issue extensively. I've read "The Scholar's Commission Report" and the Monticello report as well as some of Annette Gordon-Reed's books. I came at it from an objective view and concluded that this is an unprovable case, and as such, we should presume innocence on the part of Thomas Jefferson. Moreover, in light of the sensitive questions of family, national and racial identity that this question raises, we must realize that we don't have to prove the unprovable or besmirch the dead to understand how instrumental the Hemings family was in the formation of our country. I actually wrote a dissertation on the controversy, which you quite rudely referred to as "vanity press." This aside, I would be happy to send you a copy of my research, which includes a rather lengthy historiographical review. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you modified or added to edits rather than just deleting them. All the Best, DiscoveringTrueHistory (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jared Kushner on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Assyrian genocide on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:International Bureau of Weights and Measures on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Rigel

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 28, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 28, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Superstition on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Xi Jinping on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Involuntary commitment on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

John Brown (abolitionist) revert

Why is this a useful edit? People sharing an incredibly common name is not noteworthy. Long articles should not be festooned with heading templates for the hell of it. Without a better reason I'll be removing this again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It gives people a way to find other articles about people named John Brown. I use disambiguation pages all the time in searching Wiki. Attic Salt (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This is specifically discouraged by WP:NAMB. Disambguation pages are for people who are lost, not simply curious about the existence of random unrelated articles. If you disagree with that, feel free to take it up on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

When I read WP:NAMB it says we don't need disambiguation for article titles that are not ambiguous. This one is. Just have a look at the disambiuation page: [52]. Lots of people with the same or similar names. That makes it useful. Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Are any of the others famous abolitionists? No. You're justifying a bad decision after the fact. I don't want to waste precious minutes of my life on an official discussion here, but I will, and will continue it to the point where you're prevented from wasting other people's lives on the same. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that someone will search, specifically, for "John Brown" and "abolishionist", when they might, instead, simply search for "John Brown" without knowing how else to describe him. Yes, I remember a time when I was young and didn't really understand the abolishionist movement. Right now, entering "John Brown" takes you to the disambiguation page, and from there it is easy to navigate and explore. You might also consider what a person would do if they end up on the John Brown (abolitionist) page, but want to find a different John Brown. I'm sorry to see that your tone has now become aggressive. Attic Salt (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, Thumperward, this edit of yours is not something to be proud of: [53]. Attic Salt (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Attic Salt, it is correct that no hat note is necessary on parenthetically disambiguated articles such as John Brown (abolitionist), as discussed at WP:NAMB, as long as there are no other, less famous abolitionists named John Brown. If John Brown was the article about the abolitionist and the disambiguation page was at John Brown (disambiguation), then a hat note would make sense. VQuakr (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, VQuakr, for explaining this. I was not appreciating that it was related to the parenthical description per se. This was not clear, to me, in the link provided by Thumperward: [54], which I did read. Instead, all I got was an assertion that we didn't need disambiguation because John Brown is "an incredibly common name" (quoting Thumperward). Attic Salt (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, I was apparently mistaken in thinking that by putting a disambiguation link at the top of the John Brown (abolitionist) page that a corresponding link would be, possibly by a bot, put on John Brown (disambiguation). It appears to me, now, that this does not happen. Therefore, it seems that if someone searches on "John Brown" they will be sent to the disambiguation page, where one could find John Brown (abolitionist), even if the disambiguation link was not put at the top of John Brown (abolitionist). That's the way it should be, but I did not fully understand that it worked that way. Again, thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Gallery vs Text

'Alumni' of Harvard University page only has images. If we were to go with the 'texts and reliable sources' version, we can include many names and details. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Harvard_University#Replacing_excessive_images_with_texts. Ber31 (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:World War II on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

False COI claim

Please stop deleting relevant references on "Physics of financial markets" page. We are adding them because they are relevant. We have also added all the other references if you pay attention. One that we erased had no relevance to the subject.

COI policies state that:

WP:COI.: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive."

The material is relevant and therefore permitted. If you continue deleting the references and modifying the subject we will have to initiate an investigation regarding your COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algostox (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahem

No one seems to picking up on my suggestion that we populate separate galleries in the separate pages for College, law school, business school, etc., and then finish up with the gallery for the university as a whole. I think Dershowitz is a great case: it makes a lot of sense for him to be highlighted in the law school article, hardly at all that he'd be highlighted for HU overall. EEng 00:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I might have a look at the other H articles, and, of course, maybe you will contribute to the galleries in those articles as well. Regarding Dershowitz, he is something of a Fox News celebrity these days. When I was in school, he seemed to be more widely respected. At least relative to other faculty, he is widely known and therefore notable in some sense. Still, I appreciate you opinion. I am not particularly attached to him having his photo in the HU gallery. Attic Salt (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harvard University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Conant. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Orgone on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hungary in World War II on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Solar System invitation

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's articles related to the Solar System. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Solar System? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Degree distribution revert

Hi Attic Salt - you undid two of my edits on the Degree_distribution page.

