User talk:Attic Salt: Difference between revisions
Attic Salt (talk | contribs) →Towards Happier Times...: Not really working. |
Arianewiki1 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
''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. [[User:Arianewiki1|Arianewiki1]] ([[User talk:Arianewiki1|talk]]) 06:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC) |
''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. [[User:Arianewiki1|Arianewiki1]] ([[User talk:Arianewiki1|talk]]) 06:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Your approach does not actually encourage the discussion you claim to seek. Please think about it. [[User:Attic Salt|Attic Salt]] ([[User talk:Attic Salt#top|talk]]) 15:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC) |
:Your approach does not actually encourage the discussion you claim to seek. Please think about it. [[User:Attic Salt|Attic Salt]] ([[User talk:Attic Salt#top|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) |
Revision as of 22:09, 7 October 2017
Welcome!
|
- 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?

Your current behaviour and support to modify the Introduction with article on Plasma (physics) regarding and that of 141.131.2.3 is suspicious. Be aware that Sockpupperty is against acceptable behaviour among editors.
Q: Attic Salt are you also 141.131.2.3? (If so please disclose this in the Talk:Plasma (physics) 'Request for comment') 23:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
A: Not me. Did that IP do something wrong? Attic Salt (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Attic Salt: Just to inform you, an investigation has been started by me here [1]. Naturally, you have the right to defend yourself against these claims, which you can do there as required. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Saying "Did that IP do something wrong?" is a very odd question in itself. No one has said that at all, including me. Frankly when seeing the veil of canniness or innoccence among editors often does not auger well, especially when seeing newbees begin using or enacting advanced features like WP:Requests for comment to advance a POV. Whist I rely on WP:GF, it is sometimes amazing what is revealed in just a few words. Just saying... Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I know that I haven't done anything wrong. Attic Salt (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for causing trouble, then dumping the case here. I am disappointed with your absolute contempt here, andplaying games. I pity you, really. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Tension headache
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tension headache. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Inexplicable behaviour
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 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)
- 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.[4] 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.[5] 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)
Towards Happier Times...
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. [6] or [7]/[8] 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)