User talk:N2e

You have a reply (eom)

and another.

and another one.

02:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

List of aircraft

Hello, me again. Yes I know there has been thorough discussion about citations, but instead of removing an entry could you somehow extend the life to give editors, (mostly just me) a chance to catch up. I was probably responsible for a lot of them and though verifiable, their origins are forgotten. It is extremely frustrating to look for an entry to find it has been deleted. Let us work together on this. instead of deletion refresh the tag or a hatnote at the top of each page explaining the rationale of the citation tags. When all is said and done the list is primarily a List of Aircraft,not articles, and is used as a tool to give better articles, so the less it is tampered with the better for Wikipedia. I know what the policies are, but they don't have to be strictly adhered to, particularly for unfinished articles.Petebutt (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Petebutt. Well, if there is no source supporting even the mere existence of the name of the aircraft, it really should not stay long-term in the Wikipedia main article space. It would be fine to collect those "to-be-done" sometime entries on the article Talk page, or perhaps in a sandbox space. I generally do not remove an unsourced claim unless it has been tagged requesting a citation ({{citation needed}}), and until that tag has been on for many weeks. And I would think that would be the standard practice for most experienced Wikipedia editors.

However, as a personal editor-to-editor arrangement, since I know you are personally working diligently to improve the List of aircraft articles, if you add a hidden comment on any {{cn}} tag indicating that you personally are working to find the missing source so you can add a citation, I would be happy to wait MUCH longer, say a year or so. That won't help you with other editors, but if I see you're working an issue, I'd be most happy to wait much longer. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually managed to find references or link them to relevant articles. I understand that you are trying to tidy up Wikipedia, but is it possible that you leave this corner alone for a couple of years till we get our act together. I have pondered the talk page or user space idea but it doesn't give the utility and ease of use than mainspace. All I am asking is to wait or extend the citation needed sell by dates (a lot). I shall endeavour to tag those being worked on but that might take as much resources as actually finding refs / citations.Petebutt (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith Petebutt. Hard to say what I will do with my Wiki-volunteer time. It was clearly unacceptable to have many mainspace articles, such as the numerous "List of Aircraft ..." articles were, with vast numbers of unsourced redlinks. Clearly, Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia exists first for the users/readers, not for the ultra-convenience of, even hard-working and dedicated editors, such as yourself. That leads to a general policy that says:

"If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.

"I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar."

--Jimbo Wales, July 19, 2006

The "List of Aircraft ..." articles are much better now. But there remains a culture of acceptance of totally unsourced redlinked claims by many (most?) of the editors who frequent those lists. My view is rather simple, if it doesn't have a source, a source that can be pointed to with a source citation, then it is best for that info not to remain in the encyclopedia, confusing our readers and lowering the quality of Wikipedia, at least temporarily. It can be added back when an editor wants to do the work to source the claim. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

CRS SpX-3

As of 25 November 2012, CRS SpX-3 is near the top of Wikipedia:Most wanted articles with 105 incomming links. Do you want to go ahead and start it? -Arb. (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you, very much, for your feedback on what I'm rapidly coming to think of as the "Synchronous Motor Debacle". I very much appreciate someone else chiming in who seems to understand where I'm coming from, and if there's ever a situation where you think my perspective might be helpful, please don't hesitate to contact me. Doniago (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't decide whether I'm sad or relieved to see that that entire derailed ANI discussion ended up going exactly nowhere (and personally I don't think it's a great practice that ANI threads can be archived without closure). I suppose the important part is ultimately that Synchronous motor did eventually get the attention it needed (or so I guess; I'm disinclined to look at it currently). I'm forced to wonder whether any editors walked away from the whole situation having learned anything though, and it would have been nice if certain editors had been told "No, it's not okay to talk to your fellow editors that way." Sigh. Doniago (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Phil Cantillon

Gibbo136 -- I have responded on the article Talk page, as well as provided you a Welcome to Wikipedia as a new editor on your Talk page. The edits you made had removed previously sourced material, and removed a number of valid requests for sources, while at the same time a small part of the material you added was sourced. I had thought it best to revert so you could start over and add only the sourced material; but I'm happy to go your way too, and just leave the sourced material while removing the unsourced material. N2e (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks N2e, i will try to keep futures editions to any articles short and backed up with citations Gibbo136 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gibbo, for the cooperative spirit. I have added additional comments on the article Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, N2e. You have new messages at Tom Morris's talk page.
Message added 15:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Tom Morris (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor Review

