|
User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/February
I approached user brewercrewer but he didn't seem to want to read the discussion, so I went to user Sandstein and he threatened to block me. I'm asking for a third opinion because I don't think I did anything wrong.
I proposed an article for deletion and am having my contributions attacked without having my reasoning addressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Markvs88#My_deletion_tag_was_not_.22spurious.22 If others agree it shouldn't be deleted, ok, but I don't see why I deserve to be attacked and to have someone cast aspersions on my contributions.
The following are direct quotes directed towards me, and I don't feel I did anything to deserve them. I've done my utmost to remain polite.
"Yes, and for all I know you've made thousands of spurious page delete requests from random IP numbers."
"You can feel that way, but the deletion tag was spurious: it was a bastard effort."
"I've only pointed out that I'm not taking your word for anything (and why should I, since you can't be bothered to always edit from the same IP, much less make an account?). "
Regarding that, I have a dynamic IP which changes multiple times a day, as I explained to him more than once. It's not deliberate and it's not under my control.
" Yawn. Come back when you have something to say. Whomever you are"
That after I asked why he was linking to a policy page which had nothing to do with me.
"Nah, you're just wasting your time trying to pick a fight here. But thanks, I always enjoy having yet another stalker! BTW, if you're going to ask people such as user talk:Brewcrewer to look into me, I suggest that you not try to goad me over a week for replies over something which could have been easily solved (sixth time here!) by you commenting on the page you wanted to delete as to why."
I didn't "goad" anyone and neither did I stalk anyone.
"What makes you think I have it in for you, other than the same paranoia which prevents you from creating an account?"
I never said he "had it in for me", although it must be true if he's saying it. Then he accuses me of being paranoid for editing from an IP.
"Now you're just being petulant. "
I'm not petulant, I'm not paranoid, and I'm not a stalker. I fail to see why I deserve to be called these things because I edit from an IP. Thank you, 74.108.174.233 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. Sandstein and Brewcrewer both said no... how many people are you going to ask to help you with a "problem" that is of your own making? Georgewilliamherbert, I am happy to discuss this if you see any merit in it, but this user seems to think I'm his personal Lex Luthor or something. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Brewcrewer said nothing whatsoever regarding what I'm saying. He told me to go file some report which I don't know how to do. I do not think you're my "personal Lex Luthor", whatever that means. I merely am asking to be treated with respect. I edit from an IP. That doesn't mean I'm "paranoid" or a "stalker" or "trying to pick a fight" or being "spurious" or a "bastard" or anything else you said. I merely proposed a deletion, explaining my reasoning. 74.108.174.233 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- and Sandstein agreed with me. 74.108.90.205 (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- here's what sandstein said [1] 74.108.90.205 (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- thoughts? 74.108.84.64 (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to know how I can appeal this, as it seems very heavy handed for a 2RR infraction, and after I made an apology. I cannot deny there has been some edit warring in the past, but I did not go past 2RR in this instance, and I think the number of 3RRs in the past I have made is very small, and my discussion of the matter has been civil for the most part during the dispute. I would like to also make it clear (as some editors have misconstrued what I said) that I did not say Wikipedia was a cult, but borderline on being a cult. Well I will retract that remark given the opportunity and apologise for it as it was made in the heat of the moment and under pressure. DMSBel (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- The totality of your ongoing behavior convinced the community that a sanction was required. This is what happens when there's an ongoing problem for an extended length of time.
- I certainly hope that you are able to contribute positively in other areas; this wasn't a ban from editing completely, just from one topic that you seem to have a particular problem with.
- You can appeal to the community, or to the arbitration committee, as I noted on your talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- If I may jump in, I'd advice DMSBel to read WP:OFFER before thinking about appealing. Given the overwhelming consensus on the ban, appealing immediately is most probably going to result in a fiasco and would probably irritate the community even more. Wait six months, show consistently that you can be a productive contributor in other areas and odds will be much better. --Cyclopiatalk 22:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have filed at ARBCOM [[2]] to appeal my ban, I had not seen Cyclopia's comment above before doing that, neither do I understand what that is about exactly or if it applies to me.DMSBel (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
<Undent>Hi George, you told ArbCom: "no support for anything shorter than indefinite." I don't think that's correct. I said at ANI, "Oppose topic ban, especially in view of apology....All I'm saying is that if he's blocked or banned as a result of this discussion, it should be for a limited time." I also suggested limiting sanctions to one particular article, or limiting sanctions to removal of images. So there was some slight support for something shorter than indefinite, and also for a narrower scope. Would you please correct your statement to ArbCom? Also, I would have liked you to describe whether an indefinite topic ban is usually given without any user rfc, and without any escalating blocks. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if it seems I skipped over that. It wasn't unanimous, as you mention you opposed it. It was pretty overwhelming. We need a reasonable majority for consensus on things; this was far past that minimum level.
- I didn't think it made sense to do a response-by-response summary; anyone can go read the discussion, and everyone on Arbcom who responded seems to have done so.
- I didn't mean to minimize your opinion either, though. My apologies for that impression.
- It is unusual for someone to exhaust the community patience without a RFC having come through or escalating blocks, but not unheard of. I'll note that in a followup comment as well.
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the followup comment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You're forgetting that it was Herostatus who restored my comments [3]. I was quite willing to put this nonsense to rest. He wants a circus on the ArbCom pages for some reason. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I missed that - That's clearly not your fault for it coming back. His bad.
- That said, it needs to stop getting worse.
- The usual retraction method is to
strike through the test - <s>strike this through</s>.
- I am not going to order you to strike anything - it would be good, and would be a sign of good faith, but it's up to you. I won't sanction anyone for anything done so far, prior to warnings. But it needs to not keep going.
- Efforts made to calm things down would help and be appreciated.
- Thanks.
- Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Right, good points, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
My problem with the article is I can't find any source that calls any of these "constellation families". The only hits I can find in Google and Google books are all false positives. Since no evidence exists that the term is widely used, the article is synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thor - PLEASE STOP
- You have gone way way past normal or reasonable discussion on an article deletion page.
- Please also recall our policy on assuming good faith and our policy on not making personal attacks.
- You expressed your opinion on the article. If it's kept, discuss changes on the article talk page. Dumping that much information into a deletion discussion and attacking someone who complains about it are not ok.
- Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Georgewilliamherbert: I am defending BlueEarth's article. Too many people's good work gets slashed a little too quickly. This seriously needs to be considered by the choppers. Patience and time generates articles of great wonder. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say not to defend it. But you've gone insanely overboard in defending it.
- Defending it is fine. Causing a huge disruptive mess, even with good intentions, is not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a question, and could not find the answer on ANI. I have some connection to the Aspartame issue on there now, and I was thinking of commenting. That said, I was wondering if it was ok for non admins to comment there. Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Non-admins are welcome to comment. Please feel free to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
| The Downlink
|
|
|
| Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight
|
Issue 2, February 2011
|
|
|
| Project News · News from Orbit · Article News · The Charts · Yuri Gagarin
|
| Project News
|
|
A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing.
A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles.
The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field.
Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list.
Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved.
A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them).
Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk · contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project.
|
| News from orbit
|
| Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article.
On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission.
The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January.
Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit.
A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating.
The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated.
On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space Shuttle Discovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank.
At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February.
Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable.
|
| Article news
|
|
Reaction Engines Skylon is currently undergoing peer review, its discussion page can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Reaction Engines Skylon/archive1. A user requested feedback on major changes which had been made to the article, however at the time of writing no responses have been offered.
Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria.
Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved.
A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle
Questions surrounding the transliteration of Russian names resurfaced, with a proposal to rename Vladimir Chelomey to Vladimir Chelomei being closed with no consensus, and a proposal to rename Yury Usachov to Yuri Usachev ongoing.
Several long-standing merger proposals were closed. A proposal to merge Venera 15 and Venera 16 into Venera 15 and 16 was closed as no consensus, with the combined page being moved to Venera 4V-2 to reduce the overlap in the articles' scopes. Returnable satellite was merged into Fanhui Shi Weixing.
Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures was nominated for Good Article reassessment due to concerns over the article's quality. Doubts were also expressed over the thoroughness of the original review conducted upon its nomination for GA status. It was also suggested that the article's title may not be the most common name for the experiment, and that it might be necessary to move the page. Concerns were also raised regarding whether Space Interferometry Mission was up-to-date, however these are being addressed. Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet looks likely to be promoted to GA status.
Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article.
Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight.
Stop press: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet has now been promoted to GA status.
|
| The Charts
|
| There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories.
For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for January).
|
| Selected Article: Yuri Gagarin
|
| Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968.
His article describes him and his spaceflight experience:
| “
|
Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin (Russian: Ю́рий Алексе́евич Гага́рин, Russian pronunciation: [ˈjurʲɪj ɐlʲɪˈksʲeɪvʲɪtɕ ɡɐˈɡarʲɪn]; 9 March 1934 – 27 March 1968), Hero of the Soviet Union, was a Soviet cosmonaut who on 12 April 1961 became the first human to journey into outer space.
On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky.
|
”
|
The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission.
|
| Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute
|
|
- You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
This IP claims [4] to be the same user you previously banned from editing, and that also had a topic ban on Barack Obama and Abortion related articles before his ban indefinitely. He is openly admitting to editing from an IP disregarding his previous indefinite ban as well as topic bans by editing a Abortion related article at Planned Parenthood. I fail to see why such flagrant and admitted circumvention of wikipedia policies should be tolerated. (Note, I also posted a similar message on bureaucrat User talk:Nihonjoe to let them know).
To summarize, he clearly claims to be the blocked user, and is therefore already violating policy (I believe), but is also editing in areas that he had a topic ban in before his indefinite block. WikiManOne 09:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
My comment on Killdec's talk page was unnecessary. I have stricken it. Thanks for setting me straight. NW (Talk) 03:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
first i want to think you for supporting my appeal for an unbanning.
I plan on adding content to this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids
regarding raids carried out by the islamic prophet muhammad.
i once used this book, but noticed reference to it was removed for 2 major reasons
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FhjPV9mVnNEC&pg=PT10#v=onepage&q&f=false
1. I directly copied certian text from that book (leading to copyvio)
2. The author is not considered notable by some contributors.
I want to know whether i would be able to use the source (given above) as a reference for material or opinions i add? or should i avoid using it all together--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Could you please link to the SPI in which the evidence for this block was presented. If there isn't one, then could you please present the information on which this block is based? Cla68 (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- It was primarily behavioral, but was followed by a private CU which confirmed and led to blocks on TidyBorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Pachuco cadaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Slight correction - the CU was done and Will marked TidyBorg as having been caught by the CU but forgot to actually block. I just blocked TB. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Georgewilliamherbert. Delia Peabody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC) .... Please arrange to have this information forwarded to me for my review, thanks. This smacks of Scibaby-ism. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Emailed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
|
