This is an archive of past discussions with User:CactiStaccingCrane. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, CactiStaccingCrane, 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:
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SpaceX Starship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The article SpaceX Starship you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SpaceX Starship for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi CactiStaccingCrane! Thank you for your edits to Draft:Red beryl. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Beryl into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, CactiStaccingCrane. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Urve (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you are a new editor and have made a stunningly large number of quite major changes to a number of articles. I've been away from most spaceflight article editing for a bit and see major changes, and literally thousands of edits. I am concerned about the level of review for such major edits, and for such a large number of edits, in such a short time. If I have it right, you joined Wikipedia just five (5) weeks ago and have made something like 2300+ edits in that time.
I will be honest and say that I have in no way reviewed all or most of your edits. I, like most editors, am a volunteer and can only edit at a pace I can sustain. I do have concerns about a couple of things, from just my light review, and I will bring those up in an open and transparent way, tagging you to invite you to the conversation, and leaving it open for other editors to participate.
Hi, I think you are mistaken. that many of the edits coming from me reassessing articles belonging to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/SpaceX working group. However, I do understand what you are trying to say here. For most of the large edits, I have discuss with them in private channels, such as Discord, because it is more convenient for us there, so I need to be more transparent on my actions. I do think that setting deadlines for myself would make doing things a lot more efficient, and that's part of my philosophy. However, I do get that slowing down is a good thing, and that my enthusiasm is starting to wane is a good indicator that a Wikibreak might be necessary. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! QRep2020 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
For transparency, I have canvassed at WikiMedia Discord, and I must have known better. Thank you for reminding me before anything much worse happens. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I only left this message so that if there are any concerns about consensus on those pages being illegitimate from a suspicious influx of uninvolved editors, that it's been proactively warned and I don't see any further cause for concern. I don't believe anyone has touched the pages in question. Happy editing. Urve (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Outrageous accusations and edits made
Accusing me of having a COI when the COI discussion about me ended a year ago with no finding is outrageous and verging on harassment. Your "evidence" is nothing like an admission and you know it. In addition, you keep putting these POV templates up and ignoring protocols such as with the recent RfC - it is all very disruptive and appears to be retaliatory. I insist you remove the templates you added to Criticism of Tesla, Inc. about the article and about myself. QRep2020 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@CactiStaccingCrane: You continue to ignore consensus (WP:ICANTHEARYOU) with your changes to the Criticism and controversies section of SpaceX Starship, and it has become quite disruptive. This is your last warning—please refrain from making any further disruptive edits to this section until gaining consensus on the talk page. Otherwise, I may have to ask admins to review your editing and impose sanctions as necessary. Stonkaments (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I do listen, that's why I have intentionally ignore the article for a while. However, I think that it is not disruptive, since it is merely a rename of the section and moving a paragraph that is purely about highway closure to Starbase's article. I agree that I am a bit "Elon-stany" at times, but I also want to move on with my bias. I also understand that you really don't like Elon, but that should never be the reason why you block improvements to pages relating to him. Honestly it becomes extremely frustrating when I have to settle disputes at every edit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
DYK for SpaceX Starship
On 8 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SpaceX Starship, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that SpaceX's reusable Starship launch vehicle has twice as much thrust as the Apollo program's Saturn V? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SpaceX Starship. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, SpaceX Starship), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!18:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
On 16 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Space Launch System, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Space Launch System rocket will generate nearly nine million pounds of thrust at liftoff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Space Launch System. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Space Launch System), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You modified something to say "100 tons (unclear ton unit)". The error bars on that "100 tons" are so large (sometimes it's 150 tons, sometimes it's close to 100 tons, ... ) that the type of ton doesn't matter (they only differ by about 10% anyway). Adding that qualifier simply makes it harder to read. The only time it would make sense to add that qualifier would be if it was a measured quantity that was improperly specified - and starship lift capacity doesn't qualify as measured. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 07:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
That works. Although I'd have used the phrase "around 100 tons", which would have left it properly vague without having any claim for accuracy. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 07:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
By 10%. That's quite acceptable for using "around" to denote inaccurate estimate. Ten percent is not a lot of variation when we're talking slideware estimates in the launch business, which can easily vary by a factor of two from day to day. As it happens, knowing that Musk grew up outside the U.S., and then received a degree in physics, he almost certainly thinks in metric. Short tons (2,000 pounds (910 kg)) are used in highway legal documents (e.g., weight limits for trucks), but not in many other precise categories. And as best I know, long tons (2,240 pounds (1,020 kg)) are not used in any meaningful context these days. The only point is that when your source is tweets about estimates, making a point about describing the ton as unknown is simply making the sentence harder to read. I'd use "ton" un-ornamented (as the source provides), and only bother to add a qualifier if the value is actually meaningful to a higher precision than the variation between U.S. and Metric tons. Which it won't be - by the time accurate values start getting tabled, they will be specified in kilograms. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I hope you enjoyed your stay in my Guest Room.
