User talk:Orrerysky

Welcome!

Hello, Orrerysky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Brangifer (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Plasma cosmology has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Plasma cosmology was changed by Orrerysky (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.893005 on 2013-11-23T21:13:18+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Plasma cosmology with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -download ׀ talk 21:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Plasma cosmology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Plasma cosmology. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD and follow it. Failing to do so (in a situation like this) is edit warring, and that's a blockable offense. You must discuss and reach a consensus. Do not remove anymore material. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (Tweaked per my comment below. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I'm afraid I cannot quite agree with that last; failing to follow WP:BRD is not necessarily edit warring, but removal of large parts of an article without consensus is generally considered inappropriate behavior, and may very well result in blocking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree. I meant "in a situation like this". When several editors are editing in conflict, it's the only known way to be relatively certain of who started an edit war. Otherwise it doesn't necessarily involve edit warring. Thanks for bringing that up. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice copied from Arthur Rubin's talk page

This is a copy of my comment in a thread on User:Arthur Rubin's talk page.

Coming from a newbie, that's pretty strong language which reveals a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. I've been patient with you. I could have already had you blocked for edit warring. Your attitude is what we call "I didn't hear that," in other words you are not learning from much more experienced editors, even though they have left you warnings, advice, and links to more information. We don't completely rewrite articles here. You don't own the article. It belongs to all editors, and you should show some respect for those who have put time into its creation.

We do want article improvement, so small increments are good for a start, considering you're a newbie. Right now you seem to have no sense of the situation. To illustrate, it's like you're wading into someone else's living room and demanding that they operate their home according to the rules which you use at your home. You're demanding they throw out all their pictures and rearrange their furniture because you don't like it, but you don't know WHY they have arranged their home the way it is. Maybe there is a reason. After all, the rules for interior decorating in their home (Wikipedia) are FAR different from the rules in your home (your website or blog). The rules are totally different here, and if you don't learn them and listen to what we're telling you, you will end up getting blocked. It's that simple. We are very long suffering with newbies, but when they don't listen and learn, we simply get rid of them. Now show a bit of humility and start asking questions instead of making demands.

Let me introduce you to whom you're dealing with right now: Arthur a very distinguished mathematician in real life and is an administrator here (sysop, 89588 edits since: 2005-08-15). I am a Physical Therapist (with a Physician Assistant education besides that) and an ordinary editor who does not wish to be an administrator (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 40068 edits since: 2005-12-18). We are both experienced enough to help you, if you'll allow it. Since you will never be allowed to edit alone here, without other editors having a right to watch your every move, comment on your talk page (you do not own it), and revert your edits when there are ANY disagreements, you'd better get used to working with others. Communication and civility are valued here. That's how we work.

When in doubt, or if you meet any resistance, the proper reaction is to back off, ask questions on the talk page, discuss until a consensus is reached, etc.. Never attempt to force/push your POV into the article over the objections of other editors. The resulting article will likely never satisfy you, and that's okay. That's the way it's supposed to be. Other editors have a right to their input, and they will likely find reliable sources documenting POV with which you disagree, but NPOV requires the inclusion of opposing POV. If a subject is fringe, the article will document that fact and the mainstream POV will be dominant. We simply reflect what RS say.

You also need to remember to use edit summaries for every edit and comment, use the edit history to check for edit summaries before making edits, sign your edits properly (using four tildes (~~~~), etc.. I'm going to leave a welcome template at the top of your talk page. It has lots of good links to help you get up to speed. Read them very carefully before proceeding. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer, there haven't been any objections from any other editors. There were bots. When other editors make objections then we can have this discussion. However, I thank you for your guidance and your tutelage. This current page must be changed, so its getting changed. Consider this as an opportunity to take care of something that you admit needs to be done. The current ring of editors really have no business in the editing process for this article. Look at their edit histories. This article should be about Plasma Cosmology not about "Plasma Cosmology & Other Models" for instance, much of the material is out of date, plain wrong, or completely red-herring. So, since we're friends, I don't have to get Richard Knipel on the phone. Orrerysky 00:19, November 25, 2013‎ (UTC)

