→Hello: re |
m →Hello: indent |
||
Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
::::(Well, although I didn't intend to insult you, you seem to be insulted, which means it was sarcasm.. anyway..) And no, I'm not sure I understand the need for "different prose".. are you suggesting that you have a style of prose that is incompatible with other styles of prose? |
::::(Well, although I didn't intend to insult you, you seem to be insulted, which means it was sarcasm.. anyway..) And no, I'm not sure I understand the need for "different prose".. are you suggesting that you have a style of prose that is incompatible with other styles of prose? |
||
:::The basic editorial decision making process is by [[WP:CONSENSUS]], and to me, consensus indicates that there isn't anything substantial wrong with the lead. Put simply: the old lead has consensus, and your rewrite does not. On the other hand, your initial move of rewriting the lead is supported by [[WP:BRD|the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle]]. You asked for opinions on your proposed lead, and GW raised broad ojbections to it. When you pressed him for details, he gave you very specific objections. Then you gave lengthy responses to his specific objections. This is where I stepped in to try and stop the unproductive discussion. |
::::The basic editorial decision making process is by [[WP:CONSENSUS]], and to me, consensus indicates that there isn't anything substantial wrong with the lead. Put simply: the old lead has consensus, and your rewrite does not. On the other hand, your initial move of rewriting the lead is supported by [[WP:BRD|the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle]]. You asked for opinions on your proposed lead, and GW raised broad ojbections to it. When you pressed him for details, he gave you very specific objections. Then you gave lengthy responses to his specific objections. This is where I stepped in to try and stop the unproductive discussion. |
||
::::Quibbling over a hypothetical lead that possibly won't even go in the article isn't helpful. The process will go more smoothly if ''you'' raise specific objections to the ''current'' lead, not other editors raising objections to your hypothetical lead. Because you rewrote the entire thing - how was I suppose to guess that your main objection was the lack of context with respect to space stations?? I'm not a mind reader.. if that's what you object to, then just say so (concisely!) and it will be discussed. It could lead to the addition of a sentence. But to expect a full rewrite of the lead paragraph of a featured article is, frankly, far too ambitious. [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] ([[User talk:Mlm42|talk]]) 21:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
::::Quibbling over a hypothetical lead that possibly won't even go in the article isn't helpful. The process will go more smoothly if ''you'' raise specific objections to the ''current'' lead, not other editors raising objections to your hypothetical lead. Because you rewrote the entire thing - how was I suppose to guess that your main objection was the lack of context with respect to space stations?? I'm not a mind reader.. if that's what you object to, then just say so (concisely!) and it will be discussed. It could lead to the addition of a sentence. But to expect a full rewrite of the lead paragraph of a featured article is, frankly, far too ambitious. [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] ([[User talk:Mlm42|talk]]) 21:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:28, 28 June 2011
Welcome!
Hi! Glad to see you here. I hope you find this place rewarding. Wwheaton (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Wwheaton, I'm glad to be here, thank you for your kind words.Penyulap (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Spaceflight
Re: International Space Station
- Well, I was just cleaning up the introduction to the page, but I definitely have an interest to spaceflight. Besides the fact that I actually flown the space shuttle on the simulator, I do express an interest to joining the WikiProject Spaceflight ->Challisrussia (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your talk--Eurobas (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Your edits on the International Space Station
The Space Barnstar | ||
Just wanted to let that your work on cleaning up the International Space Station article hasn't gone unnoticed. Good work on the article so far! :) SudoGhost™ 19:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
iss
that seems reasonable--- go for it--U5K0 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to just leave it the way it is unless someone starts complaining. The fact is that both of those images belong in that section and this is the only way i know to accmodate them. As for the rules, I will refer you to the one i like the most. --U5K0 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Frst of all I want to thatnk you for being so nice. You've been doing a lot of work on this article and when someone like me comes and starts messing with it you still have the patience to explain what you mean. I really apreciate that.
