User talk:Hjpospie

Welcome!

Hello, Hjpospie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -

-- Mdd (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of PICA - Principle

PICA - Principle, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that PICA - Principle satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PICA - Principle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of PICA - Principle during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Avruch ^Talk 20:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Avruch, maybe the subject is not worth an self-standing article but the information should remain as it describes an unfortunate splitting of the system responsibility, which one one should not do for efficient programs, causing aditional costs and schedule delay, which was necessary due to political constraints typical for ESA programs. People judging the Columbus program and the capabilities of the two companies should know that.-

My recommendation is to add it to the Columbus article; if you agree I can do that. Hjpospie (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Systems

Thanks for joining the WikiProject Systems. I hope together we can make a difference. If there are more things you want to discuss or initiate, please let me know or leave a message at the WikiProject Systems talk page. I've been running the WikiProject Systems with lot's of support for half a year now, and things are still moving. The Announcements archive gives just a little impression of the things we have been doing.

We have already met on the Talk:List of systems engineers and I have promised to fill you all in (sorry if my English isn't that correct).

First I want to say I'm sorry that your first article on the PICA-principle is nominated for deletion. I have taken a look at it and allthough the subject is interesting, the subject itselve looks to specialized. The thing you can do is add the content into an other article as yet has happened a little.
Second I want to ask you to give a short introduction on your user page. I have added a dot to start with because then it is easier for people to get in contact with you.
And third about the thing I promised. I will come to that.

Before I tell you I want to ask you if there are other things you want to know first. - -- Mdd (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdd,

To the PICA-principle I have given a recommentation above to Avruch
User page updated
I am waiting.

In principle I do not need to know other things at the moment. When looking to the "system project" it is obvious that a lot should be done to get the subject clearly structured as at the moment anything which somebody calls "system" is showing up in the present Wikipedia.

In my opinion the main structure should be based on system groups e.g.

Social systems,
TECHNICAL systems: system engineering must deliver a technical product versus a specification within costs and schedule,
Other systems.

This would also automatically conclude our discussion about the list of system engineers e.g. Kalman was an excellent mathematician but no system engineer.Hjpospie (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating your User page. If you want you can add a {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/Member userbox}} to you user page and a link to your German user page by adding [[de:Benutzer:Hjpospie]]

Now some background info about that list of systems engineers. This list is a result of the initiatives to improve the coverage on systems engineering, which started half a year ago. I even formalized this into a Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems Engineering Initiative. On that page, on it's user page, and especially on the user pages archive, you can read all about the discussions we had. The bottum line is, in my perspective, that I want to innovate the whole coverage on systems engineering and that Allan McInnes is more concerned that all Wikipedia regulations are followed. The list of systems engineers is one of the compromizes we achieved. It's the intention that articles are being made on all persons mentioned. But you where right that the notability of certain persons at the moment are questionable. My reasoning is, that because they are allready listed in the INCOSE article, they can also be mentioned in the list of systems engineers. Those kind of lists are ment to give an overview of all systems engineers mentioned in the Wikipedia.

Now to the WikiProject Systems. A lot of things have been done in the past seven (??)years. Some articles like systems theory were already edited, I think, some 500 times and still didn't have a high quality. This is one of my main targets of this project: Improving the quality. Now I do understand what you by "the main structure should be based on system groups".

As to note about Kalman. I will copie this to the List of Systems Engineering talk page and respond over there. - Mdd (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

System requirements (Spacecraft system)

I guess you want to write about the System requirements in Spacecraft system. The easiest thing to do is start a new article (and name it System requirements (Spacecraft system)) or just add a new paragraph to the article. Good luck - Mdd (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder why there is no article yet, called Spacecraft system in Wikipedia? - Mdd (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of System requirements (Spacecraft system)

System requirements (Spacecraft system), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that System requirements (Spacecraft system) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/System requirements (Spacecraft system) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of System requirements (Spacecraft system) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Hoekstra,

I am very astonished about your position as Mdd asked me to do it in this way. As he is trying to get better order in the not well-organized system area articles in Wikipedia you should better speak with him before deleting this article. Please consider that the present article "system requirements" is only covering software whereas "system requirements" means much more; in complex systems software is only a subsystem. Hjpospie (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My AfD was a little soon, only 10 minutes after you put up the initial text. I realised that after I listed it. Do note though, that and AfD is a discussion. The community will take a look, and determine if it meets the criteria for inclusion or not. You are free to give your oppinion as well in the debate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, sometimes one should take some time before reacting too fast :-) Hjpospie (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And think before you do something stupid ;)

I am very sorry this is happening and will do my best to help here. - Mdd (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine for me - such things happen...