Re revision: "Undid revision 997059102 by Fractalfalcon (talk) Removing material related to a blog." The previous text was incorrect and referenced the wrong paper and poorly written. I corrected the reference from "Petter Holme" to "Broido & Clauset". The "Holme" paper is a comment on whether the discussion of SF networks is important or not. In the Holme paper, the blog you have removed is a key source since Barabasi is one of the key figures in the debate and it is his blog. If blogs cannot be referenced, ok, but I would suggest only the blog reference is removed and not the whole edit.

Re revision: "Undid revision 997060609 by Fractalfalcon (talk) Removing citation to source that has only been cited once in the literature." Is there a specific policy against this? It may only be cited once but it is a published and reviewed paper.

Thanks! --Fractalfalcon (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have undone my excessive reverts, but I took out the blog, normally not considered a reliable source. Attic Salt (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added an alternative reference from a published paper to replace the blog. Fractalfalcon (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ivermectin and Talk:Variant of Concern 202012/01 on "Maths, science, and technology" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ivermectin on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Politrukki (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shusha on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Werner Von Braun

In explanation, Category:SS officers was removed as he is already in the sub-category Category:SS-Sturmbannführer. Kingbird1 (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I removed the category on the Von Braun page. Attic Salt (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Michael the Brave on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Goths on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Your recent housecleaning of John Brown (abolitionist)

I re-added a source that you removed from John Brown when you removed a non-sequitur. That said, the work is much improved after your detailed trimming. Nice work on a tricky subject. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mongol invasions of Vietnam on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC

I see you participate in this discussion. You may want to comment at Talk:Southern Methodist University#Image gallery of former students. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:George Washington on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Inertial frame of reference on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Number theory on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Blackbird (land yacht) on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Zina Bash

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I find this "notification" to be offensive as long you don't similarly notify other parties involved, namely AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika. Your behaviour as an administrator is clearly biased. Attic Salt (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much point in alerting editors to the BLP requirements when those editors have been expounding the need to follow BLP requirements. However, if you see it differently, anyone can add a notification: it's not an admin action. See {{ds/alert}}. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You really need to reflect on your service. Attic Salt (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a big believer in bureaucracy and I think I explained the situation above—I don't see a need to notify anyone else at the moment, but you can if you see it differently. I thought your 22 July 2021 edit at Zina Bash warranted my comment here. I have no idea who Bash is but should 44% of her article be devoted to commentary on a photo of her hand? Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You have no idea who she is? Surely you've read the article and learned who she is. After all, you are the administrator on an ANI dispute about the article. You froze the article, concluding, somehow, that there is a "reasonable claim of BLP problem" [55]. I hope you have done your administrator homework. Attic Salt (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course I've read it now (although that's not needed to see that protection is warranted). Sorry I used the wrong words but what I mean is that I have no knowledge of whether the claims are plausible or whether she is a good person. What I do know is that 44% of an article devoted to how she sat during a hearing is very likely to be undue. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The “okay” incident is the only reason there is an article about her. I’m open to deleting the article, but until then, the article needs to be objectively worded. Attic Salt (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Holocaust on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Partial block

You have been indefinitely blocked from Zina Bash and its related talkpage per this discussion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 08:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC).

This is a scarlet letter. I can hardly tell you how disappointed I am in this whole Wiki experience. I'm gone. Attic Salt (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Bishonen I am very disappointed that you ignored the bullying and abusive behavior from AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika while applying sanctions on me and Attic Salt. Moreover, I am beyond dismayed and heartbroken that Attic Salt has now decided to leave this place, which will create an echo chamber here. You should reflect upon your actions as an administrator. TrueQuantum (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Please try to get past this. You know how many times I've been blocked? So you see, you're in the best of company.

I've sometimes thought we ought to have rule that everyone gets a partial block once a year; if 365 days go by without a given editor being blocked, we randomly pick one article they've edited in the prior month and block them from it for a week. Then people can stop being ashamed. EEng 19:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User:EEng, that's not a bad idea. I'll point out, though, that Attic Salt posted a "retired" template on their userpage seven hours before I blocked, so they probably didn't mean to imply they retired because of the "scarlet letter" block. Anyway, I'm very proud of my own scarlet letter block, and I feature my block log on my userpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC).

