Content deleted Content added
m →Discussion: fix |
|||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
*{{ec|2}} {{reply|Dravecky}} I fully agree with your comment. This RfC is also unnecessary but taken along with the unjustifiable edit-warring to remove the perfectly well-sourced and relevant list of functions and roles of the boat points to signs of problematic editing. [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λόγος]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πράξις]]</span></sup></small> 07:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
*{{ec|2}} {{reply|Dravecky}} I fully agree with your comment. This RfC is also unnecessary but taken along with the unjustifiable edit-warring to remove the perfectly well-sourced and relevant list of functions and roles of the boat points to signs of problematic editing. [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λόγος]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πράξις]]</span></sup></small> 07:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::While I do know we experienced some problematic editing [[Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Leschi_(fireboat)|that you were cautioned on by a few editors at my original DYK for this ship]], I think this was a good learning experience for you and I don't think it's necessary to inject that into this conversation. Let's keep it focused on the RfC. This is an article on a fireboat, not the Gaza Strip. Thanks. [[User:LavaBaron|LavaBaron]] ([[User talk:LavaBaron|talk]]) 07:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
::While I do know we experienced some problematic editing [[Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Leschi_(fireboat)|that you were cautioned on by a few editors at my original DYK for this ship]], I think this was a good learning experience for you and I don't think it's necessary to inject that into this conversation. Let's keep it focused on the RfC. This is an article on a fireboat, not the Gaza Strip. Thanks. [[User:LavaBaron|LavaBaron]] ([[User talk:LavaBaron|talk]]) 07:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::::{ |
::::::{{ec}} Your strange references to the Gaza strip notwithstanding, I don't think you read my comments above because if you had done so you would have seen clearly that the mission statement included two sourced functionalities for the boat that did not exist in the rest of the article. Now please quit badgering me and don't clutter this discussion with irrelevant comments. [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λόγος]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πράξις]]</span></sup></small> 07:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Dr. K - I'd like to request you not describe other editors contributions using emotive language like "irrelevant comments." I really hope we can work together as a team on improving this article in a spirit of mutual respect. I think you have a lot to bring to this article. Let's start a clean slate, okay? [[User:LavaBaron|LavaBaron]] ([[User talk:LavaBaron|talk]]) 07:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::::::Dr. K - I'd like to request you not describe other editors contributions using emotive language like "irrelevant comments." I really hope we can work together as a team on improving this article in a spirit of mutual respect. I think you have a lot to bring to this article. Let's start a clean slate, okay? [[User:LavaBaron|LavaBaron]] ([[User talk:LavaBaron|talk]]) 07:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::::::[[WP:IDHT|One more time: Factual descriptions of your edits are not "emotive"]], however hard you may be trying to depict them as such. Please [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]]. Once you drop the "emotive" stick, [[WP:AGF|I am willing to work with you to improve the article]]. Sound good? [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λόγος]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πράξις]]</span></sup></small> 07:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
::::::::[[WP:IDHT|One more time: Factual descriptions of your edits are not "emotive"]], however hard you may be trying to depict them as such. Please [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]]. Once you drop the "emotive" stick, [[WP:AGF|I am willing to work with you to improve the article]]. Sound good? [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]] <small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λόγος]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πράξις]]</span></sup></small> 07:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:52, 12 October 2015
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
career flag
I've added the U.S. flag to the "career" section of the infobox as per Infobox ship usage guide for ships on the U.S. registry. LavaBaron (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Mission Statement
Should this article include or omit the official "mission statement" of this ship? LavaBaron (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Survey
- Omit Mission Statement. As per WP:MISSION, directly placing an official mission statement into the body of the article should be avoided except when it asserts notability or has been the subject of commentary by secondary sources. Neither is the case with the mission statement of this ship. LavaBaron (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Include as it's a relevant, short, and properly sourced fact about the subject of this article. Does this minor content spat really rise to the level of a thoroughly canvassed RfC? - Dravecky (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep WP:MISSION is written for organisations and companies, not boats. The boat's mission statement is not in any way promotional or flowery and it is not written by the boat owners but by a reliable, secondary source. This is not the self-written, self-promoting mission statement of a company. It is a detailed description of the different roles and functions this boat is capable of performing and it is written and supported by Professional Marine Magazine, an eminently reliable source. There is absolutely no basis for blanking perfectly NPOV and essential encyclopaedic information about the mission and functions of the boat which is also presented at the lead and was used to support the DYK hook description "pumping station" and which was justified, explained, presented and passed at DYK, including an additional functionality of the boat not found in the rest of the article. Quote from the link at the DYK review:
The mission statement also includes an additional functionality of the boat as a "mobile fuel station" which was not in the article before I added it
. Even David Eppstein, the final DYK reviewer, commented about the description "pumping station" which is sourced only in the mission statement. This bizarre removal of crucial, reliably-sourced, details for the boat through edit-warring is not constructive, should never have occurred and should stop immediately. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I spent a good deal of time writing this article and creating the images used in it so I, of course, appreciate the extremely passionate interest you seem to have taken in it, "Dr. K." It's great we have a tool like the RfC to rapidly resolve minor content disagreements. I'd like to just kindly ask, however, you try to avoid emotive words like "bizarre" to describe others edits. If you might kindly consider refactoring your comment above, I'd be okay with you then deleting this comment of mine. Thanks very much - LavaBaron (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nice try to paint my description of your bizarre edit-warring as "emotive". Nothing "emotive" about it. Just a fair and factual description of an unjustified removal of perfectly valid content followed by an equally unjustified edit-warring on your part to get it removed. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm sorry my request upset you, it was not my intention. Let's try to work together to dial this RfC down a notch. My objective with this article was to get it advanced to GA so it would be great to get a fast outcome on this RfC - whichever way it goes - so article stability doesn't become an issue. Let's start a clean slate and partner up as a team on this, Dr. K - sound good? LavaBaron (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Nice try to paint my description of your bizarre edit-warring as "emotive". Nothing "emotive" about it. Just a fair and factual description of an unjustified removal of perfectly valid content followed by an equally unjustified edit-warring on your part to get it removed. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I spent a good deal of time writing this article and creating the images used in it so I, of course, appreciate the extremely passionate interest you seem to have taken in it, "Dr. K." It's great we have a tool like the RfC to rapidly resolve minor content disagreements. I'd like to just kindly ask, however, you try to avoid emotive words like "bizarre" to describe others edits. If you might kindly consider refactoring your comment above, I'd be okay with you then deleting this comment of mine. Thanks very much - LavaBaron (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry my request not to describe me as bizarre upset you
Again, please stop your personal comments. I see you experience some difficulty doing so, but I am patient, so I will wait until you comply with my repeated cautions about personal comments. Please stop adding comments with baseless insinuations. Thank you again. As far as cooperating to make this article the best it can be, it goes without saying, as long as you adhere by basic policies such as CIV and NPA. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)- That's okay, no need to apologize, I have a pretty thick skin! I wasn't offended by the "bizarre" comment about me, I just wanted to make sure the RfC stayed focused on the topic, instead of becoming a tête-à-tête, as sometimes occurs. Anyway, thanks for your reply and looking forward to our new collaborative approach, Dr K! Best - LavaBaron (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
- To Dravecky's comment; I do not dispute it is short and properly sourced. However, the guidelines laid-out in WP:MISSION are there for a good reason and do not give exception for brevity or sourcing. Ship-related articles on WP follow a relatively rote format for reader familiarity and comprehensibility that does not - in cases of good articles - include things like "mission statements." We should not both (a) trump the well-established principles of WP:MISSION, and, (b) depart from established format to create an entirely unique arrangement of an article for this one, very minor and unremarkable, ship (not a disparagement of the vessel - I say this as the person who wrote 99.9% of this article and contributed two of the three images) unless there is an overwhelmingly good reason. It's "short" and "there's a source" doesn't meet the standard of an "overwhelmingly good reason." Encyclopedias just don't include "mission statements" or advertising slogans. LavaBaron (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- To "Dr. K.'s" comment - I assure you, as a person who has more than a tangential awareness of this vessel, who wrote the article, and who escorted it through an unnecessarily delayed DYK occasioned by your mistaken insistence that the hook had to be repeated verbatim in the article (which two different editors ultimately had to correct you on), the mission statement most certainly and absolutely originated with the Seattle Fire Department. Finally, the ship is absolutely included in WP:MISSION. The fact that WP:MISSION doesn't include an exhaustive list of every possible noun in the English language is obviously not a statement of exclusion. This is an organizational component of the Seattle Fire Department, an organization. LavaBaron (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- One more time: The functions and roles of a boat are crucial and required descriptions so that readers are informed about what the boat is capable of doing. It has nothing to do with promotion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- One more time: The content of the "mission statement" is repeated in greater detail 3 lines following it so it's unreadably duplicative text that doesn't contribute anything that isn't already there. Further, it violates WP:MISSION and it violates the well-established format that GA-classed ship articles follow (this is not GA-classed, but my hope was to get it there, and, honestly, your sudden decision to inject yourself into this article after your abortive effort to review it at DYK that other editors had to take over is not helpful right now - though the effort is appreciated and taken at GF). LavaBaron (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Again, there were two functionalities that were not included in the rest of the article. Please read what I wrote just above with quotes, but more carefully this time. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, actually there aren't. (Again, Dr. K., this is an article on a fireboat, not the Gaza Strip. It's not necessary to pepper your comments with wikilinks to essays like "Failure to Get the Point" when replying to comments by other editors. We can disagree on content and still treat each other with kindness and respect. Thanks again for your contributions.) LavaBaron (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- One more time: The content of the "mission statement" is repeated in greater detail 3 lines following it so it's unreadably duplicative text that doesn't contribute anything that isn't already there. Further, it violates WP:MISSION and it violates the well-established format that GA-classed ship articles follow (this is not GA-classed, but my hope was to get it there, and, honestly, your sudden decision to inject yourself into this article after your abortive effort to review it at DYK that other editors had to take over is not helpful right now - though the effort is appreciated and taken at GF). LavaBaron (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) @Dravecky: I fully agree with your comment. This RfC is also unnecessary but taken along with the unjustifiable edit-warring to remove the perfectly well-sourced and relevant list of functions and roles of the boat points to signs of problematic editing. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- While I do know we experienced some problematic editing that you were cautioned on by a few editors at my original DYK for this ship, I think this was a good learning experience for you and I don't think it's necessary to inject that into this conversation. Let's keep it focused on the RfC. This is an article on a fireboat, not the Gaza Strip. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Your strange references to the Gaza strip notwithstanding, I don't think you read my comments above because if you had done so you would have seen clearly that the mission statement included two sourced functionalities for the boat that did not exist in the rest of the article. Now please quit badgering me and don't clutter this discussion with irrelevant comments. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Dr. K - I'd like to request you not describe other editors contributions using emotive language like "irrelevant comments." I really hope we can work together as a team on improving this article in a spirit of mutual respect. I think you have a lot to bring to this article. Let's start a clean slate, okay? LavaBaron (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- One more time: Factual descriptions of your edits are not "emotive", however hard you may be trying to depict them as such. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Once you drop the "emotive" stick, I am willing to work with you to improve the article. Sound good? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Dr. K - I'd like to request you not describe other editors contributions using emotive language like "irrelevant comments." I really hope we can work together as a team on improving this article in a spirit of mutual respect. I think you have a lot to bring to this article. Let's start a clean slate, okay? LavaBaron (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Your strange references to the Gaza strip notwithstanding, I don't think you read my comments above because if you had done so you would have seen clearly that the mission statement included two sourced functionalities for the boat that did not exist in the rest of the article. Now please quit badgering me and don't clutter this discussion with irrelevant comments. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Can you point to a specific diff where I get "cautioned" by an editor, as opposed to just an expression of disagreement with my position regarding the phrasing of the hook? Otherwise, please retract your baseless statement. Also what you think about "my learning experience" is irrelevant so please follow your own advice and focus on the issues and not on other editors. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well the entire DYK is you demanding the hook must be repeated verbatim and other editors telling you, no it doesn't [1], [2], etc. Sorry, I thought you were referring to the problems you had at the DYK when you mentioned "problematic editing." If it was not, my genuine apologies. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- While I do know we experienced some problematic editing that you were cautioned on by a few editors at my original DYK for this ship, I think this was a good learning experience for you and I don't think it's necessary to inject that into this conversation. Let's keep it focused on the RfC. This is an article on a fireboat, not the Gaza Strip. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)