Reverting a bot is not necessarily a "revert", even for the purpose of WP:3RR. However, (1) as Plasma Cosmology is not an accepted theory, it's hard to say what is part of it and (2) being "out of date" is only a problem for facts, not for theories which were never really "in date". If you can find reliable sources for your statements that parts of the article are not part of "Plasma Cosmology", we can reconsider the fact that reliable sources consider them part of Plasma Cosmology. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how whether or not anyone who accepts it is relevant. The topic of the entry is "Plasma Cosmology" not "the personal feelings of people about it." Orrerysky 06:02, November 25, 2013‎ (UTC)

Yes, your personal feelings about it are not relevant here. What RS say is what's relevant, and that will include what has been written about it from various, often conflicting, POV, in many types of sources, and often include the feelings expressed there. How we feel, as editors, is not determinative at all when it comes to content. Otherwise our policies, behavioral guidelines, and formatting guidelines, etc., are quite relevant. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current post is garbage and is riddled with the personal feelings of contributors, false statements, and red herrings. Statements about acceptance are irrelevant being that I don't recall any Poll of Scientists having been conducted. My edit will show that other models are actually subsets of the Plasma Cosmology umbrella I have no history of being involved with this edit war for this article until the past day. My 'edit warring' as you now recognize was with bots. Not people. This article requires a new perspective that is not tainted by these warring parties. If they wish to make contributions after I have made my changes then they are free to do so. This article had an origin somewhere and I see no reason to let that edit stand to begin. It is riddled with errors, outdated material, antiquated arguments, and irrelevant debates. The page will be about Plasma Cosmology. I will include a debate somewhere at the bottom for people to debate about certain observations. If you wish to help, you can help by making format suggestions in my sandbox effort. It is quickly changing but I am ready for bed, so you have the night to make suggestions on styling, formatting, and flow.

Once I am done with my edits I'll make a summary for the change and then we can all enjoy a new template to work with. Orrerysky (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that we have failed to clear up one of your misunderstandings. (Note that at each step of the following history, you were getting warnings on your talk page.) The first revert you bumped into was indeed performed (correctly) by a bot which stops vandalism, among other things. The next two reverts you met were by two other editors. Your response to them was incorrect in both cases. Already with the first revert from an editor (@User:Download - autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 77487 edits since: 2008-04-17) you should have stopped and started a discussion, not pressed forward. By continuing to attempt to force your will, you were edit warring. When you then saw my revert and the edit summary which explained clearly what you should do, you again continued your edit war with an edit summary which did not assume good faith (AGF) and made personal attacks (NPA). So with that one you violated three of our rules here (edit warring, failure to AGF, and personal attack).

So you got off to a rocky start, partially because you failed to heed advice. Those things are now on your record and are not forgotten, and your current status is documented as that of an uncollaborative edit warrior with strong ownership tendencies ("The current ring of editors really have no business in the editing process for this article."[1]). You are very lucky that you didn't get blocked, but that can easily change if you continue to ignore advice and not follow our rules here. That's all for now. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be going in circles and beating a dead horse. If you want me to have a conversation with a Bot for not having put in an edit summary which I subsequently did we're going to be going about this for quite some time. If I wanted to talk to a bot, I would go to the CleverBot website. In any case, I'll agree to drop it as this conversation is really nothing more than a distraction. If you would like to make proposals for my Sandbox efforts then I welcome further conversation. Orrerysky (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I already told you, once I am done with my Sandbox effort I will join in with the talk on the site and announce why I am going to be making the changes that I will be making then we can go from there. However, I will start that conversation after my Sandbox effort is complete. Right now, you're just bothering me by telling meI should have had a conversation with CleverBot first, which to me sounds rather ridiculous. Orrerysky (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, your constant harping on "edit warring" is baseless and without merit. Your own initial warning labelled edit warring as changing a post 3 times in a 24 hour period. Given that one of those reverts were the result of Bot interference, there was only 1 revert. Not 2, not 3, 1. You know what that means? By your own definition I have not engaged in any edit warring whatsoever. So quite frankly, I'm not interested in listening to any more of your baseless accusations. If you have an administrative supervisor I'd like to talk to him before I receive any further harassment from a bad admin. The mods in World of Warcraft have better customer service than this. Given the fact that that Download user's revert was labeled an "autoresponse" I see no reason to believe that wasn't a Bot either, especially since half of his user page is about the scripts he provides. People make mistakes, you're forgiven. Want to help with my sandbox or not?Orrerysky (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a bot, and I was fully aware that I was reverting your edit. -download ׀ talk 05:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you download. The autoresponse tags in your signature make it highly suspect.

