User talk:Apollonaut

December 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Association of Spaceflight Professionals. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * To add to this,, you've opened a talk page discussion and now you need to let it run it's course. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi User:TonyBallioni:


 * By no means am I engaged in an edit war: To the contrary ( ! ) the page has gone entirely untouched for six days. I made a series of edits to answer some of the concerns User:Drmies raised in an edit summary last week.


 * I accidentally saved the wrong tab with a (half-completed) correction, and went back to save the correct tab once I'd cleaned it up with proper formatting, correcting two additional syntax errors I discovered in the code.


 * I now see an unseen reversion made while I was in the midst of my active editing session by User:Chrissymad, which I didn't know about until afterwards, as I was still in the open edit window. I'm not actively monitoring the history page when actively engaged in corrections to the source code: you should at least give a few minutes turnaround time before expecting editors to see the change.


 * Please note: Not only am I using the talk page, I'm the only one using the talk page to answer questions, clarify concerns, and correct inadvertent errors. Please review the talk page and the intermediate edits.


 * As per policy stated above with direct instructions to use the Talk page, Drmies and Chrissymad are the users in violation.


 * By the book, WP rules on the summarily deleted infobox fields clearly state: "Do include top executives even if not individually notable, but do not wikilink them," contra to Drmies edit. There's no grey area. For the rest, rather than tagging to request RS as he should have and rewriting the prose to trim the fat, he just wiped the slate.


 * See also this talk page for concerns about wholesale deletion.


 * I added reliable sources, trimmed the puffery (which wasn't mine) and corrected the basic factual errors that were introduced by the mass data wipe.


 * To emphasize: I didn't make a single reversion. I addressed the points Drmies made last week and contributed a constructive, forward-looking edit.


 * To auto-revert the corrections I just spent good faith time and effort to make, presuming I'd reverted the article when it had gone untouched for a week, is plainly wrong.


 * The only person to do a reversion was Chrissymad, and I wasn't aware of it in either instance until well after closing the edit session.


 * Thank you, AGF Apollonaut (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You reverted twice, and against policy (see WP:ONUS). It is your obligation to get consensus for inclusion on the talk page. It is not Chrissymad or Drmies' obligation to get consensus to remove content. Please do not restore it again until you have achieved consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I reverted zero times. There is a key distinction. Reversion means to actively go to the history page and click 'undo.' This is what Chrissymad did immediately after my edit, of which I was completely unaware at the time.


 * I did no such thing. I simply had an edit window open in another tab, still in an active session. Chrissymad may have had the page on a watch list and reverted my edit the moment I clicked save. As I was making a series of small corrections, there's no way for me to have known. Each time I saved a small correction, it overwrote the page, but *this is not an intentional reversion.* The page had gone untouched for a week. I hadn't yet seen the history page, and had no way of knowing that situation occurred until later receiving the message on the talk page. Look at the timestamps and edits. It was all in one go.


 * I'm well aware of WP:ONUS. It wasn't the basis of my edits. Ex: I didn't put the names back into the infobox. I simply pointed out the policy. The point (remarked on Jimmy_Wales's talk page) is that Drmies is making deletions without deep thought or consideration as to context, as evinced by his edit summary: "none of these people are notable: there is no rationale, really, for bloating the infobox."


 * This is directly contraindicated by WP:INFOBOX: * Do include top executives even if not individually notable, but do not wikilink them. Up to four key individuals closely associated with the company. It's a black-and-white-question and a trivial edit that demonstrates the bias and lack of attention to detail.


 * I made some efforts to find reliable sources, to trim the fat and puffery. This is what Drmies asked Chrissymad to do last week. He should be thanking me, rather than acting in chagrin.


 * The main issue of contention being the 'list of employees' which isn't any such thing, again comes from the cursory swipe edit made by Drmies, who probably doesn't follow the List of astronauts by year of selection or know the context of said list. Hence, my inclusion of the rationale on the talk page, where I'll continue to follow up AGF.


 * Thank you. AGF Apollonaut (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not what reversion means. Reversion means An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part (See WP:3RR.) You reverted Drmies with this edit without achieving consensus to restore. then undid your restoration for lack of consensus, in line with ONUS. You then edit warred to restore it against policy with this edit. Chrissymad removed it again, but her reversion was in line with Wikipedia policy. You are both on two reverts now, and should take it to the talk page. Also, for the record, every experienced user who has commented on Drmies behavior removing promotional material from articles has supported him, except for the individual raising the complaint. That Jimbo-talk thread has no relevance here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * __________


 * Now that you clarify the definition of reversion as any change that undoes another's actions, I can clearly see your calling it reversion, yes. Yet to assert an 'Edit war' means to ignore everything I've said to this point. I had no way of seeing Chrissymad's reversions until after I finished my own edits. I had no way of knowing I was 'overwriting her reversion,' which as I said, was only seconds from my first save.


 * The article had gone altogether untouched for a full week. No one else was making edits. There's no audio alert or 'ping' that another user has overwritten or reverted the edits. I had no way to know she'd made any change. I made a series of small corrections to typos after my first initial save. To call that 'Edit warring' is unjustifiable. To do such would require intent, or, at the very least, knowledge that said action was being performed. I had *no knowledge* of her interim changes, which were done in the midst of my active session in the editor.


