User talk:Arianewiki1/ Archive 2013

Good Articles

I noticed you are putting alot of work into article development, which is great. However it can be frustrating once you leave something and articles degrade over time. You may be interested in Good Articles and Featured Articles, which serve as 'stable version' reference points to some degree. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing articles

It would be appreciated if you would take a little time to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It is the guidelines that we use to maintain consistent, high-quality articles on wikipedia. Thank you!—RJH (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion tag

Would you please explain your addition of a speedy deletion tag to Alpha Centauri ? DGG (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

deletion here I can't explain. error of somekind? [[User:Arianewiki1|Arianewiki1] 13:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If it was really an error, perhaps you would like to remove the notice you placed on my Talk page, or at least add an apology there. --Zundark (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, many apologies. I think I changed My Preferences, which has changed the menu bar, and I've just done some thing silly.Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I've just removed the {{hangon}} tag from this page. Booglamay (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit comment

I didn't attack any editor here. In fact, you previously said my same comment to me. Drastically reverting contributions like Largehole's, as you did, just makes others not to want to join in. The Proxima Centauri page is excellent, and your contribution is appreciated, but others have the right to improve it. Your previous criticisms of dissatisfaction made me stop contributing before. Also if you want to berate someone, you should also sign your name!!! 4 ~ isn't that hard! Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology

Regarding your recent edits to Plasma cosmology, please start a discussion on the talk page explaining your concerns. I see that you have previously been warned about edit warring. Please use caution. Vsmith (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not require 'caution', which seems more like an unveiled threat. The removal of this text was warranted as it is unrelated to Plasma Cosmology, and whose research has been mostly discredited and is out of date. Dominus Vobisdu was entirely wrong in his submission. Furthermore, the references given are irrelevant. The history of bias and deliberate agenda on the page has been well documented, with several being banned. I am well versed on this subject. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Alfven did say that the results of plasma experiments scaled to magnetospheres, see his paper. "Scaling up results of laboratory research by a factor of 10⁹ makes them applicable to magnetospheric conditions. (...) In the magnetosphres, plasma exists in an active and a passive state. This is probably true for all cosmic plasmas." p. 314

I reworked the caption of the image. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes he did, but it did not say this in regard to plasma cosmology. Furthermore, this postulate has been mostly rejected on observational grounds. I.e. Interstellar clouds or galaxies do not appear as magnetospheres, only planetary bodies, the sun and stars are magnetospheres. (Sheets are also not magnetospheres.) The article is about plasma cosmology not on magnetospheres. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You recently reverted an edit of Plasma Cosmology attempting to enforce the phrase "mostly rejected". Please provide the Polling Agency and Survey that was hired to conducted this study, otherwise I will have to assume this phrase was invented and has no place in an article educating people about this topic. This study should reflect a large enough statistical sampling performed in a professional scientific fashion. Orrerysky (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. "mostly rejected" is based on fact not hearsay. Contrarily, it could also be said where is the "Polling Agency and Survey that was hired to conducted this study" for supporting plasma cosmology, eh? I.e. Can you prove that the Big Bang is "mostly rejected" or "mostly unknown" too?

(Funny. The Big Bang is in most modern astronomy/cosmology textbooks, while plasma cosmology is not! Is that a suggest that plasma cosmology is "most rejected". I'd say yes.)

As you already know that plasma cosmology is not accepted by mainstream science, an this explains why you be pushing so hard to rewrite this article!!!