Yet another unsigned response.

As for this thread, I was truly disgusted to read what was actually written (assume to be you because it is unsigned) that was originally placed on Arthur Rubin's talk page. It is also clear you here deliberately left out your own statement here to User:BullRangifer that says (Copy of my comment in a thread on User:Arthur Rubin's talk page.)

"A newbie obviously created the original article in the first place. I am going to replace it - completely. The Plasma Cosmology page should be about Plasma Cosmology. The current article is little more than the culmination of topic hijacking. It reads more like an article about the triumph of the Big Bang Theory than an article about Plasma Cosmology. It will be replaced - period. I hope you will approve of my changes. I plan to remove every reference to other models and focus solely on Plasma Cosmology. If you have no interest in the topic, then keep your hands off. Critics are not authorities. Advocates are not authorities. I will present a neutral article that deals solely with Plasma Cosmology. Furthermore BullRangifer, your strong insult will not be tolerated. talk 21:43, November 24, 2013 (UTC)"

BullRangifer has made no insult here. This is just another example an open threat by this User:Orrerysky. Please be polite, nice, and respect others. I again refer to WP:CIV.

Newbee or not, any future statements like this made against other users, will be referred directly to moderators. Editing in Wikipedia here is a privilege not a right.

You say "...there haven't been any objections from any other editors." Well I am one who is stating that right now. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case on plasma cosmology

Hello Orrerysky. Since you've chosen to begin your Wikipedia work with the article on Plasma cosmology, please be aware that this was one of the topics involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience:

The locus of this dispute in this case is the editing to a group of articles loosely connected to cosmology and related topics, including Big bang, Plasma cosmology, Intrinsic redshift and others.

This topic went to arbitration because of a series of disputes. As a result of the case, administrators are given power to impose discretionary sanctions on individual editors who work on plasma cosmology. Sanctions are only given if editors repeatedly violate Wikipedia policies. Read WP:ARBPS if you want to know the details. For your own editing, this should not cause concern provided you take special care that you make changes in the article only with consensus. You should endeavor to make article changes that are neutral in character, and simply reflect whatever can be learned from the published sources without adding any bias, personal opinion, or personal inferences from published information. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orrerysky, if you engage in edit warring at Plasma cosmology that is a quick way to get the attention of admins under WP:ARBPS. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, please show me how to lodge a complaint with the Arbitration committee with this topic. Orrerysky (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC) I would like the Bull guy removed and re-assigned to another issue. He claims to be an admin, trying to escalate a topic to you, so he must be an employee of some sort of your's. I wish to have a moderator or arbiter. Please inform on your company's escalation procedures. I have the number for the President of Wikimedia. I assume there is a customer service department of some sort for your organization that I can call.[reply]

Bogus 'Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion' postings.

If I see you post another bogus 'Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion' on a talk page, as you've just done on mine, [2] I will report the matter, and ask that you be sanctioned accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't bogus, you're camping of topics in order to enforce negative stereotyping, however is. Orrerysky (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was bogus because you didn't file a report at the edit warring noticeboard - presumably because you knew that it would rebound on you if you did. You were clearly trying to intimidate me. Well tough, it didn't work. As for 'negative stereotyping', and 'camping', I've only edited the article for the first time today. [3] To revert your muddled edit. For which you've still to provide a justification that doesn't involve nonsensical babble about sociology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend you take a little slower for a little while and let these matters to be sorted out. Let the process go through is natural machinations, else further actions will be taken against you.Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arianewiki1, I was instructed by the Admin to negotiate changes. So, you want to negotiate or are you only interested in enforcing your will? Personally, I were the admin here I'd toss you under the bus as your history of revision seems to do nothing but try to stir up the very "division" you claim to be against. Please support your claim with a scientific polling organization.