@EEng: Last night I was thinking something along the same lines. Perhaps WP would be a better place if we would deal out blocks more easily, but also not take them as serious as we do. Block some, unblock some, but not make it into such a big deal. Same would go for adminship: sysop more easily, desysop more easily, it would take away a lot of the unnecessary gravity. I feel that Bishonen by advertising her own blocks may be expressing some such similar. At the same time however, I think that no one really has any control over this kind of thing, and it would be hard to make out a definite answer to these issues anyways.

@Attic Salt: I would like to second EENG: it would be great if you could ignore this business and just get on with improving the encyclopedia, which is after all what we're here for. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I have a userbox:

This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!).

EEng 22:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Attic Salt, I don't know if you will see this message or not but I just wanted to say that I really appreciated your presence and contributions here on Wikipedia. I will be heartbroken if you decide to leave. The last thing we need is for Wikipedia to become an echo chamber. There must be room for opposing viewpoints so long as our desire is to follow the guidelines as closely as possible, which I believe we were trying to do in good faith. If you leave, I don't want to stay here anymore either. TrueQuantum (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

So you see, A.S., if T.Q. leaves it will be your fault. Do you want that on your conscience? EEng

Like EEng, I also have been blocked 18 or 19 times, often deservedly, but you know, think this: in this instance I don't see that anybody's opinion of you is tarnished. Have seen Bishonen about for years and years, and always had the feeling she *gets it* and would not think less of you for a single transgression, esp as you are such a highly productive and respected editor, and Bishonen has herself written quite a few FAs and can be thought of as a "content admin" (the most rarified and exquisite caste to be blocked by). Long ago Attic I learned to shrug this stuff over my shoulder and just keep on going. In fact a lot of the admins doing this stuff are grand and sound if you talk to them. so, like, come back pls. Ceoil (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

ps, Bishonen had the stones to block Jimbo back in the day, and he's barely edited articles since. I think you are worth two Jimbos, and if was you would just start up again, per everybody above; I'm obviously not the only person to have worked positively with you. Ceoil (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Stay. Wikipedia is stronger with you here. I have seen your work and and Wikipedia needs you. A certain amount of dealing with disagreement is inevitable. That the block is placed on a single page seems to indicate the work you've done on all the other pages is just fine. Attic Salt, you are a valued contributor to the pedia. Please consider taking a break and coming back when gumption is high. BusterD (talk)

Encouragement to come back after awhile

I think that it would be worthwhile if you came back to the website after awhile, whether that be a month, or a year or more. As someone who became disillusioned by aspects of Wikipedia's culture and basically left the place for a couple years, I can say that it was good to get some space and find another perspective. In the end: everyday, perfectly normal people use this website for legitimate purposes, and if there are small things I can do to help them, then that's worth it to me. Plus, there's something enjoyable about editing in its own right. Remember that there's no requirement to engage in the contentious back-rooms of this website. BirdValiant (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Psychology on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Afghanistan on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sogdia on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Apple cider vinegar on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Sad!

Dear Attic Salt,

So sad to see you leave... You were one of the best editors to contribute to this website. When so many good editors leave, the content of the website will suffer. Ber31 (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Appreciated

I appreciate the sentiments of my fellow editors as expressed here, but the experience of being hauled into the BLP committee, with accusations made against me and TrueQuantum, with irresponsible and inflammatory statements made by some editors (and, in some cases, administrators) even though they obviously made very little review of the circumstances, and when they were asked for real evidence of some sort of transgression, nothing being produced. Bullying as well. I did my best to do something positive, but apparently a difference of opinion on the Zina Bash article as to whether or not we should say "accused" or "falsely accused" is enough for Bishonen to apply a block. Somehow I'm supposed to either carry that around with me for the rest of my time at Wiki, or appeal the penalty (where I would be expected to grovel, yes), even though I don't feel like I really did anything wrong, well, it was just too much. I found it all disappointing and, yes, disgusting. And it doesn't help to hear silly statements about how Bishonen is fair minded and all. I'm pretty fair minded as well. I'm happy now occupying my time with crossword puzzles and spelling games. Sincerely, Attic Salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:1780:1C38:FCB0:21F:D7F4:C146 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Special ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. Please note, due to a technical error you may not have been able to previously vote, or you may have received this message twice or after opting out. This is a one-time notification. If you are having any issues voting now, please contact the election coordinators for assistance. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Three years!

Precious anniversary

miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Jungian Humour

I appreciate your edit at 13:10, 6 August 2018, in which you wrote <the younger Jung>. I found it quite comedic. TheFells (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Gothic boxwood miniature, introduced: "Impossibly small wood-cut miniatures from the 15th and 16th centuries, which have unfortunately been under studied until very recently, partly because they are too small to fully appreciate even with the naked eye. I have watched people come across them in museums, and the usual reaction is jaw drop; it takes a few minutes to realise what you are looking at." Exquisite and eye-opening! - Miss you. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)