Regarding the points you made: I haven't looked this up in actual documents but from what i understand from following the ISS progam, the NASA youtube channel and Spacevidcast, I think that the Cultural outreach is part of education and should be classified as such. Bare in mind that education isn't just about students and kinds. Also, most people who know about the ISS, know about it from the media, which have regular access to the crew of the Station. As for the flow of the sections; I looked at it again and you're right. I'll change it back to EDUCATION, Sightings, Cultural Outreach. Adressing the links issue; you will notice that I didn't actually delete the links but repositionned them to the top of their respective sections to improve text flow and to pronounce those links more. I did eliminate one, namely Panspermia from the Space environment section which i thought had no direct connection with the topic. If there is one it should be added back to the section and the connection mentionned in the text. --U5K0 (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Request for arbitration concerning International Space Station
This message is to inform you that two members of the Committee have asked for more information relating to the above request for arbitration. Please respond at your first convenience at the request for arbitration thread. Thank you. AGK [•] 17:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to communicate privately with the arbitration committee, please email arbcom-lwikimedia.org or use Special:Emailuser/Arbitration Committee if that is more convenient for you. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
ANI discussion June 2011
This notice is to inform you that an incident in which you may have been involved is being discussed on the incidents subpage of the administrators' noticeboard.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Well done
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | ||
For your peacemaking efforts here. Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC) |
Fabulous approach. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad you genuinely like them. :) I myself tend to the definition at wiktionary: "Tact and subtle skill in dealing with people so as to avoid or settle hostility." I can see why you would not feel it applicable under your definition, but I think it is a fine demonstration of mine. So much of what goes on at ANI, unfortunately, is inflammatory that it is quite a pleasure to see such a warm approach to smoothing over conflict. I hope it succeeds. (Must be hard to decide what words to link, but I wonder why the editors linked "people" and not "hostility"?) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Hi. I see you're a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, and it's good that you are enthusiastic and being bold.. but you appear to have taken over the ISS talk page.. your very long posts are, well, long, and many people aren't going to read them all; so if you could make a little more effort to write concise posts, it would be much appreciated (see also the essay Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read).
I think largely speaking, other editors don't see a need to overhaul the ISS article. Can I ask why you are so enthusiastic to change it? It was quite a big achievement last year, led by Colds7ream, when it became featured. The editors that worked on the article are quite proud of that achievement (see the fourth, and final featured article candidacy). I can't speak for them, but if it were me, I'd probably feel like this FAR nomination is a bit of a slap in the face. I would interpret your nomination as somewhat confrontational. But maybe that's just me.. Mlm42 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Mlm42, thank you for you kind comments. Your right, I can't agree with you more about the length of the talkpage, I'm trying to keep it smaller, and more organized, but it is so very frustrating, I just finished the far essay part thingy, it should help explain. The reason it's so long on the talkpage is to try to get people who are overturning *some* of my work, basically just the lead and nothing else, to talk and explain why. I've tried everything I can think of on that count, and the talkpage has been the worse for wear.
- Yes I can see others don't see any need to overhaul, It's not an overhaul, it's an update and EXPANSION... it into the heavens. The scope of the subject is incredible. I'm not saying that anything is wrong at all, it was proper and good at the time, but the ISS hasn't stopped, it's changing and evolving for one, but for two. Can you tell me, how many robots are on the station ? how many stations have come before it ? how many computers, can you name the modules in order from one end to the other, or how many docking ports there are. Your expert on these matters, but even some of the simplest ones kids can't find in the article. I'm not saying the article is wrong, I'm just saying we can make it FA times two. times 3 times 4 and so on. It doesn't need poorly maintained articles breaking off yet, it's fine, lets just fatten it up and put some more meat on it's bones. Sure it's FA, yes, that's true, but why STOP there ?
- It's not meant to be confrontational, if you see how FAR's are meant to go in ideal circumstances, that is what I am aiming for, I do not want the FA status to change, but the work to be allowed to continue in a civilized fashion that the edit summaries do not describe.
- At the end of the day we are all on the same side or all meant to be, so if someone calls me a damnfool idiot I'll be mature and assume good faith, and know that when I'm not around I'll need that editors help to assist new editors to maintain the quality of the article. We all need to get along, and we all will, I'm telling you. I'm just not so experienced in dealing with online problems like these, rallying support, encouraging people to speak their mind instead of clamming up, but I'll learn. I'll ask for and be grateful for your support there, and offer everyone mine. Penyulap talk 17:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can you tell me, how many robots are on the station ? It depends on how you define "robot".. is a computer a robot? The Canadarm? How about the toilet?
- How many stations have come before it ? That information is better placed in the Space Station article. As you can see, it depends on how you count.. are we counting only stations that launched and had humans aboard at some point? The I guess the answer is 9 (as you can clearly see in the table in Space Station).
- How many computers. Um.. again, what definition of "computer" are you using? This is changing all the time.. so I would guess "lots", but I'm not sure there's a well documented answer to this question.
- Can you name the modules in order from one end to the other. Of course the modules aren't in a straight line anymore.. but along the main axis it's Zvezda, Zarya, Unity, Destiny, and Harmony. This is easily read off from the image in the infobox.
- or how many docking ports there are. Of course some of the modules are currently docked to docking ports.. do you want to count those, or not? Maybe you're asking how many currently available docking ports there are? I'm not sure exactly; it's changing all the time.. I guess you'd have to compare the list of currently docked spacecraft to the number of docking ports on each module, and add them all up.
