User talk:Penyulap/archive1

2011 archive

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)

By the way, if you had read my responses, most of these are not "simple facts", and many are already in the article. Only the number of docking ports question is missing. Mlm42 (talk) 19:29, 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.

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)

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)

Oh dear.. the problem is that there is never going to be a widely accepted solution, and there will always be people who disagree. Reigniting the flame for no particular reason will only make more people angry, and cause unnecessary stress for everyone involved. Because seriously, there's no perfect outcome. Even if it does end up getting changed, somebody's going to bring the same issue up again, regardless of previous consensus - the timebomb will keep exploding forever.. please don't set it off just because you think you can defuse it. All for a few spelling choices? Our time is better spent elsewhere. Mlm42 (talk) 23:23, 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)

I'm not the one that is suggesting I have a different prose, it's the most often quoted reason for my cleanup proposals failing. They only fail on the lead btw. If you want my sincere opinion there are people who care more that the lead itself doesn't change, than whether or not it is correct. Prose is simply their excuse to prevent it's updating. Further, I've put plenty of fixes and patches into the lead already, I'm sick of it. It's a patchwork mess. It needs a rewrite. I'm no less capable of rewriting the lead as any other section. Editors are not assuming good faith, they are simply assuming. They aren't looking at the changing facts of the ISS project, they are looking for any change to the lead. They have no interest whatsoever in considering a new lead regardless of how many errors it fixes.Penyulap _talk 21:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the part where you 'stepped in to try and stop the unproductive discussion.' is exactly where you stepped in to prevent normal functioning of the talk page. GW was the only helpful person in a long time, I changed the draft for some points he made, asked his further advice on others. I'm not seeing how this is unproductive ? it is the point of the talkpage. Are you actually trying to prevent wide consensus by stepping in to stop discussion before other people have had a chance to have their say ? It's been there 3 days, and your already trying to 'STOP' it ? whats the agenda here ?

I've wrapped those archive tags around 3 or 4 sections already.. i think it takes hours to a day to work is that right ? Should be nice to get some order there. Your advice is great. Penyulap _talk 21:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Break

I'm not convinced other editors are assuming you have bad faith. From what I see, they simply don't think your version is better than the current version. In fact, if anyone, I think it is you who is assuming bad faith? You said: "If you want my sincere opinion there are people who care more that the lead itself doesn't change, than whether or not it is correct." You are clearly frustrated, and I'm trying to help, but you're not making it easy.. you said again that you think the lead needs a rewrite. But consider: does anybody else think the lead needs a rewrite? As far as I can tell, you are the only person who thinks this.. that's how I'm concluding the new lead doesn't have consensus, and that the discussion with GW was unproductive.

Also, you keep saying that the lead has "errors"? Can you please point to one? I think all of the editors would be very grateful if you could help fix an error in the lead (or anywhere in the article for that matter). Notice that lack of mention of the previous space stations in the lead is not an error, but rather an editorial judgement (that might be changed).

You asked about "my agenda". My agenda is to (attempt to) ensure that all changes made to the ISS article are backed by consensus.

As for the discussion closing tags, yeah, it's just to let other editors know the discussion is over.. the sections will be automatically archived after 15 days, as usual. Mlm42 (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):When you say 'my version' which version do you mean, there are many drafts, and many revisions of those drafts, which version is it 'they' don't think is better ? also, who is they ? GW is a group?

Does anybody else think the lead needs a rewrite ? I think the point I've been trying to make here is that people don't want the lead rewritten, and I'm investigating why. I already know there is no consensus, thats why I would like to continue discussing it past the 3 day / 1 comment mark.

Errors in the lead ? possibly you'd like to have a look on the talkpage for one of the sections with that name ? there are more in archives. Penyulap _talk 22:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "3 day / 1 comment"? If you're talking about this discussion, I see 4 people involved in the discussion: You, me, GW, and NavyBlue. Everyone but you appear to be fairly firmly in favour of the current lead instead of yours. Mlm42 (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I'm no less capable of rewriting the lead as any other section." Please understand that when other editors revert changes to the lead, they aren't judging you personally, they are judging what has been written, regardless of who wrote it. Mlm42 (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That is the last thing on my mind altogether. I don't take it personally in any way. I look for judgments on what has been written, however, if I ask, sometimes there is nothing forthcoming that relates to the facts. I'm wondering if you could take the time to have a look through the comments I have written on the talk pages and in the archives. I don't think it's useful for me to say things that you may well go and read me saying on the talkpage, that would waste your time, and I don't want to do that any more than read out to you what is already there, here on the userpage, so if you'd like please feel free to take a break from this page, and have a good read of the talkpage, It answers many of the questions you've asked. I'll be happy to answer any questions and continue discussion. Penyulap _talk 22:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is what I mean, when I say you're not making it easy.. I simply asked you to point to a mistake, and you instead deferred me to previous discussion - many of which I've read. Can you at least give me a link to a talk page discussion where you point to a specific mistake? I don't have time to read every single thing you've ever written on the talk page of the ISS.. sorry. I read the archived discussion you started about the lead, but I don't see any "mistakes"?

If there is actually a mistake, I don't understand why it's so difficult to articulate precisely what that mistake is.. I think one of the problems might be that you think something is a mistake and others disagree with you.

TheDJ gave you some advice some time ago: "Please, you really should get a bit more editing experience before you start just whacking away large parts of articles that are already of a high quality. And please try to be less emotional about the topic, it influences your writing too much." Although this may sound harsh, I believe it is good advice for you. Mlm42 (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap, I want to see if I could help as well on this topic. I am by no means an expert editor in WP, but I too thought early on that I was going to make some great changes from the start. What I found is that you don't know what you have not yet learned or experienced. I found that WP is a very dynamic living world full of many types of people. Most of them are positive and want to work together. I and the other editors appreciate your passion, and I must say I learned so much about WP from spending time editing lower quality articles. My sincere advice to you would be to consider the following:

• Always assume all editors are NOT trying to insult you and keep a thick skin; turn the other cheek.
• Go to WP:PR and follow the steps to featured articles; it will make you an even better editor (it certainly did for me). It is hard to know what would make a FA even better until you take one from a C or B class up to GA and then to FA. Then you will understand how the other editors feel about some of the things you are suggesting considering the possibly hundreds of hours of massaging and getting consensus on the current article to obtain FA status.
• Be bold, but when you hit resistance reconsider your plan until you spend more time understanding why editors are resisting your changes. Being bold on a current FA might be considered vandalism by others no matter what you think of your changes.

I hope my message reaches you with a very positive, and warm feeling as it was intended. I agree with Mlm42 that you are a very valuable editor at WP already. The more you contribute to WP the more you will learn and understand what might not be apparent. I'm still learning myself. See you around the water cooler and feel free to drop by my talk page any time. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)