Another unsigned comment. Please use the four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comments please. Again, please refer to WP:CIV and stop threatening other users, as it will likely get further sanctions against you. I.e. "Personally, I were the admin here I'd toss you under the bus" is quite unacceptable.

As to my own recommendation to user Orrerysky, it was mostly regards in the 'Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion' which he had previously instigated. Clearly I was referring to this advice. [Since then, he was told to stop edit warring, but then disregarded that advice, and was subsequently banned for 31 hours by the moderator mostly for not being able to negotiate.] Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See [4]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are restricted to one revert per day on Plasma Cosmology for 1 month per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions

Following closer inspection of your actions on the article, I am imposing what is commonly called a 1RR restriction ( See: WP:1RR ) on you on the Plasma Cosmology article. The restriction is:

An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation."

This is applied per the warning above regarding Standard Discretionary Standards on this article and the Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions. As an uninvolved administrator I am imposing this restriction, effective from November 26, 2013 through December 26, 2013.

The restriction does not apply to discussions on the article talk page or other locations.

You may make any number of edits on the article per day, but only one of them may undo an edit another editor made. If you violate this rule during that time period you may be blocked from editing temporarily.

This restriction will be logged at: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Excellent work

Rosevfx (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit-warring. 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.  MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Previous administrative action allowed me to have 1 Revert. I have used only 1 revert since that notification and therefore this ban is inconsistent with 1 revert allowance rule. Orrerysky (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a crystal-clear 1RR violation. No, you don't get a free one to continue your edit war. Please take the time to collect your thoughts and develop a collaborative approach to convincing others that your position is correct. Kuru (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

• You've been edit-warring. You were told to stop edit-warring. You continued. Arguing the technical aspects of the 1RR restriction isn't likely to impress anyone, especially since there was already more than enough edit-warring on your part to justify a block, but I'll leave your request for the reviewing admin to handle. MastCell ^Talk 22:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell is correct. "Since that notification" is where you go wrong. That rule applies per 24 hour period, and you have been edit warring less than 24 hours ago. Actually even a single act of edit warring, whether it's a revert or not, will get you blocked at this point, and blocks will only get longer. Don't even think about trying slow edit warring which can stretch over days. It doesn't technically violate the 3RR bright line, but it's still edit warring, so even a single act of attempting to force your will over the objections of others can get you in trouble, so drop the stick and stop kicking the carcass.

"Since that notification" is where you go wrong. That rule applies per 24 hour period, and you have been edit warring less than 24 hours ago. Actually even a single act of edit warring, whether it's a revert or not, will get you blocked at this point, and blocks will only get longer. Don't even think about trying slow edit warring which can stretch over days. It doesn't technically violate the 3RR bright line, but it's still edit warring, so even a single act of attempting to force your will over the objections of others can get you in trouble, so drop the stick and stop kicking the carcass.

When you've been rejected again, and again, and again, you really should listen. Discuss until you reach consensus, WITHOUT making edits related to the issue. If you don't reach a consensus quickly and relatively painlessly, then stop pushing the issue, because such POV pushing is disruptive and wastes editors' time. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slow edit warring, so kind of like what those other fellows have been doing. I have no problem waiting a couple of days. You say I need a time out, I'll take your word for it. In the meantime I will just read over the User's Manual. Orrerysky (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to work on my Sandbox. Orrerysky (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not possible while you are blocked. Kuru (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Already started doing it in notepad. I'll talk to you folk in 30 or so hours. Orrerysky (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and thank you Orrerysky (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Kuru , I see some paranoids are actively worried about me using "sock puppets" perhaps they'd like to join 'us' off-site? Perhaps you would personally like to conference in on a skype call or join a facebook group? I am not responsible for the actions of others I may know. Now, we have a WoW raid tonight so you won't have to worry about anything from any of us for a bit and my other associates have left the office for the day. I am content to work on my sandbox in my own privacy.Orrerysky (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable concern given the history of sock puppetry on Wikipedia. WP:Meatpuppetry is probably and hopefully more likely. It seems pretty clear that there is some off-wiki canvassing. That doesn't mean that there are no sock puppets of course - you can't control what others do. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma cosmology semi-protected until 23:46, 26 February 2014