Sorry. It seems the more you say, the more you exposure your seemingly unspoken agenda. I've seen it all before with the very article. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carina Nebula may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

NGC 3532

I have restored the references and referenced material you deleted. Please discuss this on the talk page if you disagree. -- Elphion (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not change this until I have a chance to restore the references for this. O'Meara;'s book is greatly discredited for just making up names of deep-sky objects - especially southern ones. I strongly discourage you to quote his work. The cluster is commonly called in the southern sky as the "Football Cluster", which it has been known for decades Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Caldwell

Your remark that Caldwell numbers are not frequently used by observers is simply false. They are becoming more and more common, especially among amateurs, and will probably eventually become as popular as Messier numbers. The references you are removing are there to signify to people who are coming to the page through forwards from Caldwell entries that they have arrived at the right place. -- Elphion (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Southern observers never use it, and what you are forgetting is that the identifiers are more often either Dunlop or Herschel numbers. I suggest you visit the webpage http://www.ngcicproject.org/ , and use its database. I.e. NGC 3532 is Lac II 10, h.3315 or Dunlop Δ323. The Caldwell numbers are useless to observers, and it has not been adopted in the south. You can say the same for the Bennett Catalogue. I recommend that you not place it after the NGC number as it is not easily searched by it. If you must insert it, place it in the sidebox under "names=", please. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You have not answered my point. Who do you mean by "observers"? If professional astronomers, I certainly agree. But the Caldwell numbers are acquiring a currency among amateurs that we should not ignore. -- Elphion (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Will you please stop removing the Caldwell numbers. Whether any one of them is the usual designation is not the point -- the fact that an object is one of the Caldwell objects is of interest in itself. -- Elphion (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I will if you will just stop reverting everything before I can even place references to support my changes! The Caldwell Catalogue and O'Meara's books as quote for references should be closer to the original sources. I.e, NGC 3532 references to Lacaille and John Herschel quotes should be from better sources. I.e. DOCdb :Deep Sky Observer's Companion – the online database http://www.docdb.net/object_index.php, Herschel (1847), John Dunlop (1828), Lacaille (1751-52), etc. O'Meara's quoting is making out he is the primary source, just like his latest Southern Sky book. He is not a primary source!! Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to step on an edit in progress. (I generally add the references when I make the changes.) I do use the NGC/IC Project frequently. I had not been aware of DOCdb; thanks for the pointer. I agree that those are preferable to O'Meara in this regard. --- Elphion (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I am happy to restore the references, but it takes time to sort out the format and the actual source. As for the Caldwell Catalogue, read 2nd paragraph at http://britastro.org/jbaa/pdf/113-3omeara.pdf or http://www.cloudynights.com/documents/caldwell.pdf, and this will give some support in not using it. Most southern observers despise this whole listing as irrelevant , mostly because how it was contrived. I.e. http://www.cloudynights.com/documents/caldwell.pdf What has most people cross is the naming of southern objects that have no history, especially when the book was written, he had not seen many of the objects himself in a telescope! Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to say I don't understand the snark heaped on the Caldwell list -- though I grant Patrick Moore rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Yes, there are a few misses -- as there are also in Messier's list. But the idea is a good one, and by and large the objects are well-chosen. The important point is that it is increasingly being used as a source of objects to go looking for once you've done the Ms; and that growing utility should be accommodated here. My gut says that Caldwell is here to stay, as its inclusion in DOCdb attests. -- Elphion (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, its junk. Northern observers might use it, but in the south it's already badly tainted. Just another northern observer thinking they can impose their twisted minds for objects they can never see. At least Bennett was southern. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Omega Centauri

Hi! You were spot on about James Dunlop's discovery of Omega Centauri, but the next time you change factual information like that on a Wikipedia article, it would help your cause greatly to include a reference. I put one in where you edited. Thank you for your correction! Cheers. CarringtonEnglish_*t/c* 21:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but not appreciated. I was right in the middle of editing the page and adding the reference when you changed it! (I've been trying to do it this way to avoid an edit war! Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have the reference?CarringtonEnglish_*t/c* 21:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you had a better reference url than mine, I'm sorry. Just replace it, or you can give me the url and I can do it.CarringtonEnglish_*t/c* 21:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have. I just added Dunlop's original 1828 reference. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Carina Nebula