- I just want to say that this article is not written for kids. It is an encyclopedia article written for the widest possible audience, which is not the same as writing for kids.
- I think adding length to the article would decrease its quality. That's an important point, that you appear to disagree with. Of course the article could be made longer, but that doesn't mean it's being made better. Sometimes the information is better situated elsewhere, in other articles. There are, after all, lots of other articles relating to the ISS (check out the 100+ articles in Category:International Space Station). This is the flagship article, and should only contain the best of the best. Mlm42 (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry the questions were actually rhetorical. My point is, none of these simple facts are included in the article. This is not the place to discuss what goes where, it belongs on that place other people refuse to use, called the article talkpage. Penyulap talk 18:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Penyulap, your posts have made the talk page so cluttered that it has made it nearly impossible for other editors to weigh in! This isn't meant as an insult, but rather an explaination to why you haven't been getting responses. Short, pointed questions, such as "What is the total number of docking ports on the station, and why isn't it in the article?" will be met with useful, productive discussion. The longer the post, the less likely people will respond.
- I'm sorry the questions were actually rhetorical. My point is, none of these simple facts are included in the article. This is not the place to discuss what goes where, it belongs on that place other people refuse to use, called the article talkpage. Penyulap talk 18:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Editor time is valuable, and by forcing other editors to spend time reading through massive blocks of rambling text (like Wikipedia:Featured article review/International Space Station/archive1) is not particularly helpful. We get that you're frustrated. But please, spend some time and be concise with your posts, and you will find the discussions will be much more productive and rewarding. Mlm42 (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree the verbosity in the past was a problem, it was also unavoidable. My honest, and clearly valid on the whole edits of the lead were repeatedly struck away without discussion. I have in no way until now been able to draw out these editors into discussing their stubbornness on the talkpage. I agree that my attempts to solve this problem have been diligent and ongoing, and that has created a lot of text. I think it is a fair statement to say that editors failure to consider what they are doing, and failure to discuss anything have contributed to this also. You, yourself, don't read my text, however this seems the only opportunity now, to use one sentence per point with OTHER editors to fix problems. Where one sentence, ten, one hundred have failed with the usual suspects, fresh perspectives will afford a fresh perspective that you and other editors are unwilling to give. Penyulap talk 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Editor time is valuable, and by forcing other editors to spend time reading through massive blocks of rambling text (like Wikipedia:Featured article review/International Space Station/archive1) is not particularly helpful. We get that you're frustrated. But please, spend some time and be concise with your posts, and you will find the discussions will be much more productive and rewarding. Mlm42 (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, your language and tone is not helping things at all. Please be WP:CIVIL in discussions. Incivility is highly discouraged at Wikipedia, and could even result in a block. I know you're new, but it's very important that you keep a cool head when discussing things with other editors. You're obviously passionate about this topic, but that's not an excuse to be incivil towards others. Mlm42 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
- Mlm42, I am not being uncivil here. You have insulted me by repeatedly and demonstrateably ignoring and failing to read what I am saying. you aren't taking the time to read what you are replying to. This is belittling my opinions and frankly saying " I don't think it's really worth wasting our breath over it." is not taking my concerns seriously enough. Penyulap talk 20:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Penyulap, I'm sincerely sorry if you feel I've belittled your opinions, or if you feel insulted that I haven't read everything you've said. But you are frustrated that people don't reply when you write a huge post, and then when I replied saying I hadn't read the entire thing this also caused you frustration. I know it's annoying when people don't read what you wrote, but hopefully you'll forgive me for occassionally doing that. Mlm42 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Look I'm not actually insulted, I just had to highlight to you what you are doing by saying I'm being uncivil in such a hypocritical fashion. It's for your own good, because we need to work together and your embarrassing yourself in front of everyone else by not reading what you are replying to. Sure, you don't want to read the whole page, thats a big ask, but at least read that section that your the first one to reply to. I don't mind if you want to delete or edit your original comment so it looks more like you've read the section. I don't want you to look that way. You clearly care enough to have a proper conversation. I'm sure you can offer a more thoughtful, or even brief, response. I think the subject is a raw nerve (but mostly for trolls) and it makes some editors act too fast before they have time to think calmly. Penyulap talk 20:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I've struck out the part of my comment I think you're talking about. Perhaps you'd like to close that discussion about ENG:VAR entirely, by adding {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} around it? Mlm42 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well actually that would be contrary to the stated purpose of that discussion, you need to acknowledge it is a source of contention, it makes people come out of the woodwork and become somewhat emotional. We need to, together, find the root cause of those feelings, in a civilized mature way, in order to heal them, so that everyone can move on together with a single spirit. Because it's been going on for a while now, and glossing over and ignoring the problem won't work in the future any better than it did in the past. An editor in the archive actually described it as a timebomb, I think thats overstating it, but lets consider it a matter of finding and defusing that bomb shall we ? (thanks for the archiving tip, I'll use it to great effect on other sections on the talkpage) Penyulap talk 21:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Secondly, you are obviously frustrated because you have tried to make major changes to the ISS article, and have been reverted several times. Please understand that it has been a featured article for over a year, and other editors may simply disagree that your changes are an improvement, but they don't have time to debate why. I'm taking a lot of time to talk with you right now; partially because you reached out to me, and partially because you're new and I want you to stay around.
As far as I can tell, the ISS is one of the few articles you have ever edited. This is unfortunate; it's difficult to make major edits to any featured article, not just this one. And it's only going to get harder when you start calling the editors that made it featured stubborn! I would hope that new editors try to start out a little small, to get more familiar with what is expected at Wikipedia. Try raising something up to Good Article status, for example. That's many many times easier than improving an already featured article. Mlm42 (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for belittling/overlooking the improvements I have made to the article. Thanks for pointing out that specializing is an 'unfortunate' thing to have done. I'm really happy you've taken the time to tell me this, is there any other compliment you'd like to pay me here or are we all done? Any chance of discussing the context of the ISS in relation to other space stations, or are we back to discussing me ? Penyulap talk 20:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't mean to belittle or overlook your improvements. I haven't gone through the history of the page, I don't know exactly what you've done. All I know is that you have expressed frustration that other editors when reverting your additions (based on your comments, not based on the talk page history). Everybody needs to make a conscious effort to keep a cool head; even your comment "I'm really happy you've taken the time to tell me this, is there any other compliment you'd like to pay me here or are we all done?".. is this sarcasm? It's hard to tell over the internet, but it might be. If so, they you should know that sarcasm is consider to be incivil.
- Anyway, I think it's worth having a discussion about the context of the ISS in relation to other space stations. I am, after all, part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Space stations working group, where we are trying to improve a wide-variety of articles that need a lot of work. My "wasting breath" comment I think (although not very nicely worded) is valid: there are better things that could be done with editor time than argue about whether it should be spelled programme or program - something that's easily changed, understandable to everybody, and doesn't change the content. Mlm42 (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well I think it's great if you have had a glance at the history page, that is where most discussion goes on it seems, rather than the talkpage where it is meant to be. I am talkative on the edit summary nowdays only to index what I am doing, so it's easier to find. If there is something that needs explaining I simply write see talkpage. The only reason I point out my own contributions on the page is not to toot my own horn, I don't care I'm anonymous. It's to highlight the insanity that is suggesting my draft lead is not in the same prose as the rest of the article. seriously, have a look at the talkpage in the latest draft of the lede section if you like, it lists the sections I have written. I don't care if it needs redrafting into a different prose that's fine, but that means the other sections I wrote need changing into different prose also. Nobody wants to address that, it's one of my major points. Do you understand it ?
- When you ask am I being sarcastic for saying "I'm really happy you've taken the time to tell me this, is there any other compliment you'd like to pay me here or are we all done?" please recognize this can only be sarcasm if you have indeed first insulted me, if you haven't insulted me, it's perfectly civil. Rather amusing don't you think ? is it sarcasm ? well you tell me. Is it sarcasm ? (lets call that one rhetorical shall we.) Penyulap talk 21:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- (Well, although I didn't intend to insult you, you seem to be insulted, which means it was sarcasm.. anyway..) And no, I'm not sure I understand the need for "different prose".. are you suggesting that you have a style of prose that is incompatible with other styles of prose?
- The basic editorial decision making process is by WP:CONSENSUS, and to me, consensus indicates that there isn't anything substantial wrong with the lead. Put simply: the old lead has consensus, and your rewrite does not. On the other hand, your initial move of rewriting the lead is supported by the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. You asked for opinions on your proposed lead, and GW raised broad ojbections to it. When you pressed him for details, he gave you very specific objections. Then you gave lengthy responses to his specific objections. This is where I stepped in to try and stop the unproductive discussion.
- Quibbling over a hypothetical lead that possibly won't even go in the article isn't helpful. The process will go more smoothly if you raise specific objections to the current lead, not other editors raising objections to your hypothetical lead. Because you rewrote the entire thing - how was I suppose to guess that your main objection was the lack of context with respect to space stations?? I'm not a mind reader.. if that's what you object to, then just say so (concisely!) and it will be discussed. It could lead to the addition of a sentence. But to expect a full rewrite of the lead paragraph of a featured article is, frankly, far too ambitious. Mlm42 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)