I am currently cleaning up the backlog over at Editor Review and I found this in the backlog. As it is no longer posted on the main page at Editor Review, I was wondering if I should remove it from the backlogs and put it to rest or if I should repost it for community review. I will remove it from the backlogs three days from now if I am not given a response.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 22:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a very old item. I barely recall it, or the circumstances around it. I'm fine if you just let it pass into the backlog ether. N2e (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am removing it now.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 00:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Zond 3

Glad to see that at least someone woke up ! It was indeed an experimental probe. Besides, "normal" Zond moonprobes used filmcassettes which fell back to Earth to be recovered by the Sovjets. Zond 3 wasn't equipped with it, since it would just fly-by Mars. There was however, a delay during construction which caused the launchwindow to close before the probe was ready for its journey to the red planet (a short time ago I wrote some articles for Dutch wikipedia about the early Russian space missions. During my research I was lightly horrified by for example Venera 2 on english wiki. Is that really all there is to say about it ?). Kind regards and please continue your work for english wiki (it is not my native language so I hope I don't make too many errors writing this), Maasje (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Space Barnstar

		The Space Barnstar
		For contributions to articles about spacecraft! Happy new year! Fotaun (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded for many years of contributions and improvements. Congratulations! Fotaun (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Kanasnick re: Psychological and sociological issues affecting expeditionary space missions

RESPONSE TO YOUR RESPONSE

Thank you for your response to my submission. I have found this to be a very frustrating experience. I have written a review paper summarizing the research from my lab and others on psychological issues in space. I keep getting accused of writing an essay, yet the last two versions of my manuscript are fact and review based, not opinion based, with ample use of references to papers and books. Apparently this type of review (which is common in scientific journals and books) is not acceptable to some of the Wikipedia editors, even though I have read similar accepted reviews in Wikipedia. An earlier version of my manuscript had some opinion, but this was deleted in the last two versions. However, I feel this submisson has been typecast somehow and that the changes have not been appreciated. I was encouraged to write this review by NASA, but it has been so frustrating and time consuming that I am thinking of submitting it to a journal instead.Kanasnick (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Kanasnick

Hi Kanasnick. I'm quite sorry for your frustration in getting this article going. I really think this article needs to be in Wikipedia, but I also think that it is okay that we'll have to work on it a bit and take some time to get it there. I did some edits to a single paragraph of the article, hopefully serving as a bit of an example of some of the kinds of things that might be needed. If we get the citations fixed in that particular paragraph, and the other paragraphs copyedited, linked and sourced in a somewhat similar fashion, I think you'll find the article will be accepted for Wikipedia.

I'm happy to help, but will have to do it on a rather slow and deliberate way as my two real jobs intervene, and I have a lot of Wikipedia areas I like to work on.

Also, I suggest you not think of the "essay-like" descriptive comments as personal accusations. I looked over many of the comments, and I think you are merely getting responses from various editors about the article content, not about you personally. I certainly meant my comments in good faith and to be constructive, with the aim of getting the article developed sufficiently so it can join the large body of WP:Spaceflight-related articles.

See if the stuff I did in that one paragraph might help you see a bit of an example of some things that other editors are likely to look for in getting away from the "essay-like" criticism. N2e (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the article and saw some changes that I presume you made. Specifically, you made some links (which I don't know how to do), and you took away the names of some investigators and put the sentence in the passive tense and alluded to the investigators by a reference. You also added places for references, but I note that most of these are from the same source. Do you intend to just repeat the reference numbers over and over? In scientific writing for review articles, once you mention someone at the beginning of a paragraph, it is assumed that the rest of the paragraph is from the same work. Anyway, I think I see what you are doing. Feel free to continue at you own pace. Let me know when you want me to review or do anything. Since I have a book to write and other projects to do, I will be checking this article irregularly--if you want, I don't mind your contacting me via email since I check that every day (and frankly I am more comfortable with that system than with the Wikipedia format, although I am slowly learning the latter). My email is: nick.kanas@ucsf.edu. Thanks for your help and sticking with me on this. Kanasnick (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Kanasnick

Wikipedia Ambassadors update

Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

Please do these steps as soon as possible

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:

• Special:CampusAmbassadorProfile
• Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

Communication and keeping up to date

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:

1. The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
2. The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
3. If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors ^connect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.

Ambassador training and resources

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, N2e. You have new messages at Wikipedical's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Wikipedical (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)