Contents
- 1 A belated welcome!
- 2 WikiProject Spaceflight invitation
- 3 what you did was totally uncool!!!!
- 4 SpaceX reusable launch system development program
- 5 ITN credit
- 6 File:SpaceX Grasshopper rocket midflight.png
- 7 Reference errors on 8 May
- 8 On Working with New Wikipedians
- 9 Tombaugh Regio has been nominated for Did You Know
- 10 DYK for Tombaugh Regio
- 11 Many thanks for the warm welcome :)
- 12 Discussion
- 13 Birds of the Himalayas
- 14 Notability standards
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Appable. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Editor's index to Wikipedia
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 17:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I appreciate the welcome! Mostly been busy around the spaceflight section. Testing the signature: Appable (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Ramillav (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Spaceflight invitation
Hi there. A group of us congregate and discuss making Wikipedia better in its spaceflight coverage over here. You would be most welcome to join us. N2e (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
what you did was totally uncool!!!!
I want a reason why you blanked my page, which is going to be one of the major ones for the 2016 campaign. BE specific now, okay, show me where i did any of those things you accused me of, please.Ericl (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- The page mentioned "Obama disparagement schemes" which is a conspiracy theory. The way the information was presented made that sound like a fact. That is considered WP:Libel which is a violation of WP:G10. The page furthermore was strongly biased, mentioning terms inappropriate for Wikipedia such as "haters", and had little to no neutral content. Because of the wording, the page was considered libelous. WP:ATP states that attack pages may be blanked through WP:CBLANK, specifically "where public view of the discussion may cause harm to some person or organization." The content within that article disparaged multiple Democratic candidates.
- I'd quote from the article more, but the article has been deleted, so this is all from my memory. I do remember that just by a quick scan I could already see very libelous statements. Appable (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- It didn't mention "Obama disparagement schemes" I mentioned "obama deragement synrdrome" which is something very different. The fact that Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are hated by most Republicans, and in fact, despised by many of the 32 recognized potential candidates, is verifiable, and would have been clearly shown in the footnotes had you not destroyed the article while it was a stub.Ericl (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
SpaceX reusable launch system development program
Hey Appable. I've noticed a lot of your good work around spaceflight articles, so thought I'd drop by to discuss something, and see what you think.
Your recent edits on SpaceX reusable launch system development program attempted to clean up and reorganize some of the info about the series of test flights. The clean-up/reorg was needed, but I'm not sure about a few details of what you did. I could do a WP:BRD to discuss it over there, but since it may be just the two of us, could do it here too. Anyway, I'd like to discuss it a bit with you. Are you open to that? And do you prefer to do it here?, or over on the article Talk page? N2e (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm open to doing that, I wasn't aware it would be a controversial edit. The article's talk page seems like the best location in case other users have an opinion about the page since this discussion relates to exactly how the article should be organized.Appable (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
ITN credit
ThaddeusB (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
File:SpaceX Grasshopper rocket midflight.png
Hi Appable. You recently uploaded File:SpaceX Grasshopper rocket midflight.png to Commons, but there is no evidence that the image has been released under a free license. If you are drawing a conclusion that because SpaceX is releasing images under a free license on Flickr, their website images are similarly released, this is an unsupported assumption. Any images uploaded to Commons must be specifically released under a free license. Please let me know if you have any questions, otherwise I will delete the image later. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for notifying me about this, User:Huntster. On the Media Gallery on the SpaceX website (http://www.spacex.com/media), on the left side right below Show All/Photos/Videos, there is the CC0 symbol followed by the text (direct quote from website) "To the extent possible under law, www.spacex.com has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. This work is published from: United States." I take this to mean that all photos in the Media Gallery are therefore public domain/CC0.