Can you please help me to delete the article "Verfication" (typo by me); I added my input space systems verification now in article "verification". Thanks Hjpospie (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it for speedy deletion by your request. An administrator will soon see to it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again. THis situation is completely unacceptable. The mayor problem here is that the current System requirements article is focussed om Computer systems requirements but failled to choose this title. Now I am going to initiate some action to create some space that you can write your story, without beeing deleted inmediatly. This however will take some time. - Mdd (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This will maybe even take some days. In the main time I created a second (see below) user subpage called User:Hjpospie/System requirements (Spacecraft system) where I archieved your start. My experience is that if a deletion procedure is started you can hardly stop it and most of the editors don't take no for an answer. We will use you text in a new created article. - Mdd (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to wonder if maybe I am making a mistaken, here. I presumed all the time that "System requirements" can refer to both

the list of requirements to build and or operate a system; and to
the process of determining the requirements to build or operate a system.

But maybe this second process is called Requirements analysis. Can you help me out here? This will maybe mean I have to reconsider my strategy. - Mdd (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article about Spacecraft systems

You efforts made me notice that there is no general article about Spacecraft systems. Now one step of action, mentioned in the discussion above, is to start such an article. This is one of the cornerstones we need to start detailled articles like "System requirements in Spacecraft system".

Now the trick is to make some inquiries first.

What articles related to this subject?
What literature is available?
What do I want to tell, how do I tell it, and how do I make the required references in the article?

Now if things are complicated I start "off line" on a subpage of my userpage.

So I create User:Mdd/Spacecraft system
Hereby I had to choose between system en systems, and choose system.

Now I will make some moves here and will get back to you. - Mdd (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I made a first start with this article, with took me about ten minutes. I saw the was a related spacecraft article with a large section obout subsystems. Now I think this shouldn't have been here in the first place. This article should have start explaining about the features of spacecraft as a whole in a overview section. And in a historical section about the development of these features.

Now if we finish the design of this article, we can implement it into the wikipedia "article space", and remove the whole section from the spacecraft article and make a redirect. But first we have to improve the article itselve. In the designprocess I am not even halfwey the first step as mentioned above. I will stopp now and wait untill you read this and give you some time to react. I will start in some other direction. I hope you do think I am to much of a schoolmaster. I'm just trying to help you out of this complicated situation and explain a little how I work, and how things can work to avoid problems with other editors. (Unfortunalty I am going for the weekend to Germany, and will be back Sunday night). - Mdd (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Your free to edit the User:Mdd/Spacecraft system but it is even easier to start your own User:Hjpospie/Spacecraft system. I will start this article for you and copy the first content overthere. There you can do what you like, with out other editors messing up your work. Good luck. - Mdd (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read your thoughts and starting to re-write User:Hjpospie/Spacecraft system I came to the conclusion that the complete topic must start with "space system" and not only "spacecraft system". With this idea the article was changed as first step but before I continue I would like to get Your judgement. Hjpospie (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Two thing:

I started writing an article about spacecraft system, and you procedeed writing it into a space system article. Now I think there can and should be two articles here: One about space system and one about spacecraft system. So we can start a second User:Hjpospie/Space system from scratch.
As you can see the article spacecraft system all ready exits, and we need to make a more complex move to get a new space system into the wikipedia "article-space". So I propose we first continu "off line". - Mdd (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mdd (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I started the User:Hjpospie/Space system article with the start you made. There is a third thing I forgot to mention. If we develope the article(s) "space system" and/or "spacecraft system" with parts of the article spacecraft, these parts can be removed there, which will leave the article rather empty. Now I think that article should also be improved, at least a little. For example with a historical section. - Mdd (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think we can start a discussie about the "space system" and a "spacecraft system". Are those the same? Or what is the difference. As outsider I should say, that a space system in general can be any system in space. The solar system can be considered as a "space system". Probably I am mistaken and every insider knows a "space system" is a peace of space technology, made by man. I hope I don't offent you by making some silly remarks here. - Mdd (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I think we are now in line with the implementation of two articles "space system" and "spacecraft system". I'll continue to update them in my user space.-

I see the problem you mentionrd i.e. that also the solar system is a "space system". It would be clear if we could find an addition to the title so that its clear that men-made space systems are meant. Do you have an idea? Hjpospie (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Options

Theoretical we can also start here a Men-made space systems, Astronomical system article, here. So what to do? This is a complex problem, also because there are allready multiple general articles in this Wikipedia section, like Spacecraft, Space exploration, Spaceflight, Space technology, Human spaceflight... Now when we can also think of Space exploration system, Spaceflight system, Space technology system.