Here is an ice-cold soda as a thank you, complimentary.
Normally, visiting my Guest Room also means you've gained a new talk page watcher, but since I'm already watching your page, I'll give you two sodas! XD ––FormalDudetalk06:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, first time then! I also met him a lot while maintaining articles about New Space (commercial spaceflight), so it is gonna be a bit easier for me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Might take a look at the contribs and talk page; they keep returning to project stuff that should probably wait until they've got more experience. EEng05:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Done! However, I suggest you to rate it yourself, based on the rubrics here, as you can grade from Stub all the way to B-Class without any external review. To be honest, it doesn't really matter till GA or FA-Class, and the ratings are highly subjective anyways CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
Hi CactiStaccingCrane! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at User talk:Sussier, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Not yet. I think we need preparation first, or else... Just look at the article milestones at the talk page, I have done some very... interesting stuff. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for improving article quality in December! If you like Advent music, check this out. If you like Christmas music and wishes, watch my user talk until 27 December ;) - enjoy a well-deserved rest! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, CactiStaccingCrane – I found the page Usage of SpaceX Starship through the New Pages Feed and am looking to review it, but I had a couple concerns I was hoping you could address.
You've cited WP:SUMMARYSTYLE as your reason from forking the content from the main article, but the guideline states that the forked content should in itself be notable, which I'm failing to see here. The uses as a collective should be notable, not just each one independently. I took a look at some of the refs, and for example numbers 12, 13, 26, and 27 all don't focus on the uses of the spaceship but various aspects surrounding it, i.e. the billionare's space travel, Musk's desire to go to Mars, SpaceX's threat to NASA, etc, although they mention Starship. Do you have any more references about the uses collectively?
Secondly, I'm concerned about the POV in this article and the main article, SpaceX Starship. The most obvious example I could find in the uses article was The use of Starship has being marketed extensively by SpaceX, with promises of low launch cost and high capability. (the first sentence). Try to especially watch out for weasel words too.
In general, please try to write/edit more neutrally about SpaceX. There have been (albeit incomplete or unresolved) threads at DRN & ANI regarding your editing, and you've incorrectly accused other people of having COIs. That and creating redirects in this manner is evidence of a POV, which should be absent from mainspace.
@Giraffer The uses of Starship is forked from the main article, and I wish to develop it further, as I saw many, many places that say Starship do XYZ but haven't have time to write down yet. About the threads, I've being a bit too hazily at judging User:Stonkaments, partly because of me not assuming that he's acting in good faith. You are right that I have POV issues too, since I view Elon's stuff more favorably than most people would. Often times while I surf on the internet, I saw really ridiculous claims about Starship ("This rocket is evil", etc.) which make me charged and try to "prove them wrong" and cherrypicking. So feel free to rectifying anything that is a bit too promotional, after all, SpaceX Starship really need more POVs to make it complete. For me, I will clean up all of SpaceX Starship redirects using a RfC, as a lot of them are really costly and expensive. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I'm wary of the division that Elon Musk and some have his projects have caused, so it's natural that related articles might not be as neutral or stable as we'd like, but I appreciate your willingness to improve them nonetheless. Happy editing. Giraffer(talk·contribs)14:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
You created 7 redirects to this page and then decided to move it from main space to Draft space. I'm not questioning your decision to draftify this article but please don't create redirects to a main space article if you have any feeling that it might soon be in Draft space. All of those redirects have to be deleted by an admin or bot so it just creates unnecessary extra work. Only create redirects once you are sure that your article is in good shape and can stay in main space. Then, it will be time to create redirects that point to it.