You boldly changed this article a day or so ago: I’ve reverted it per WP:BRD and opened the discussion here, if you care to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It need changing, as it is quite wrong. I'd suggest you leave it, else a barrage of references be cited proving the point. Caldwell is irrevant, as it is not commonly used for the Eta Carina Nebula. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewel Box (star cluster), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magnitude (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Caldwell: "serious issues"

If you feel there are "serious issues", discuss them on the talk page. Otherwise the tags should be removed. -- Elphion (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm doing this right now!! Q1. Are you British or American? Q2: What relationship do you have with Moore, S&T, Cambridge Publishing, O'Meara? Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A1: That's immaterial. A2: no relationship with any of the above. -- Elphion (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason for my impatience is that once the tags were removed, you should have opened a talk page entry *first* explaining your reasons, before reinstating the flags. Otherwise these come across as drive-by shootings. -- Elphion (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You should not have have removed them in the first place. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on your tags, I added references (far more than necessary), removed some material, and generally examined the article for more POV and found none, so having fixed the article, I removed the tags. This is the way it is supposed to work. You are welcome to reinstate the tags, but only after explaining why you think the problem is not fixed. I will address your remarks on the talk page when I have time; basically they say nothing about the quality of the article (which is certainly not POV). Your accusation that I am "pushing" Caldwell -- whether because of association with S&T or Moore or O'Meara or because of Moore's death (of which I was unaware) is simply false, and a breach of "assume good faith". I do feel Caldwell is useful, and believe it should be covered in WP. I am hardly alone in this. -- Elphion (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the evidence clearly shows you are "pushing" Caldwell, just from your statements. I.e. "But the Caldwell numbers are acquiring a currency among amateurs that we should not ignore. -- Elphion (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)" (If that is not POV what is?) I am just trying to understand your quite obvious bias.

Also article balance means that it takes all points of view, not just ones supporting something. Worst it is promoting the subject instead of properly explaining it - and does so across multiple pages. I.e. Inferring the Caldwell object number is second only to the NGC number, for example. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The references changes are insufficient. It is even more biassed than before it! Please see my reply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caldwell_catalogue#Tags.3B_tone Q. Are you a northern observer? Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See my response there. Apologies for spelling your user name inconsistently -- which I am at a loss to explain, being familiar with both the rocket and the mythological character (whose compound with -wiki is particularly clever). I hope I caught them all. -- Elphion (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It matters not… Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Heya

Echo says that you mentioned me on Talk:Caldwell catalogue#Tags; tone. Did you (and if so, why), or was it just Echo being weird? Thanks, Ansh666 01:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think I did? More info, please??? Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The notification says this:

Arianewiki1 mentioned you on Talk:Caldwell catalogue.
"→‎Tags; tone"
16:27

I don't think you did, though. I guess the system just decided that "hey, let's give someone random an even more random notification!" Sorry! Ansh666 03:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Zero problem. Happy editing!! Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Carina Nebula shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. A discussion has started on the talk page. Comment there rather than edit waring on the article. What you claim to be obviously wrong isn't obvious to other people, so BRD does apply, and you should join in the discussion. Thanks. GedUK  11:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a classic example of forced false verification. The article is wrong because of wrong assertion that this is the Carina Nebula, when it is historically clear it is called the Eta Carina Nebula. Again It is another example of falsification. The reason the term "Carina Nebulae" exists is because of the large number of paper on this object, which when published distinguishes between papers. The Wiki user continues not to recognise this fact, which shows lack of knowledge than deliberate misleading, which was enacted by changing the name of the article. Unless he can prove otherwise, these changes should stand. There is a difference between usage and actual origins. It is clear the person refuses to discuss this issue rationally. (I am an expert is this field, so know what if talking about.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Arianewiki1, you are likely to be blocked if this continues. Your expertise won't have any benefit if you wind up being excluded from the article due to stubbornness. Please wait for other people to agree with you on the article's talk page. If your position is correct, you should be able to persuade others. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Carina Nebula. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  GedUK  21:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arianewiki1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have complied with the request, and have added reasons and references why this is wrong in the Carina talk page.