 * Per policy, of the concerned parties, I'm the *only one* who has used the talk page to date (over a week).


 * I don't care in the least about the history of peer pressure in support for Drmies behavior in removing promotional material. I am not the article originator and the puffery was not mine. The promotional material was never my basis for concern. This is not about promotion, it's about policy and facts. It isn't "truth by popularity." A falsehood is a falsehood. He (inadvertently?) omitted key information which changed the meaning of the summary to be untrue. My good faith attempt to point this out in the Talk page has gone ignored and the argument keeps coming back to promotion.


 * For the record: Drmies states in Edit, Line 1, Background: "... the corps has offered specialized astronaut training." This statement is false. The corps offers no such training, having neither facilities nor infrastructure for such activities.


 * As stated in my own edit, also Line 1, Background: "... the corps has partnered with government, corporate and academic providers to offer specialized astronaut training for the commercial spaceflight industry." The active partners provide the facilities and training, not the corps. This is factual information, neither puffery nor promotion.


 * From WP:INFOBOX:* Do include top executives even if not individually notable, but do not wikilink them.


 * This is black-and-white, plain as day. There was no justification for the deletion of names in the infobox.
 * If the Template itself says to include, how can it be labeled "promotion?"


 * Note I made no change to re-enter said names, I'm merely pointing out the fact that the bias here is tipped way over on the side of deletion at the expense of the truth. Subtle context is altogether missed when so quick and overzealous, as demonstrated by the aforementioned 'mistakes.' Is it too much to ask for a moment to reflect on common sense?


 * I support the removal of promotional material, but not at the expense of introducing uncertainty and falsehoods in the name of brevity and concision. I'd hope you feel the same. Neither peer pressure nor appeal to authority should be entering this conversation, to say the least of falsely discrediting actions as "Edit warring" when the page was inactive for a week, save for my session. I'm disappointed by the appeal to authority and seeming lack of objectivity, the absence of regard to circumstance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollonaut (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If you didn't intend to do so, that's fine: just don't continue. I didn't block you, I warned you to stop reverting. You've done so, so we are good. I'm not familiar enough with the article to give thoughts on its content. That should be handled on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I was beginning to wonder at the lack of consideration for my explanation of the immediate circumstances. To be clear: Chrissymad evidently had theEd article on a watch list and instantly reverted the edit as I was still engaged in an active session. I had no way to know and it was through no fault of my own. I hope you know to watch out for this possibility going forward, and I hope she isn't using that as a tactic to block dissenting opinion. That would be cause for greater concern. It's what I was beginning to think was going on ... :-/


 * Apollonaut (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know how this is not a revert. That's an "error correction"? You simply restored the article to the promotional fluff that it was before. And then you reverted again. That is not rocket science. Also, if "offered" as my translation for that bit from the press release is the wrong word, then find another word. Same with "partnered".What you're doing on the talk page, well, we'll get to that; in the meantime, I think is just as interested as I am in you telling us what your relation is with the organization, and whether you have a "regular" conflict of interest or whether you are indeed a paid editor. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * __________


 * ^ I made it abundantly clear in above discussion that my first edit was unintentional and I'd simply saved the wrong open tab, which is what led to the promotional content being restored. You've doubly proven my stated point that you're skimming right over the relevant contextual information leading to premature and inaccurate conclusions. The subsequent edits I made were to correct that very mistake, save the correct tab, then correct a syntax error in the edits--not to get into any sort of 'Edit war.' You can't simultaneously penalize me for introducing an error then straightforwardly working to correct it. Review my latest edit, not my first.


 * I have no interest in retaining the 'promotional fluff' (in fact having excised much of the bloat), but your hasty initial swipe recklessly tossed out essential or good information along with the bad, as straightforwardly demonstrated by the factual inconsistencies and conflict with established template standards. I support the removal of promotional material, but not at the expense of introducing uncertainty and falsehoods in the name of brevity and concision.


 * To say I then 'reverted again' is simply disingenuous. I explained above several times I was in an active edit session, and had no way of knowing jumped to immediately revert my edits. Disregard the first accidental edit restoring promotional material, both unintentional and immediately corrected.  Be aware I was in an active session and had no way to know that I was writing over Chrissymad's own revert, made only moments beforehand. Given the week-long absence of activity on the page, it's plain to see she had the page on a watch list, went straight to revert without first checking to see if the page was open and under active revision in a remote session, then immediately threw out a presumptive "Edit warring" card, cutting me off without the time to finish my intended revisions.


 * At least give the editor enough time and breathing room to finish the active session and correct errant mistakes before reverting. This was all explained at length to above. I hope you aren't making a habit of immediate reversion followed by 'Edit war' accusations on a split-second basis as a means of stifling dissenting opinion.


 * ^ : "If offered is the wrong word, then find another word." -- That's exactly what I did. Unfortunately my good faith contributions were immediately reverted before I could finish the changes I sought to make. Throwing out the "Edit warring" card without discussion in immediate response to any change is one way to ensure no further progress is made.


