User talk:JustinTime55: Difference between revisions
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
== Alternatives to Wikipedia. == |
== Alternatives to Wikipedia. == |
||
I suspect that you may be interested in other alternatives to Wikipedia, given that so many ugly happenings in the meta side of Wikipedia (i.e. [[WP:CANCER]]) had occurred recently. |
I suspect that you may be interested in other alternatives to Wikipedia, given that so many ugly happenings in the meta side of Wikipedia (i.e. [[WP:CANCER]], the unduly harsh treatment of [[User:Chinakpradhan]] after being caught out making innocent mistakes in form of copyvio) had occurred recently. |
||
* [https://justapediafoundation.org Justapedia] (made by [[User:Atsme]], WIP) |
* [https://justapediafoundation.org Justapedia] (made by [[User:Atsme]], WIP) |
Revision as of 07:00, 31 January 2023
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
|
Citations on Space Age
Hey Justin, I had added a BBC foreign language citation into the article which you reverted under "citation overkill". Just for your information it is partially a result of an ongoing discussion at WP:NPOVN#First_human_spaceflight, and on the verge of going to WP:RFC due to it on a tense stalemate.193.233.171.17 (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'm aware of the NPOVN. You are the one which seems to be defying consensus; another user, @Ilenart626: has also removed your citations from the other two, citing lack of consensus. As the Overkill essay says, simply coat-racking more citations to support your side can be bad form. A Chinese version of BBC doesn't really add anything to verify Gagarin's first spaceflight (which is not in contention anyway). JustinTime55 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- As Chipmunkdavis might say, "tense stalemate"
is certainly one way to describe all other editors agreeing
that your suggestions are bad. TompaDompa (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)- Thanks for the support; glad to see I'm recognized as a "subject matter expert". I've stayed out of the fray; it seems like way too much WP:Wikidrama being made of a dispute which should be easily resolvable by growing the hell up and presenting the verifiable mainstream facts in a NPOV way. These facts are without lack of historical consensus:
- Gagarin is acknowledged as first human in space and in orbit; as the FAI decided, it's a trivial technicality he didn't land in the craft.
- Shepard is the first American in space; also first to control his spacecraft and land in it (but no cigar as far as "first in space" goes).
- The FAI's pedigree to acquire jurisdiction as the world's authority on spaceflight (strikes me as) a bit dubious, given they were an airsports association; nonetheless, they have become so recognized.
- The Ukranian war is tragic, but really has nothing at all to do with this. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're welcome. By this point can that passage be pared down to something like "first to control his spacecraft and land in it" with the Praxis citation? That "land in it" is also a bone of contention between me and User:TompaDompa since for them it's like putting Dyomin's "first grandfather in space" on those articles. If this can be resolved amicably then the RFC would not be needed, saving everyone's time. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- @JustinTime55: I have put a possible last-minute solution involving the paring down of the passage and the addition of footnotes consisting of a near carbon copy from Yuri Gagarin regarding the FAI technicality. In order to help put the drama to rest, we'd be thankful if you can weigh in there, even for once.193.233.171.17 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Antennae
Your comment on the edit on 'list of artificial objects leaving the solar system' was 'insects have antennae, radios have antennas' ... you might want to goggle the following phrase "Hackers can turn computer cables into antennae to steal data". A lot of sites might disagree, as well as many an online dictionary ... :) The Yeti (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Ringslot vs ringshot
I moved this thread to Talk:Apollo command and service module to get more eyes on it. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mach.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Big Mac special sauce
Special sauce similar to thousand island dressing is addressed further along in the article; there is no need for it to be in the lead. You did not add quotation marks to all the 'special sauce' terms in the article. Why not? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- Good Wikipedia articles are written in WP:summary style, such that the introduction summarizes the main body. So, yes there is need for it to be in the lead. This is so that readers with short attention spans don't necessarily have to read the entire article.
- I don't know. I guess I don't care if the quotes are used or not, but there's not necessarily a requirement for them all to be consistent. That seems like nitpicking to me. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is either "special" or special. Caring or not guessing. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Alternatives to Wikipedia.
I suspect that you may be interested in other alternatives to Wikipedia, given that so many ugly happenings in the meta side of Wikipedia (i.e. WP:CANCER, the unduly harsh treatment of User:Chinakpradhan after being caught out making innocent mistakes in form of copyvio) had occurred recently.
- Justapedia (made by User:Atsme, WIP)
- Encycla (It is based on Git)
The first one is particularly interesting, given that they had copied the entirety of Wikipedia as a fork while its corresponding Wikiproject Space is still empty yet, besides promising of being a more neutral, objective and inclusionist alternative. Cheers. 176.9.32.205 (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)