Decline reason:

Merely insisting that you are right about the content dispute won't get you unblocked. If you agree to get consensus first before making any more edits about this issue, admins might reconsider the block. Your comments on the talk page like "Thank you for showing your bias" and "outright fraud" will not win you any friends here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arianewiki1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not wishing to fight the issue, but I feel these words are unfairly targeting me for the wrong reasons.Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per discussion below. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The words "Thank you for showing your bias" made in response to "Or that southern observers should take precedence because it's in the the southern sky?" Made by; Moonraker12 (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [The user in in the northern hemisphere, and cannot see the object. As an experienced astronomer, and real knowledge of the subject's history and published on the object.]

The "...outright fraud" I was talking about was with the article NGC 3766, which referred to the name "Pearl Cluster", which was linked to an External links site "The Pearl Cluster", which was advertising a likely fraudulent jewellery site. I had repaired this, whose original page was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NGC_3766&oldid=488555036 [You can verify this yourself!] There are others with the same problem.

My statement was; "Fraudulent naming of deep-sky objects have been found on several by me, with motives from commercialism to outright fraud."

(I have just received 'official' notification another of these problems, by user AndJames @ the site http://cdsannotations.u-strasbg.fr/annotations/simbadObject/3050700 . It shows the same problem as NGC 3766 for open star cluster NGC 2516 (named the "Diamond Cluster'. This is another fix by me in a Wiki article. [This is likely to be discussed on an official level, where naming celestial objects is controlled by International Astronomical Union.

Yet you do the right thing, and your punished for it?

As for " If you agree to get consensus first before making any more edits about this issue, admins might reconsider the block" OK I agree, as I've already said in the first request to unblock.

Again, please kindly reconsider. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked the blocking admin if he wants to comment. Nobody will object if you remove an external link to pearlcluster.org. We wouldn't describe that as 'outright fraud', it is spam, and we just remove it. If you assume that people in the other hemisphere are merely biased, you are not assuming good faith. Your comments about bias are borderline personal attacks. You made the following comment:

The article is wrong because of wrong assertion that this is the Carina Nebula, when it is historically clear it is called the Eta Carina Nebula. Again It is another example of falsification.

The right name for the nebula is simply a content dispute, but the word 'falsification' makes it sound as though other editors are lying. If this is going to be your style of reasoning on Wikipedia, you may find it impossible to cooperate with others. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@ EdJohnston (talk)

The beginning of the talk page of the article on Carina Nebula says; "The nebula is not called the Eta Carinae nebula, it is the Carina Nebula or the Great Nebula in Carina. The Eta Carinae nebula is also known as the Homonculus and is the much smaller nebula surrounding the star. --Keflavich 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"

This (and many of the statements following), are simply wrong.

I've given evidence to support this claim. Falsification means "prove (a statement or theory) to be false." I.e. The hypothesis is falsified by the evidence. Yet now you say this is evidence of me accusing someone of lying? (Falsification is not the same as false evidence.) Suggest you read Falsifiability (and nowhere does it refer to lying.)

If we look at what Moonraker12 said of my comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carina_Nebula "Some papers generally refer to this as the Carina Nebula, mostly because of differentiating the many paper published on this object, but the historical precedence as determined by southern observers like James Dunlop and John Herschel, who have both termed it the Eta Argus Nebula or Eta Carina Nebula.", when he says "I have tagged this as dubious." Isn't nearly calling me lying too?

[I've now already given nine reference to support my original statement.]

My the ban is for "Edit warring" not WP:NPA. Does this mean you are extending this towards the ban to include this too against me too?

As for "Nobody will object if you remove an external link to pearlcluster.org. We wouldn't describe that as 'outright fraud', it is spam, and we just remove it."