-
-
- Great, thanks for pointing that out. It wasn't there the last time I visited that page. Guess that means I have a lot more uploading to do. Also, when uploading SpaceX-taken images in the future, use the license template "{{Cc-zero-SpaceX}}". It's a custom template that provides additional information for the re-users, and performs some automatic categorisation. Cheers! — Huntster (t @ c) 19:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
-
Reference errors on 8 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Falcon 9 v1.1 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
On Working with New Wikipedians
Hi. I am working with some new Wikipedians as part of WP:GLAM/PMML. It would help to give a little more explanation in your text when making an AfD nomination than just pointing to the various Wikipedia policies like you did for the article in process, Calling Me Home to You. Also, sometimes it is a good idea to wait 24 hours from a stub's creation before starting an AfD nomination, because not everyone prefers to work within sandboxes. I appreciate all of your hard work on Wikipedia to date and hope you will be welcoming of New Wikipedians in the future. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- @TeriEmbrey: Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep that in mind for the future. Appable (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Tombaugh Regio has been nominated for Did You Know
DYK for Tombaugh Regio
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for the warm welcome :)
I also really like spaceflight, and hope to be able to contribute. Unfortunately, English is not my first language (so nothing to verbose from me), and I also have to learn the interface. In any case, cy around friend..C: Dante 80 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Don't worry, I knew so little when I started out on wikipedia (and I still know so little). Glad to have contributors for spaceflight! If you're interested, you might want to look around at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight. It's a bit abandoned, unfortunately, but hopefully it'll be used more at some point. And don't worry about your English, really. Being able to add content to articles that need it is very valuable, and even those fluent in English often make some grammatical mistakes. Every lede is a work in progress, and usually no matter how good it sounds in my mind another Wikipedian edits it for clarity. I hope you enjoy Wikipedia!
Discussion
Would you please join tne discussion at WP:COIN#Foster/White Gallery to express your views on dealing with COI/NPOV issues? – Brianhe (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Birds of the Himalayas
Hi Appable: I see that you've removed the speedy delete from Birds of the Himalayas with the comment that it has a lede, gallery and references. However, these are all patently false! The gallery is of the Greater Antillean grackle, a species which doesn't occur within 9000 miles of the Himalayas. And the "reference", with its isbn, doesn't link to any known book. Perhaps you could reconsider? I don't know enough about the deletion process to know how to suggest that otherwise. MeegsC (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- The deletion process is as follows: speedy deletion for pages that violate a very specific set of criteria, proposed deletion for deletions that would likely uncontroversial, and Articles for Deletion for articles that should get a community-based consensus on whether to delete the article. For speedy deletions, the narrow criteria means that if it does not fit into those criteria exactly, it should not get that tag. In this case, the article was tagged for "no content," i.e. there is no meaningful content on the page other than rephrasing the title, a reference section, or an external links section. Because it had the gallery and the lede, it does have content. I removed the tag, therefore.
-
- Since you seem to have knowledge of the Birds of the Himalayas, my first recommendation would be that you edit it and be bold. I'd rather not see articles be deleted because they aren't good enough yet, when there could potentially be very informative content. Citations, etc would all help that article, as I'm sure the overall content would be notable. Or, on the other hand, if there's really not much content to put onto the page, it might be worth going through another deletion process. I personally think the deletion would be controversial or at least worth getting consensus on, so if you think it's best to put the article for deletion, using the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process would be my recommendation. Appable (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Appable:, there are more than 10,000 bird articles — real bird articles, not made up ones. I spend my time trying to get those up to snuff. I'm not going to waste time on a tiny vandal-created article full of made up information. He's linked a Caribbean bird (i.e. one not found anywhere near the Himalayas, unless your point of reference is the entire planet) and a bogus reference. And you're happy to keep it (perpetuating the bogus "knowledge" it contains) over the objections of those of us who do know it's rubbish? And you accuse me of "overzealous deletion"?! Frustrating! :P MeegsC (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- @MeegsC:: Sorry, that wasn't what I meant. My point was simply that I didn't know whether it had content worth saving (as you can tell from my edit history, I have no knowledge of bird topics). The overzealous deletion part was more of a general remark, in that I've seen a lot of articles with valid content deleted for no reason. This article? Well, if it doesn't have content worth saving, then by all means it should be removed.