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs·email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs·email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
FAC reviews
Hi, I am sure you meant well but these comments were not at all helpful and sound terribly patronising.[2]. Advice such as this is best given by experienced authors of Featured Articles, but from what I can discern, I think you have little experience so far. Rather than helping nominators, which I am certain was your intent, these comments are more likely to alienate them. You should give examples of what you consider to be problems with articles: You said the prose is not up to the mark, but you give no examples. This is the article's second FAC following a peer review, but you seem to have not noticed this. Also, the nominator already has at least one successful FA nomination to their credit. You should have spotted this. We warmly welcome all reviewers at FAC, but please take note of my comments here for future reference. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I entirely agree with Graham, although having done some background on your editing, I have less of a tendency to assume good faith. As I have explained in considerable detail in response to your ill-considered oppose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jadran (training ship)/archive1. Your response to my explanation was not to respond there to explain why you have the experience to review FACs or that you did read the articles in full before reviewing them, but to make wholesale changes to Jadran (training ship) during its FAC (which is completely inappropriate and which I have reverted). However, this is not isolated to Nonmetal and Jadran; in a very short period of time (during which it seems highly unlikely you have even read the articles) you have made review comments on two other FACs. I strongly recommend you step back from FACs and recalibrate your behaviour, or you will end up being reported at WP:ANI for disruptive behaviour. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67, I'm sorry for what I've done, and I should have known better. I will clean up all of my mess and just observe the reviewing process, until I know what the FAC is all about. I really do just want to improve these articles, but I also think it is true that I've been a disruptive person, and that's the last that I would want to be. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
All comments are redacted with strikes, with the contributions to the nominated articles are reverted. Hopefully I haven't left scars to these articles in the process. Thank you for reminding me that the behavior is inappropriate here instead of going straight to WP:ANI. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
On a more positive note, I am optimistic that you could become a valued contributor to FAC once you become more familiar with the expectations of the process. I don't think anyone will object if you provide specific examples of features of the articles that don't meet the criteria. It also helps if you give the nominator time to respond before switching to an oppose !vote. (t · c) buidhe01:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't aware until now of the extent of your disruptive editing. I will seriously consider advocating banning you from FAC if you continue. I strongly recommend you apologise and promise to desist. Graham Beards (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The flag on the "Reading" article
You have added a flag on the Reading article suggesting it is "unclear". I think it would be more appropriate for you to give specific examples of your concerns, using the Talk page. That is what it is there for. Many contributors have attempted to make this article clear to the variety of people who read it (educators, parents, linguists, researchers, etc.). When you have a minute, please use the Talk page to outline your specific concerns. Thank you. John NH (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
In this world cup it will be in qatar, so i am going to know who will win this futbol challenge, so yeah, as it can says, we are just about to watch it on tv, by the way how was your editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkie257 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
SpaceX Starship has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs15:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep it up!
These are my cats. May they give you strength.
Hey, Cacti! I took a stop by SpaceX Starship and just wanted to give you some motivation. Keep it up! Wikipedia has a lot of hurdles, but you'll ultimately get your way after all the frusturating processes have had their say. Like the GAN says: the NPOV issues are really the only things that are getting in the way of the article's standing at this point. It's also good to note that this is simply one of the GA criteria, and this doesn't necessarily mean that the article itself is stuck at a GA level still; in fact, since you currently have a lot of people looking at this article with little comment about article quality I think you're getting pretty close to FAC standings. If anything, though, maybe another WP:GOCE? Up to you. Then again, a LOT gets done during the FAC process (<- example), so don't worry about making it completely perfect. Panini!🥪18:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The context is that you were involved in the FAC 3 discussion for the article (which was not prompted) or you are an editor who made a recent edit to the nonmetal article.