I had already removed it, so I don't understand how you have done so?

Let me give you some real background here, which has been in discussion with several professional groups, and prevent the false naming of objects;

"Now I have found a new tricky problem, which I unsure how to solve. It is to do with the open clusters of NGC 2516, 3766 and 3532. It is about the given names of these cluster, being the Diamond Cluster, the Pearl Cluster and the Wishing Well Cluster, respectively. It is based on an extensive article I've almost completed on the southern cluster NGC 2516 in Carina.

"I have found that these names were likely fraudulently made up on Wikipedia during March 2006, and since then, amateurs in seeing these articles have openly spread the word. Worse they have been related to many popular publications on deep-sky observing.

"Yet you will also obviously note since then, has been quoted verbatim in nearly every internet source, including I may add, to the main CDS SIMBAD database. It seems that a fellow by the anonymous name of ‘Reg Carter’ who first quotes the “Diamond Cluster” on 8th November 2008. (no long a wiki author, and posted only thirteen contributions, but all are only related to the open clusters NGC 3532 (C91), NGC 3766 (C97) and NGC 2516 (C96). Each are Caldwell Objects.

"Another oddly named Centaurus open cluster first discovered by N. Lacaillé is NGC 3766 / Lac III 7 / Δ289 / Mel 107 (11361-6137) which he calls “The Pearl Cluster” [1] as posted on the wiki site on 23rd March 2006. (I’ve never heard of this before.) Diamonds and pearls… Umm. Yet when you go to the external link, it goes and advertises earring and necklaces. (http://www.pearlcluster.com/ , but oddly the owner of the site doesn’t mention his name to sell the stuff excepting an Amazon link. Searching for the site owner, I found the PearlCluster registration to Godaddy, which suggests the individual is an Australian but whose site is registered at Scottsdale, Arizona in America. Guess what. It was created on the 13th March 2006 and only just ten days from the wiki posting. See http://dawhois.com/site/pearlcluster.com.html for confirmation.) I again looked into the history, and found a seconded user by the name of ‘Seventy-Three’ added this advertising link on 26th April 2006. Umm. So I then did the so-called RBL Check (Real-time Black Hole List) http://dawhois.com/rbl_check/?query=pearlcluster.com , which lists this a “very bad” site. Other investigations suggests this person has some legal issues with his merchandise

"Yet another is the ‘Wishing Well Cluster’ for the open cluster NGC 3532, which was also added to Wikipedia [2] on 13th March 2006, but also directed to yet another dubious link! This is linked to a registered to www.NGC3532.com, which was Australian registered to Godaddy on 22nd February 2006. This site, however expired on 22nd February, 2012. http://dawhois.com/site/ngc3532.com.html

"Another, probably unrelated, is the alleged ‘Bat Nebula’ for IC 2948 (C100), which is better known as the ‘Running Chicken Nebula’ or even the earlier common name of ‘Lambda Centauri Nebula.’ According to O’Meara, he says there was a error in the name of this cluster, where it was improperly named the ‘Gamma Centauri Nebula.’ Yet the Bat Nebula appears at another page selling stuff, purportedly of an astronomical image of this nebula. (One of the earliest reference I could find dates to 8th April 2007 on the IceInSpace site with an image produced by ‘Footprint’ [See http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=20017 ]

"We also see links to ‘List of NGC objects’ tables with ‘Name Added.’ I suspect we’ve all been openly duped!

"I knew Wikipedia is often quoted as being unreliable, but fraud on this kind of scale is unbelievable! Worst still, all the suckers amateurs have not picked this up even after six-odd years!

"Since then I’ve written to the Wikipedia management and like to International Astronomical Union (IAU) for their overall advice, but have not changed the wiki source at the time of writing (31st March, 2013.) I hope to receive a reply on how to fix all of this.

