User talk:Attic Salt

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]