 * ^ I have neither conflict of interest nor am I a paid editor. If either of the two were the case, I wouldn't have entered into discussion. Nor would I fret in the least at the distinction between offered and partnered, the former being far more favorable from a promotional context. I find it questionable you would focus on my credentials, rather than on the substance of my concerns. The edits I made require no more knowledge or interest than a casual following of the industry.


 * What I do have is interest in seeing relevant historical firsts and reliable sources retained and not hastily thrown out with the bath water, in this or any other article. Case in point: the organization's first manned spaceflight missions, funded by the NASA Flight Opportunities Program in 2012. Your revision cites only a single internal presentation.


 * Both myself and many other ASHOS applying to the NASA astronaut corps over the coming years find the historical first of a wholly-independent and autonomous NASA-funded manned spaceflight program notable and interesting, to say the least. A basic understanding of their size and constituency, industry partnerships and track record, capabilities and level of support is essential to weighing the viability of the new entrant as a prospective alternative to the conventional path.


 * -- Apollonaut (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Before I dive into this long, drawn out mess, I'd like to point out something: Disregard the first accidental edit restoring promotional material, both unintentional and immediately corrected. Be aware I was in an active session and had no way to know that I was writing over Chrissymad's own revert, made only moments beforehand. Given the week-long absence of activity on the page, it's plain to see she had the page on a watch list, immediately reverted without first checking to see if the page was open under active revision in a remote session, then immediately threw out a presumptive "Edit warring" card, cutting me off without any time to complete my intended edits.
 * You are aware there is no possible way for any editor to know whether something is in an "active edit" session, save for something being templated and even in that case, there's no way to tell. I'm also not sure why it's an issue to have something on a watchlist? I use twinkle and if you read up, it automatically adds pages I edit or revert to my watchlist, which I periodically purge.
 * You were given direction in the form of ES and 's guidance, so please stop playing the blame game. No one here is trying to falsify information but simply trying to preserve the integrity of an encyclopedia, it's not a blind collection of everyone who has ever been affiliated with a topic. Instead of assuming this is some grand conspiracy, take your own advice and assume good faith and perhaps read some of the useful help tips you've been given by experienced editors, especially those given to you by Drmies most recently. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  14:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ___________


 * ^ Thanks for the clarification Chrissymad. I take no issue with having the article on a watch list. My concern stems from immediate reversion in absence of consideration for the possibility that the session may still be open and active, followed by a report of "Edit warring" absent any kind of friendly 'hello' message or interaction. It stands to reason that if the page has been inactive for a week and there's the 'ping' of an edit, the likelihood is high that a few more edits are on the way.


 * In yesterday's instance, I'd accidentally saved entirely the wrong tab, leading to a whole slew of misunderstandings. Common sense would seem to call for a modicum of leeway (a reasonable time of inactivity) before reversion. When editing my own Talk page yesterday, I received a warning on attempt to save that conflicting changes had been made by another editor in the interim. My understanding was that the same warning would be triggered through the above circumstances.


 * ^ Aside from Drmies's unwelcome insinuation of WP:COI and WP:PAID based on a single instance of accidentally submitting the wrong (promotional) version of the article (the correction of which led to the Edit war tag), those useful help tips have been limited to mansplaining me to use the Talk page, which I've properly done from the start, and which has yet to be edited by anyone else. I equally submit that prior to ad hoc deletion of the majority of the article, basic editing tags (request for reliable sources, etc.) with request for revision should have been added to the Talk page, with the properly allotted time for a response.


 * Allowing active, recent or existing contributors to openly address the stated concerns is far less disruptive than coming in from left field and deleting most all in one fell swoop, especially the bits where subject matter expertise comes into play. Things like sponsor lists are clearly inappropriate; however, historical firsts and major achievements would be better addressed by requesting attribution to reliable third-party sources. In conducting objective research on the organization, the former is irrelevant--the latter, far more representative of established technical capability. In the interest of consensus, said methodology would have averted the entire controversy, saving both time and effort.
 * Apollonaut (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't buy the whole "it was accidental" and "active editing session", but that's not even what bothers me (I can't speak for, of course), and you are not going to get blocked for edit warring--what bothers me is the incredible verbiage which, it seems to me, masks the intent to edit promotionally, whether paid or not. Chrissymad and I didn't come in from left or any other field: we are simply editing according to our guidelines. That is all--I have spent too much time already looking at these by now almost passive-aggressive obfuscations. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:NPA. AGF. You don't have to buy it. It should be self-evident through a cursory review of the edit logs. The latest edit plainly differs from the first and interim edits in a logical, forthright fashion that's as simple as one, two, three:
 * First edit -- Accidental post. Main body section Ongoing Projects still left unaddressed.
 * Interim edit -- Due to trivial syntax error, the second image inadvertently contained a whole paragraph of main body text.
 * Latest edit -- Removed the bug from the image.
 * I don't like having to repeat myself, either. Were guidelines being followed, the Talk page would be step one. - Apollonaut (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
May your holidays be filled with warmth, cheer, and the smiles of loved ones. ~


 * ✨— Apollonaut (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)