Now chosing a title and specify the objectives and scoop of the article is a more common problem in the field of Systems science in Wikipedia. The article we are going to create should fit in with the other basic articles about systems. Now they are listed in this template.

Now even more general: The main reason for creating an article like "spacecraft systems", I think, is to starting talking about systems thinking in Space exploration and space technology in general, and not about systems in space or astronomical systems. Theoretical there are at least two sides in "Systems thinking in Space exploration and space technology": an operation research side and a systems engineering side. Taking into account your background I was under the impression that, you wanted to start an article about systems engineering of spacecraft systems. I would say that we focuss on that first. The more general it gets the more abstract and complicated. - Mdd (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your impression is right that I want to concentrate on the systems engineering aspects of space missions. There is a good systems engineering principle that the top - down approach is to be followed i.e. one should first establish the Spaceflight system (this is the best name out of your options in my opinion; the present Wikipedia article "Space system" has quite astonishing contents) and then continue with the Spacecraft system. In my experience the system engineering approach for setting up a Spaceflight system is not really different against a Spacecraft system except that much more parameters have to be considered; I had to work on both several times.-

I had worked already a bit on the Spacecraft system article but lost the modifications when saving due to an editing conflict with your inputs. Now I must stop because i must review a specification for a customer. How can we ensure next time that we are not working at the same time on same article? Hjpospie (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for doublecrossing your edits. This sometimes can happen, sorry. Things are getting more complicated because now your talking about making an other Spaceflight system article. There is already a very good spaceflight article, talking about all kinds of systems, without calling them systems. I think you should make up your mind what you want to do. I have shown you the way to start off line, with all the advantages of the Wikipedia without the interference of editors. Maybe I should leave it for the moment, and let you work on your own developments. -- Mdd (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a misunderstanding between us:

From your first answer above( just below title "Options") I got the impression that you agree that a "space systems" article should be generated but it should have a different name; your name options were Space exploration system, Spaceflight system, Space technology system.
Now it seems that you do not like the idea of creating such an article speaking about modern spaceflight systems containing more than one spacecraft.
Is my understanding wrong? The present article "spaceflight" does not address what i mean i.e. speaking about missions where the overall system functions are performed by more than one spacecraft. There are presently missions in the definition phase with shuttle traffic to the moon building there several shelters and hovers moving between them or spacecraft formation flying. Maybe extending the article "spaceflight" is the option you would prefer.

As as soon as i get more time i'll continue with "spacecraft system" and wait for your answer wrt. our "spaceflight system" discussion. Hjpospie (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree and don't oppose. So many options have been named here that I'm just confused. Maybe I should recall the situation as I see it:

You started a text about "System requirements in Spacecraft system"
And created the new article System requirements (Spacecraft system), which needs wikification, and references.
Now I adviced you that an article like that should have an article Spacecraft system to begin with. If you set up this article it maybe even contain the "System requirements in Spacecraft system" text.
So I proposed to start designing this Spacecraft system off line
And then you wanted to change the scoop of the article
And a more general article about "systems engineering in space flight" should be written.
And even more further options were discussed

In the end the are so many options I don't understand any longer. I have lost focuss. - Mdd (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification I describe the three points under discussion

1. System requirements

The present article System requirements is only related to software, therefore I extented it for spacecraft system requirements. You proposed to make a new article System requirements (Spacecraft system). I did that and now it is on the list for deletion!?

2. Spacecraft system

On 22. November you stated that you wonder why there is no generic article about "spacecraft system" and created User:Mdd/Spacecraft system to start one (quite same contents as Spacecraft). In next step you proposed that I should do it under User:Hjpospie/Spacecraft system - where you started to modify it, my inputs were lost due to "conflicting editing".

3. Space system

When reviewing your draft version of User:Mdd/Spacecraft system I proposed to generate a new article "space system" to cover mission scenarios with more than one spacecraft. You agreed but proposed other title options, where I thought "Spaceflight system" is the best one.

My proposals to get out from this situation so that you get focus again :-)

To 1.: There might be not the right understanding of the objectives of the article. It shall cover the systems engineering process to generate the document "System requirements" for a spacecraft and describe its structure and contents, it is something totally different as the article "Spacecraft system" (defintion/description) and should not be deleted therefore.

To 2.: There should be no new article but Spacecraft should be renamed to Spacecraft system - if possible - and reworked in details where necessary; so User:Mdd/Spacecraft system andUser:Hjpospie/Spacecraft system can be deleted.

