![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Bishonen | talk 00:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC).
Thanks for this. I'll ignore it, because I've done nothing wrong, and I have actively attempted to gain consensus on the topic. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 06:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm becoming uncertain whether the issue with your editing on
Flood geology is disruptive intent or a
competence issue, in view of your many posts on
Talk:Flood geology which ostensibly respond to other people's posts but persistently
fail to engage with their arguments. I'm thinking especially but not at all exclusively of your comments on the sentence in the article lead that "Most adherents hold to a literal reading of Genesis 6-9 and view its passages to be historically accurate, where the Bible's internal chronology reliably places the Flood and the story of Noah's Ark within the last five thousand years." (Later changed to "Proponents", then by you to "Some proponents", currently again reading "Proponents", and some less important wording changes attempting to make the sentence less clunky, but I'm quoting the sentence as it read when you complained of it.) You apparently believe that it is true that most adherents of flood geology do believe this, but that "the implications of the sentence has been manipulated here to actually infers most Christians believe in Flood geology."
Your claim of manipulation and of such an unlikely implication is not only untrue, it's incomprehensible. You give no arguments for it, yet you continue to insist on it to the point of using it as a reason for repeated reverts. You are editing disruptively on both the article and the talkpage, edit warring on the article as well as liberally and spuriously accusing others of edit warring and NPOV violations on Talk. Please edit and discuss constructively, or I will be forced to sanction you to protect the article from deterioration and its editors from the attrition caused by your currect debating style. A sanction would either take the form of a
block or a
topic ban from pages relating to flood geology and other
Creation Science topics.
I should note also, since I'm giving this warning as an uninvolved admin, that you have claimed on Talk that I, along with other editors, have "repeatably [sic] reversed any other User contributions regarding this one line in the Article. They have tried to insist on the wording as to seemingly maintain their own POV (without adding any necessary references), and this has endless debated by them in the Talk pages without compromise." [1] I have responded to this rather surprising statement (perhaps you may not actually have intended the accusations to apply to me, who have only trivially edited the article and had at that point never edited the talkpage, never mind "endlessly debated" on it?) here. Bishonen | talk 17:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC).
Actually, I'm quite aware of the difficult issues with Pseudoscience I.e. [2]. See my part in discussion with User talk:Orrerysky Arianewiki1 ( talk) 18:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
You recently removed the common names for planetary nebulae NGC 2516 and NGC 2899 citing vandalism. I have reverted your edits, the common names are correct and I have added references to that effect, please assume good faith. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the source of this is "Imaging the Southern Sky : An Amateur Astronomer’s Guide" By Stephen Chadwick Ian Cooper" on pg.70 (2012) [3]. This is not the common name of the cluster and has not been used commonly by anyone. It is among the fictions generated by these authors, which are causing great problems with usual naming procedures. All these names are bogus. Including 20 others. As such, they should be removed. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 16:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I've reported him on ANI. Ian.thomson ( talk) 15:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I will no longer make comment to this disruptive editor. Arianewiki1 ( talk) 16:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you're an astronomer, tell me: Is IC 1101 really the largest galaxy? It says so on several different websites and videos, but people keep removing that information as well as its diameter (5.5 Mly) from the article claiming that the information is false. Can you somehow prove to them why it is the largest galaxy known? Tetra quark ( talk) 20:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
References
![]() |
You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology |
Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |