Talk:American Skyship Industries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Referencing[edit]

So... I've been criticized elsewhere for the references I've provided. I've tried to provide (as mentioned in the section about the media) that few on-line references exist. Would I be less attacked if I referenced the multiplicity of printed material at my disposal that few can reference? Who among you has access to a 1912 edition of Scientific American, with it's front page dedicated to an attempt to cross the Atlantic by airship? I'm guessing the answer is none. The six volumes of the Durand series on aeronautical engineering from 1934? Again, I'm guessing no. "No original research is allowed" - okay, I get it, but I'm not even trying to do that here; but what if the next Einstein went, "Hey, this time and space thing is kind of interesting..."

My point is, please, show some respect. For ideas. Somebody posts a thing like "I need a citation" because I take the time to bring it to the world's attention that the Slate airship was produced rotisserie style? I did it in a snap as soon as I saw it. I didn't have to go to my private stash of yellowing photographs and tattered publications to demonstrate; it was right there, for you to "Google with your bad self".

So stop. Just stop. Contribute or get out.

Cronkurleigh (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You can find the Wikipedia community's official policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. It includes links to some more detailed explanations, such as on offline sources. For example yes, a 1912 edition of Scientific American is just fine, far better than some online blog with a point of view to push. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The tag on the bit about the Slate airship was a request for clarification, not a citation. "Rotisserie-style" isnt very clear: some textual explanation is necessary, which the pictures would support or make clearer. As for sources, as Steelpillow says, print sources are certainly fine, genrally better than online resources especially for anything historical.TheLongTone (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet again you whine about your perception of "the process" instead of worrying about the information itself.

For instance, the Hybrid Airship page still remains a work of complete fan fiction, replete with false claims and outlandish spin on historical facts. Go get the facts straight there before whining about things here or in my sandbox. Of course I'm presenting equations from sources - but it's a freaking sandbox!

Meanwhile, Rome wasn't built in a day, and I've long range plans to build a site on Slate and refer to it - so while "rotisserie-style" may not be your preferred description, I showed pictures of the City of Glendale under construction to people from various walks of life, and 9 of 11 respondents called it a rotisserie, one a spit, and one "an elongated Ferris wheel". (Sorry I didn't have time to travel to the UK to get the vox populi on that...) So instead of going, "gee, you need to clarify that", you could have offered suggestions or even edited the phrase and noted why (uh, isn't that "the process"?). Cronkurleigh (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Unhelpful edit[edit]

User:Cronkurleigh reverted many changes made by several other editors who had added fact tags, formatted section headings correctly, deleted irrelevant material, and so on. This is just taking the article round in circles, so I have returned it to the last good state, of 8 April. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you guys whittled it away to nothing like a bunch of termites. Good title for this talk, though! Your edits were unhelpful, so I rewound the article to re-commence its development as intended. In fact, you and your ilk made so many edits that it was hard to retrieve what I had painstakingly created, and I had to revert to an earlier version than I would have preferred in order to recover the content. Now I will be saving copies to prevent your lack of relevant expertise from trampling on things all over again.
You started this war refusing to include facts with references on the "hybrid" airship page, reducing my contributions to nothing, and then running home to mama to report me - and mama said no dice. If you want to have an airship fan-fiction page, go right ahead and try. But seriously, get a life, and quit the bullshit of trampling all over other people's contributions. Get out there and do some research and contribute something new and knowledgeable instead of treating this like a first person shooter game. Whatcha gonna do? Go whine to mama again?
Cronkurleigh (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You ought to make a distinction between edits to content, and edits to format. The latter is a matter up for discussion (if necessary using mechanisms such as WP:Third opinion, WP:Dispute resolution) the latter is specified in the Wikipedia style manual which specifies for instance that section titles ought to be in sentence case, allcaps should not be used. A wholesale revert by any editor (which does not take into account intermediate edits) like those is not constructive.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Re. "running home to mama" - you misunderstand: I was seeking an independent voice to offer you the advice that you were clearly not willing to accept from me. The place to deal with disruptiveness is the Administrators noticeboard at WP:ANI, but so far your comedy value far outweighs that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Look, first you complain about the rotisserie thing, then I clarify with references despite existing plans to expand upon that both here and in an article about, then you and your pals completely remove the entire discussion - which was pertinent to the history of the company. No discussion here on that or the multiplicity of other changes you collectively imposed without so much as a by-your-leave... So I rolled it back, to get it back on track. That it might give you a taste of your own medicine is merely icing on the cake.
You and your mates have a lot to learn about genuine scholarship. In a mere 10 days you (collective) hacked my contribution to pieces without discussing anything on-topic here; you just biched about references and such, and changed things at will - just like you did when I added a few paragraphs for consideration with references that showed that adding aerodynamic lift to blimps is pure folly. But oh, my references are too old, too obscure, too controversial. You ran me out. And now you're running me out of my own contribution. Not very scholarly.
Cronkurleigh (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is engaging in discussion with you because you are so abusive and unwilling to acknowledge what we say, persistently failing to assume good faith in even the most experienced and dispassionate of your fellow editors. You refuse to accept Wikipeda's policy and whine like a turbopump when your fellow editors apply it. Yet you wonder why you are not embraced with open arms. It seems that you once got the hybrid airship bug professionally, then got painfully disillusioned when both your dreams and your job got ridden into the ground. For that you have my deepest sympathy, but it does not give you the right to ride Wikipedians into the ground. If you feel "run out" in your turn, it is only because you have consistently failed to discuss your edits with any semblance of civility. Our own manners may lapse from time to time, nobody's perfect, but your persistent rudeness and failure to respond to what is said are in a class of their own. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
For a start, you could learn to indent your comments properly, using the appropriate number of colons. That would be a simple politeness. 09:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
As for the rolling back, did you really think that all those several editors who felt they had improved your work would take it lying down? No, the way ahead is to recognise that you are in a minority here and to raise polite discussion on the talk page. Politely explain your concerns, and then carefully consider any responses to see whether any other editor might actually have a valid point to make. For example you might want to ask why a particular section was deemed irrelevant, or why a particular reference was not accepted, and then actually absorb the reply rather than rant against the assumed character of the editor concerned. I offer these as concrete suggestions on how to improve your experience here. Of course, you are free to launch another tirade against me in the space below here, I can always do with a laugh, but please do not expect it to do you any good. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Man is too busy shouting to listen. It's impossible to assume good faith when somebody shouts about how much they know and then spends an hour dropping sarky comments into somebody's userpage when the time could have been spent referencing a few of the assertions in this article, and follows that up by a rant on my talk page and another on his.TheLongTone (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, wow, that is utterly unacceptable, way past the line. Let me know if you want support in getting the account blocked. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
He's certainly acquiring rope on an industrial scale.TheLongTone (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. I plonked a nice clear warning on his talk page with links to NPA and vandalising, so now there's no excuse any more. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Again you change everything to suit your desires without so much as a conversation with me. You might want to think again on who's "acquiring rope". C'mon, you arrogant jerks. Bring it to mama's attention and let the real discussion begin. Cronkurleigh (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A conversation involves listening as well as sounding off: a skill you clearly lack.TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I, er, brought it to mama's attention: indef blocked — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

More aggressive pruning[edit]

I have taken out the entire section on graphics, as either non-notable or unverifiable, except for the best graphic. I have also reduced the story down elsewhere. Have I been too aggressive? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the pictures seem to be about the only thing that the company produced, but since the article is most likey going to be merged, it makes little difference. And as you say, unreferenced.TheLongTone (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)