To 3.: The article Spaceflight can be extented to cover missions with more than one spacecraft.

Hopefully we are now in sync again - awaiting your answer Hjpospie (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand, you want to stop the new designing, and just rename

spacecraft to spacecraft system..!?

This would mean in German and Dutch language, renaming:

Raumschiff to Raumschiff system
Ruimtevaartuig to Ruimtevaartuigsysteem

Am I correct? - Mdd (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. As a start I initiated the Spacecraft system article as a redirect to the spacecraft article. Maybe you can copy your System requirements (Spacecraft system) text into the spacecraft article.

No, that's not what I mean as explained in the following

Spacecraft system means for me "One Spacecraft is a system using different subsystems to perform spacecraft (system) functions" as covered by present article article; why do you conclude "Raumschiff to Raumschiff system"?
The present article System requirements addresses "requirements" to a computer system related to software, which is only addressing system requirements Software / computer systems. There are also specific points for system requirements for an aircraft system, a spacecraft system etc. My text System requirements (Spacecraft system) is just the analogical approach to the present article; therefore it would not be right to add it to the Spacecraft system article.

The reason for our cross-talk might be caused by the fact that I do not understand your logic, how to organize all "system" articles. My understanding is that there should be always a generic article e.g. System requirements and within this article specialities for specific system categories are addressed if more is to be added e.g.

System requirements
- General
- Computer system
- Spacecraft system
- etc.

An alternative would be a list of typical system and then go through aspects of this system e.g.

Spacecraft system
- Spacecraft system definition
- Spacecraft system requiremts
- Spacecraft system verification
- etc.

By the way: In the template above there is no spaceflight system in the row "systems" and the relevance of the listed systems is not balanced in my opinion.

I do not think that the alternative approach is attractive as system engineering processes shall cover all systems but it is higly important to see the diiferences (if existing) under in one article.Hjpospie (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative approach

You maybe right, but you can only changing current articles with the right combination of text. For example the text you added to the Verification doesn't fit the Wikipedia format, or lets call it the Wiipedia specifications. That article Verification is a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, where each line should introduces an article. The page itselve is mean only to give an overview of the articles currently available on the Wikipedia. So sooner or later somebody is going to remove that text from that article.

Now we couldn't agree on a general article, so I started an alternatieve approach:

I created the Spacecraft system and Spacecraft systems articles as redirect towards the spacecraft article
I started improving the System requirements (Spacecraft system). This article now only needs some references and then it is all right.

Now you start a discussion here that the System requirements should be changed. In Wikipedia there is now rule that this should happen. It could happen. If you improve the System requirements (Spacecraft system) article... then it could be merged into that article.

My alternative approach is to start improving your contributions first

Your Verification contribution is a problem, because that text shouldn't be there
The improval of the System requirements (Spacecraft system) article
I will look at your other recent contribution also.

Now this last article needs your help. You have to find and add some references into that article. Can you do that? If we improve this article first, we later can told about other things. So one step at the time. Good luck. - Mdd (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping to understand the Wikipedia system better; still two points:

Can I list also the Columbus System Specification (ESA doc) and Columbus Design Spec (EADS doc) as references in addition to the DoD doc i.e. must the reference docs be openly available?
How do want to arrange all system articles (see my last input)? I do not want to nerve you but the answer would help me for future.

Will "improve" in next days. Hjpospie (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references should be more specific. I added the two documents as literature. There is a thing about Wikipedia, I don't know if you understand. Wikipedia is not a website where everybody just can put there experience. Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia where every statement given is backed up wity a reference. So everybody working in Wikipedia must think a little like a scientist, who is retricted not to show his new original work, but only talks about the work his colleques have allready worked on. There is a policy in Wikipedia, called no "original research". So allthough you know a lot of things yourselve, you also need to focuss on what other allready told. This may seem like taking a step back... but this is part of the quality insurance process here. Good luck - Mdd (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't understand the second question. How I want to arrange all systems articles? I don't want this. This is allready happened in the categories we created. The problem is more how to fit in new articles. For the rest you might take a look at all Wikipedia rules or specifications. This is what I am trying to incorporate.

Thanks for the explanation of Wikipedia objectives and rules, which I did not understand in this way before. My intention was to inform people about practical work in spaceflight systems engineering based on real projects and not only summarize and provide pointers to (very often only theoretical) references published by others. Therefore I will concentrate on my present activities of coaching young system engineers and running lessons and step-back from the WikiProject Systems (cancelled my name from the WikiProject Systems participants list already). Finally many thanks for your inputs to the discussions.Hjpospie (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good luck.- Mdd (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]