A consequence of all this disruption is that semi-protection of the article has become necessary. This will prevent Orrerysky and various meatpuppets and sockpuppets from disrupting it. Here is the edit summary:

• "(Protected Plasma cosmology: Apparent violations of WP:SOCK or offsite coordination. This article is under WP:ARBPS ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 23:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 23:46,)"

Orrerysky, I can assure you that no one at Wikimedia and Wikipedia, including Jimbo Wales himself (you can try appealing to him at User talk:Jimbo Wales when your block runs out), would ever protect any article you write as a substitute for any other article here. That will NEVER happen. You will have to deal with other editors and get their cooperation. The moment your article goes live, it can be deleted by any editor, and also edited by any editor. We edit collaboratively here. If you can't work in that environment, create your own wiki or website where you can work alone and do whatever you want without any interference, because that will never happen here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer, after a night chilling with my homeboys we determined we don't care for that page. I thank you for the valuable lessons in wiki rules & procedures and hope you will follow them in the future when I request your anti-vandalism services. Orrerysky (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Always at your service. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plasma-Redshift Cosmology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bohr and Plasma (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) 09:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case on plasma cosmology

Copying here material posted by User:EdJohnston to Wavyinfinityh. "Since you've recently edited Plasma cosmology, please be aware that this was one of the topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience:

The locus of this dispute in this case is the editing to a group of articles loosely connected to cosmology and related topics, including Big bang, Plasma cosmology, Intrinsic redshift and others.

This topic went to arbitration because of a series of disputes. As a result of the case, administrators are given power to impose discretionary sanctions on individual editors who work on plasma cosmology. Sanctions are only given if editors repeatedly violate Wikipedia policies. Read WP:ARBPS if you want to know the details. For your own editing, this should not cause concern provided you take special care that you make changes in the article only with consensus. You should endeavor to make article changes that are neutral in character, and simply reflect whatever can be learned from the published sources without adding any bias, personal opinion, or personal inferences from published information. Let me know if you have any questions." This applies to both current related articles and future ones, such as the one you just created. As it's quite possible you aren't aware of the whole of the arbitration decision I thought it only fair you be informed now. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Plasma-Redshift Cosmology

The article Plasma-Redshift Cosmology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

POV fork of plasma cosmology.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. jps (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the person proposing this article may have some confusion on the topic. "Plasma-Redshift Cosmology" is a cosmology based on the extrapolation of the "Plasma-Redshift" effect as explained by Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson. It should be viewed as "Plasma-Redshift" Cosmology not as Plasma-"Redshift Cosmology". As such this is a specific theory that began development independently of other proponents of other models.

Orrerysky (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no confusion. I agree it should be immediately deleted. Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page has broken no rules and is relevant to understanding work of notable figure Ari Brynjolfsson. Efforts to delete may be interpreted as vandalism. Orrerysky (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:VANDAL - and note that inappropriate accusations of vandalism are liable to be interpreted as a personal attack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Plasma-Redshift Cosmology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Plasma-Redshift Cosmology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plasma-Redshift Cosmology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ari Brynjolfsson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ari Brynjolfsson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Brynjolfsson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Orrerysky. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

jps (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing to "Articles for Deletion" discussions

Hello, Orrerysky. I noticed you added to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ari_Brynjolfsson – you may like to look at WP:DISCUSSAFD to see how people normally format their AfD comments. In your case, I think your comment would be classified correctly if you started the line with * '''Keep ''' – some tools look for the standard terms like Keep or Delete at the start of people's contributions. (Also, other editors will think you know what you're doing if you follow conventions ;)

Have a look at other AfD discussions to see the way that a consensus often builds up. I suggest you also change your contribution to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Plasma-Redshift_Cosmology to use the word "Keep", if that is your intention. Hope that helps. Best regards — Hebrides (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of merge tag

Please do not remove tags such as this when there is still a discussion, it is disruptive editing. It's the community that will decide, not you on your own. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Orrerysky/sandbox

User:Orrerysky/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Orrerysky/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Orrerysky/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. jps (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:PlasmaRedshift Function.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PlasmaRedshift Function.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plasma Redshift Hubble.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Plasma Redshift Hubble.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]