- @Appable:, there are more than 10,000 bird articles — real bird articles, not made up ones. I spend my time trying to get those up to snuff. I'm not going to waste time on a tiny vandal-created article full of made up information. He's linked a Caribbean bird (i.e. one not found anywhere near the Himalayas, unless your point of reference is the entire planet) and a bogus reference. And you're happy to keep it (perpetuating the bogus "knowledge" it contains) over the objections of those of us who do know it's rubbish? And you accuse me of "overzealous deletion"?! Frustrating! :P MeegsC (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Since you seem to have knowledge of the Birds of the Himalayas, my first recommendation would be that you edit it and be bold. I'd rather not see articles be deleted because they aren't good enough yet, when there could potentially be very informative content. Citations, etc would all help that article, as I'm sure the overall content would be notable. Or, on the other hand, if there's really not much content to put onto the page, it might be worth going through another deletion process. I personally think the deletion would be controversial or at least worth getting consensus on, so if you think it's best to put the article for deletion, using the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process would be my recommendation. Appable (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Notability standards
Do you really think you applied the WP:CORP notability standard correctly when you removed the speedy tag from Yambla? Please walk me through your logic. Because I don't see how it is possible. Is it your contention that every software product used at a large company is notable? — Brianhe (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Brianhe: No, it probably is not notable. However, you're assuming a critical fact that I think a lot of users make (incorrectly): that A7 (and its special variants like db-corp) is used for non-notable entries. It is not. It's used when there is no credible claim of significance. The fact that they have assisted with Coca-Cola means that further research, either print or online, could give something that indicates notability. Or possibly not. All I know is that because there is a claim that they've helped a major company, there's a fair chance of notability - and therefore it certainly doesn't meet A7.
- I think I've discussed this with you previously, so I'll share a bit more about my personal thoughts on speedy deletion. I think that, first and foremost, speedy deletion is a valuable tool in quickly preserving the integrity of Wikipedia. At the same time, I believe, strongly, that the speedy deletion process is used too much, and in the wrong situations. That hurts Wikipedia, because it 1) sets a precedent for the rapid deletion of pages with no consensus, and 2) removes content that could easily be improved over the duration of a PROD or a AfD discussion. I think that speedy deletion shouldn't even be used in many situations, because honestly: what's the rush to get a page deleted? What does it matter if a page that isn't offending anyone and merely isn't notable is on Wikipedia for longer?
- The company might not be notable. I don't know, and I don't particularly care to find out - I have no opinion on whether that article should be deleted or not. However, my concern is the deletion process used, because speedy deletion should not be used for notability reasons. I recommend you look over this page, which supports my views on A7 exactly. I've been frustrated for a while at the generous use of A7, which seems to become more and more an "is it notable?" criterion than a "could it potentially be notable" criterion.
- Regards, Appable (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your edit summary said "Credible claim to significance" by which I took it to mean that it could possibly be notable. In other words, the article should not be presumed non-notable as A7 assumes. I'm not sure why you're splitting hairs over this. Maybe the difference is that I say the burden of proof should be on the person proposing to save the article, and you say it should be on the person proposing to delete it. Fair enough? So on to the important thing, the rest of your edit summary says that its use in Coca Cola etc. is the basis for a credible claim of significance. If you agree so far then I think discussion should move on to Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance and whether that is met by mere mention of large corporations. – Brianhe (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Brianhe, there's no point arguing over removal of a G11, no matter how ill advised. speedy is deliberately set up so that if anyone has doubts, the place for the discussionion is afd-- for which see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yambla (though i do agree that had I seen the tag in time, I'd have deleted it as A7 myself) DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- @Brianhe: My position is simply that the article had a claim that it was significant. That means nothing about notability, because significance and notability are two different standards. A7 says "this article doesn't even say why it's significant." The article, in this case, said the company was significant because its primary product assisted a notable, major company. That's enough for significance because its connection to Coca-Cola means that it meets "Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance."
-
-
-
- Why do I care? Because I think the logical thing for an editor to do at this point is to use an Articles for Deletion process (or improve the article to establish notability). Clearly, Yambla still likely doesn't meet notability, but it does meet the Credible Claim to Significance guideline. I'm just trying to preserve the integrity of the deletion process.
-
-
-
- Regardless, for a wider audience of editors, I'd agree with moving the discussion to that page. Appable (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Before we move the discussion I strongly recommend you (re)read Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, especially points #5 and #6 which are specifically about how credible claim of significance hinges on a notability test in the context of a hypothetical future deletion debate. Your argument that it "means nothing about notability" is quite incorrect. - Brianhe (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- True, I phrased that incorrectly. From #6 it says "Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance.", meaning that a credible claim of significance doesn't have to be notable of itself, and could just mean that further research could demonstrate notability. That was what I meant by what I said, but obviously I phrased it poorly. Sorry about that. Appable (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Before we move the discussion I strongly recommend you (re)read Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, especially points #5 and #6 which are specifically about how credible claim of significance hinges on a notability test in the context of a hypothetical future deletion debate. Your argument that it "means nothing about notability" is quite incorrect. - Brianhe (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless, for a wider audience of editors, I'd agree with moving the discussion to that page. Appable (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
-