"It might now mean going through all the websites using these names and asking to delete the references. The entire episode here has left me totally dumbfounded and really angry. I’m also unsure how to undo the damage here. The only way to solve this is to have a registry of names held by the IAU, whose proper name can only be adopted with proof of its common usage.

"In the meantime, if true, then all these dubious three or four names here should be now immediately dropped!"

At the moment, I'm trying to fix the mess in the real world, whose problem almost certainly stems from Wikipedia.

My use of words and reasoning here is impeccable, and you still insist on calling me "insincere." As I said, I have expert knowledge on this subject. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your use of reasoning is impeccable????? No, not according to WP:BRD and the rest of Wikipedia's policies. How you fix anything is through WP:CONSENSUS, not by unilateral declaration that you're an expert, and that you're right. There's a reason experts find Wikipedia difficult to edit - and you're simply proving it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

BWilkins Hello, how are you, pleased to meet you. Thanks for the kind introduction. I sorry. I don't know who you are, and I've never heard of your user name before.

Actually I am trying to show than I am an expert in this area, and am attempting to bring in the real world some order to the naming of deep-sky objects via a submission to the International Astronomical Union who are responsible for the laws governing the agreed policies in naming of objects beyond the earth. Whilst "WP:CONSENSUS, not by unilateral declaration that you're an expert" might be true, it is disingenuous to discount this as a method to persuade others (as suggested by EdJohnston. I gave an specific example of my expertise. With respect, this does not nurture assuming good faith, as exactly pointed out to me by EdJohnston.

Kicking someone when being accused of everything under the sun, other than the issue of edit warring, will only persuade individuals of so-called wiki atheism. Sure I don't know all the rules of editing, but there are surely nicer ways of saying that than your statement above. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Arianewiki1, this edit at Carina Nebula still causes concern. You wrote: "Undid revision 559639532 by Moonraker12 (talk) i'm not intimidated regardless of the consequences. Banned I maybe, but this is a deliberate at falsification." This edit has nothing to do with jewelry or pearl clusters or anything. You seem to be angry about the person adding alternate names for this nebula, and you reverted the usage of the Caldwell catalog in the lead. Besides the incorrect aspersion ('falsification'), this is improper editing for a person like yourself who didn't find a single person to support your viewpoint at Talk:Carina Nebula. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@ EdJohnston I'm am rather disappointed with your response here. You say that "You seem to be angry about the person adding alternate names for this nebula." This is incorrect. My actual response was towards the seeming deliberate REMOVAL of a name for this nebula, where the name Eta Carina Nebula (or Eta Carinae Nebula) did not appear at all before I made even one edit. (Since then, I have given references to support this, and now it now appears on the page.)

[This is not correct: Arianewiki1's first edit of Carina Nebula occurred on 8 June 2013; in the immediately preceding version, the lead sentence includes the name "Eta Carina Nebula", along with several other names that Arianewiki1 removed. -- Elphion (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)]

Yes, you are correct. I made a mistake in saying that. Bit confused from all the edits and to-and-fro in the responses here. I had no intent to deceive. (Though you might like to read my last important comment stated below.) Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am happy to answer the charge of edit warring, which you have levelled and then sanctioned against me. Issues outside of this, like accusing me of being 'angry', are unsupported and places me in a negative light. I have contributed to many articles without issue for 1799 items across 104 pages. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Re fraudulent names: I appreciate Arianewiki1's dedication to accuracy, but I think in this case he has jumped to unwarranted conclusions. I became interested in these names when I saw that they had been removed from the relevant WP articles as "fraudulent". On talk: NGC 3532 I asked for more information, because "Wishing Well Nebula" does appear on several websites, but Arianewiki1 has not had time to respond there.

