User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/January

Hogmanay greeting

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 1

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 1, January 2011
Welcome to The Downlink · Project News · News from Orbit · Article News · Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics · Salyut 2 Welcome to The Downlink Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements. Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details. Project News A new working group has been formed. The space stations working group is expected to work towards creating Featured topics related to space stations. It currently has three members. Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal. A discussion regarding opening relations with the Aerospace biography task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation was held, but no conclusions were reached. The Article Alerts bot has resumed operation, and a problem with the information the bot had been delivering was discussed and resolved. New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented. Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it. Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised. One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{WikiProject Space}} and {{WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class. News from Orbit On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article. On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles. On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite. 17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles. Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger on mission STS-51-L. Article News It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight. Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain. Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited. The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts. Missile Range Instrumentation Ship is currently listed at requested moves, with a proposal to rename it tracking ship. The only open good article nomination is of the book Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, which is currently awaiting review. Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic. Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project. One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative. To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN. This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided. I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content. Selected Article – Salyut 2 Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission. The Salyut 2 article describes the station: “ Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyut space stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973. ” The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

A thought

Just a thought -- I don't especially like blocks of editors who are not apparent risks for disruption during the pendency of their block when there is an ongoing noticeboard discussion about them. It keeps us from seeing what their responses would be at the AN/I. It's like muzzling a witness who is on trial -- the opposite of what we strive to do ITRW with witnesses, when we seek to reach the most just resolutions. So, and there are I imagine more than one way in which you could accomplish this (with agreement from Legit, perhaps), I would think it helpful to the resolution of the Legit issue if you would unblock Legit at least to the extent required to participate it its own ANI. Thanks for considering this, and happy holidays.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The thread has now been archived. If LAEC wishes to contest the block then a fresh thread should be started. If unblocked, I think he should at least have a topic ban and a civility/AGF parole. However it seems pointless or vindictive to pursue that if he's content with being blocked.   Will Beback  talk  11:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Will is of course absolutely correct that my points above are only of any worth if the blocked editor wishes to be unblocked. If that is in fact the case (or develops to be the case), my thoughts are as above. HNY all.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI - There was an active off-wiki email conversation; LAEC concluded with deciding he needed to discuss this with Arbcom, which I assume he's done by now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And more privately

My "abrasiveness" consists largely of an unwillingness to truckle to a half-dozen editors who complain at ANI when they don't get their way. You and a handful of other admins reinforce this behavior by rewarding it; you can, if necessary, cause me to disappear from article space, which would be at least a small loss to Wikipedia. But I hope you will not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you note I didn't do anything other than discuss the situation.

As you describe this, your "unwillingness to truckle to a half-dozen editors..." is an abject failure to assume they're acting in good faith and with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.

This is the point - they certainly aren't perfect, either, but by and large they and other editors get along. Disputes come up, they're discussed, they get resolved. People don't resort to name calling, etc.

If you aren't willing to AGF and attempt to work with them (and to some degree, I need to tell them the reverse of this) then eventually assuming bad faith for a long enough period becomes disruptive editing, and leads to the upset community and the stuff I said on ANI.

If you can't assume good faith, you need to walk away from dealing in areas they care about, and anyone else you get into conflict with, before you get rude about it. Or ask for more third / outside opinions rather than confronting them directly. Or figure out how to edit and discuss and confront them on content and policy without saying the near-the-line things that get them angry at you and lead to ANI arguments.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No; in each case (and half-a-dozen is about what an editor of my frequency and tange of edits ought to have; consider how many editors I interact with), the problem is a failure to observe good faith where it does not exist. Ryulong (not to bore you with the other five, unless you ask) has a guideline page that he owns and edits at whim, despite objections from everybody else who edits the page; pretending that this is good faith when it is not would be harmful to Wikipedia. If you wish to pretend, fine; but you should not require it of others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You haven't made a case for that in a manner that attracted support to your position, so far.

If you assume that you're right and that we just can't and won't see it, you're putting yourself outside the community and inviting what's going to come. Do you really want that?

Either make the case and get some external review of those pages, or walk away from it. Acting like it's clear they're behaving in bad faith and continuing to respond like that is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I cited the exact revert that I surreverted; the disagreements with Ryulong fill the guideline talk page. Must I make an ArbCom case against everu nuisance that can find ANI? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom case, no. Just neutrally asking for an ANI review of the dispute, would be nice.

I don't want to do it because you believe I'm not neutral enough; but someone else should respond if you make the request. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Let me clarify; I did not say you were not neutral - and if you can be so, I would welcome your intervention. My objection is that you value above all else Wikipedia as a social experiment, in which "we all get along" over such minor desirables as verifiability and neutrality. Those who value their National or Sectarian Truths above all else will always take advantage, when they can, of such attitudes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

• 2010 in review: Review of the year

• News and notes: Record fundraiser celebrated and debated; Board-appointed Trustees; brief news

• In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux

• Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year

• Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Apologies for the inconvenience, as it were, though I'm glad to know someone actually reads the Tech report :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 10:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes; believe it or not, I read it regularly, not just kibozing for my name. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK

Thought I'd point out that per my friendly talkpage stalker reply on User talk:Will Beback, User:Justadude appears to be another duck, or else he's become extremely familiar with several different policies in the space of 10 edits. Never mind, he says he's been editing for years as an IP and I notice the account was created years ago. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project

• WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways

• Features and admins: Featured topic of the year

• Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II

This Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been passed:

• Communicat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about World War II or the Aftermath of World War II. This prohibition is of indefinite duration, but may be appealed to the Committee by Communicat after six months;
• Communicat is placed under a behavioral editing restriction for a period of one year.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK [•] 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi George, I'd just like to thank you for your participation in this matter. I supported your nomination for ArbCom on the basis of the methodological and careful way you approached things, and I hope that you stand again. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(Late reply, I was on vacation...)

Thanks. I regret that it wasn't an effective involvement, in the sense of getting Communicat into a positive contributor role. The outcome was unfortunate from that perspective.

We'll see about next arbcom elections next year. Thanks for the support there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

• News and notes: Anniversary celebrations; Foundation reports; local language problems; brief news

• In the news: Anniversary coverage continues; Thai government translates Wikipedia; brief news

• Sister projects: Upcoming steward elections, and a retrospective on stewards' work in 2010

• WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket

• Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons

• Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case

• Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Restriction... appears punitive not preventive"

Remind me, next time you run for an ArbCom, to vote for you :) It is so rare I see editors remembering that crucial, totally vital part of our policies. Do you know I once had an AE admin explain to me - seriously, and in good faith - that some remedies have to be punitive to a certain user, to act as a preventative to others? Greater good by sacrificing individuals, huh? Or can you spell "slippery slope"... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)