User talk:Attic Salt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome![edit]

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
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
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?[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.

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)

Information icon @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[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 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...[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.

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[edit]

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

Please look at Government[edit]

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[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.

Copyright problem icon 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[edit]

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[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 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[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.

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[edit]

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[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 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)

Digital physics[edit]

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![edit]

Youngkitten.JPG

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[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.

Stop icon
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[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.

Information icon 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[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.

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 04:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of combustion scientists category[edit]

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[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.

Stop icon 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[edit]

Half of a Prayer Bead with the Crucifixion MET DP371975.jpg 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)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

come on the list is not long at all[edit]

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)

Please comment on Talk:Greenwich Mean Time[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greenwich Mean Time. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Request[edit]

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)