So in light of the explanation above, I poked around a bit, and found a more straight-forward explanation: the names are due to Ray Palmer, an Australian amateur astro-photographer. Palmer inaugurated the South Celestial Star Light Project in 2006 to popularize southern celestial objects, and provided new names for several that had no widely accepted popular names. New names are not "fraudulent" -- amateur astronomers coin them all the time. Some catch on, some don't. I have seen all the names above on webpages, "The Wishing Well Nebula" with some frequency. But the vehemence above has needlessly tarnished the name of Reg Carter (talk · contribs) and completely obscured the actual origin of the names.

The gory details

Reg Carter (talk · contribs) edited WP briefly in 2006 and again in 2008. His edits are quite straight-forward; mostly he is importing "popular" (unofficial) names from other astronomy sites. He gives sources for all except "The Diamond Cluster". I followed the oldest link (www.ngc3532.com for NGC 3532), but the link is dead. The Wayback Machine has an archive snapshot from 2006 (around the time of Carter's edit), which says: "NGC 3532 -- The Wishing Well Cluster -- NGC 3532 is one of the finest Jewels in the Southern Sky.", and the page gives a bit of its history, and highlights its appearance as C91 in the Caldwell catalogue (with a brief introduction to that catalogue). The page also yields the following clue: "This site was created as part of the South Celestial Star Light Project". Googling "South Celestial Star Light Project" leads to a quote on Google Books from 1001 Celestial Wonders to See Before You Die: The Best Sky Objects for Star Gazers, Michael E. Bakich, Springer, 2010, ISBN: 1441917764. Here is a name I recognize, for Bakich is the author of The Cambridge Planetary Handbook, The Cambridge Guide to the Constellations, The Cambridge Planetary Handbook, and The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Amateur Astronomy. The quote is from Bakich's discussion of NGC 3766 (p. 91): "It received its common name, the Pearl Cluster, February 15, 2006, from amateur astronomer and popularizer Ray Palmer. On that date, he founded the South Celestial Star Light Project to help fine-tune the names of Southern Hemisphere celestial objects. His reasoning is that astronomy must appeal to people, not be complicated or boring. People (especially young people), Palmer theorizes, will remember and relate to a sky object's popular name more than any of its catalog designations. I agree, and I'll be calling NGC 3766 the Pearl Cluster from now on." Ray Palmer has a newer site: http://www.thecosmicartgallery.com/ that highlights several of his photos, some of which use the names in question. He's a member of the Astronomical Society of Western Australia, and one of his photos was featured at APOD. I have not been able to find a web source for his original list, so I can't verify that "Diamond Cluster" is his invention -- but by the same token, there's no reason to suppose that Reg Carter invented the name either, even though he provides no source for it. His other edits show no propensity for invention or promotion. The link that particularly bothered Arianewiki1 was Carter's source http://www.pearlcluster.com for "the Pearl Cluster", currently a commercial page advertising jewelry from the Pearl Jewelry Store. But Wayback shows that back in 2006 the url pointed to another South Celestial Star Light Project site highlighting NGC 3766, in a page very similar to the one for the Wishing Well. The domain had evidently been abandoned around 2012, and then picked up by Pearl Jewelry (who probably have no clue that there's a link to it from the bowels of WP).

-- Elphion (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Elphion I gratefully and do appreciate your extensive comments here, which will prove very useful to what I am trying to do. The quote and 2010 references will aid me extensively in my external IAU submission. I knew of many of the statements beforehand, as my earlier quote was just a summary showed the weakness of people willing to use Wikipedia as a promotion tool. As for Reg Carter, I have information attaching him directly to the alleged commercial site. Also the Astronomical Society of Western Australian has no knowledge of the naming of these clusters. Also the photos you allude to are being sold for profit, and the names were probably added to sell these pictures. The issue is that the naming of celestial objects are recognised by places like SIMBAD on the proviso they are commonly used names that have existed for some time I.e. Many decades. The problem is not that people cannot give names to these objects. They can. The problem is if some name is created, is that their can be confusion in where it is used. It is problematic in astronomical papers and abstracts, and finding said objects in search engines. A litany of annotations makes organising data very difficult for all. This is why the IAU is wishing that the naming of astronomical objects be discouraged. (See Next comment.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

When the current unpleasantness blows over, I would like to continue this discussion of Palmer's names. I don't discount the possibility you raise, but I would like to see the evidence. "I have information" doesn't give me much to go on! Concerning your question below about renaming the article, I'd recommend letting that go until the block expires and then raising the issue on talk:Carina Nebula as a move request; that's the correct venue. -- Elphion (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

IMPORTANT @ [[User talk:Ged UK|UK, EdJohnston BWilkins Moonraker12

According to the IAU site "Naming of Astronomical Objects" http://www.iau.org/public/naming/#nebulae, and here recommend the names of deep-sky objects (via link) should pertain to the following list entitled "A Collection of Some Common Names for Deep Sky Objects" http://messier.seds.org/xtra/supp/d-names.html

Wikipedia already has a page Naming conventions (astronomical objects), which only found when defending myself against this ban. Here is says;

'"Common names] See WP:COMMONNAME Common names should be used for article names in preference to official, IAU-sanctioned names where the former are widely used and are unambiguous.

(Isn't this statement written incorrectly. It is very confusing.)

Eta Carinae Nebula is the IAU common name, therefore justifying as the page title.

(I'd assume that Carina Nebula, would be the secondary name, and this justifies my actual claims to change it!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(astronomical_objects) In this list, by the way, appears "Eta Carinae Nebula" but no "Carina Nebula." (Also none of the others appear in this list.)

Clearly I've made an error in judgement not understand the intricate rules in editing.

Q1 Should I submit a third appeal?

Q2. Should the Carina Nebula header for the article be changed to Eta Carinae Nebulae, based on this clear evidence?

Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Look

Here's the bottom line: Wikipedia runs on WP:CONSENSUS. If you propose an edit on the talkpage of an article and 15 other people say "no", then it means "no" - even if you have 3 PhD's and have actually visited the Nebula. Yes, this means that consensus does often over-rule verifiability. On Wikipedia, we don't care about your credentials - we only care about the credentials of whatever reliable sources you're using to prove your edit. Wikipedia is actually very unfriendly towards academics for this very reason - we never permit original research and synthesis, which drives academics batty.

You may indeed be right about the name of the whatever - however, if everyone else has reliable sources that say otherwise, you will (and pretty much always will) be out of luck. Right now this is a mere 1 week block for continued edit-warring because you believe you hold the WP:TRUTH - that kind of behaviour is unacceptable on this project, and will lead to more blocks, no matter how right you think you are.

Since the cornerstones of unblock requests are a) understanding why you were blocked and b) promising to never repeat the behaviour that led to it, you do not yet seem to be ready for an unblock - your edits above make me believe you're simply going to try again. As such, until you understand the block, don't submit a request - eventually you'll lose access to this talkpage.

By the way - you're right, you've never heard of me before: when you submitted an unblock request, it advised admins who patrol requests for unblocks - and I'm one of them.

In short, STOP trying to show that you're an expert in the field: it actually turns people off. Try instead to show that you're an expert in providing useful, third party reliable sources - now that turns people on around here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned me?

My notifications here say that you mentioned me at Talk:Caldwell_catalogue#Tags.3B_tone -- not sure what that's about since I don't see my name on the page. Did I miss something that I should have been paying attention to? Banaticus (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

FAR notification

I have nominated Binary star for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Plasma Cosmology". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments

Is there a reason why you removed my comments from the merge discussion? Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No. I am aware I removed anything of yours at all. I look into it and get back to you. (If I did something silly, my immediate apologies.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I might have done this accidentally. Sorry. Retore it as you like. :) Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I figured it was either a mistake or you thought I was trolling. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Parsec may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• that is defined as 1 [[astronomical unit]], which is the average distance from the Earth to the Sun). From these two values, along with the rules of trigonometry, the unit length of the [[adjacent

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)