Well, I have checked all of the prior articles, and it seems good for me. Seems like I start to screw at social stuff, like businesses and such. Thanks for your patrolling! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
No Problem! If youre interested, and you want to use Twinkle, it can prompt you with helping to pick an appropriate warning. Happy editing! IAmChaos01:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Valid Reason for Editing European Colonization of the Americas
There is a valid reason for Editing European Colonization of the Americas. Why am I being threatened for editing a inaccurate and biased article? The information that I am editing out is inaccurate and biased. Also, noone has told me how to flag the article for bias. The settler-colonialism theory is not well-established or based on good science. The accusations of genocide are inaccurate and overly simplistic. This article is not accurate or fair. I am not doing anything wrong and I should not be punished or threatened for correcting incorrect, bias information. Who is the chief editor? I should be allowed to appeal random editors with agendas censoring me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The European Colonization of the Americas page is incorrect and inaccurate. Why should you be biased against the truth? There is a systemic bias in a academic publishing. It is easy to get published on the progressive left and hard to get published if you are liberal like me. The sources cited here are not good scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Cbinetti: I do think you need to rephrase your wording a bit, as initially I thought you are promoting fringe theories by writing without sources. We don't care about politics here, we care about whether the article is cited with reliable source or not. Also, please sign your comments using 4 tildes (~~~~). Cheers, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Cbinetti (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Ok, if you tell me how to tag for Neutral Point of View, I will not touch the text. I think that there are problems with the text from a scholarly viewpoint from even the scholarly consensus is problematic because of the voices that are excluded. The settler-colonialism and genocide claims are the ones that are problematic. If you help me tag it, I will leave it alone. Also, I would, if allowed, move the passage later on in the article, but not edit it at all. I would love to talk more about my concerns. I can give you my email or phone number.
Cbinetti (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)A tag to warn about the bias would be good. I also would like to move the passage, if allowed. I would also get rid of the terminology of settler colonialism and genocide in the summary. I would not edit it out of the body of the article. I was thinking of adding context by talking about how the colonization came out of the experience of the Reconquista, but the academic field is biased. People deny the Reconquista. Also, I would want to show how European colonialism is not different from less-stigmatized forms of colonialism and imperialism, or just remove the settler-colonialism label, which political, ideological, and stigmatizing.
There is no reason to revert my Amniote and Synapsid revisions. To exclude synapsids frpom reptiles is illogical and amniotes are really reptiles. Reverting it leads to illogical conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 02:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Nonmetal
Yesterday I visited the nonmetal article to look up some packing efficiency data only to find that this part of the article had been deleted for no good reason that I could discern. I saw that several other parts of the article had been deleted for no good reasons that I could discern and that the article had been reorganised, the logical basis of which I similarly couldn't discern.
While I do not doubt the good faith of your actions, I am about to start progressively editing the article in response to the extensive feedback rec’d at FAC 4, before submitting it for peer review. Consequently, since I cannot edit a moving target, I will revert your recent edits, and start from there.
I’m pinging Graham Beards and Peacemaker67 since both of these editors provided related feedback wrt to the nonmetal FAC, and I thank them for doing so.[3][4]
I've checked the evidence you and other users showed me and now that i think about it it makes sense that Bisons are placed within Bos. The fact that Yaks have shaggy fur like Bisons confirms they speciated from yaks. Multiple species of Bos like Gaurs, Zebus and Aurochs have spines similar to those of Bisons. They fact that they can safeley breed with cattle proves their effectively part of the Bos genus. Not to mention many people question if Bisons breeding with cows was even a problem. Ive checked the skeletons and morphology of both extinct and extant Bison species and all of them are very similar to Bos species. So yes i can now udnerstand they are part of Bos. I am so sorry for the trouble i caused last time, now i want to be part of your project to understand the placement of Bisons within the Bos genus. 56FireLeafs (Use talk:56FireLEafs) — Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey! I saw your edits to my Discord profile template, and you may have seen that they've been reverted. There are a couple of issues with what you did and how you edited:
You should most likely never edit other people's userpages, or any subsequent subpages. Unless it's a talk page, or a subpage that obviously is made to be edited (like a guest book, etc.), you probably shouldn't edit anyone's userpages, unless the edit that you're making is beyond reasonable doubt (no one would have any real reason to oppose it; misspellings, etc). Major changes like how the page looks (editing the style) is definitely not something you should do without permission. Like it clearly states on the documentation of the template,
If you have any ... things you think could be improved, please let me know.
You should always use the preview button when editing how a page looks. If you're making changes to a page, instead of making an edit then publishing it over and over again, you can hit the preview button (pictured below), which will re-render the page with the changes you made, without adding it to history of the page and publishing your changes for everyone to see.
The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.
Remember, if you want to change someone on their userpages, just suggest it to them on their talk page first. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks, ― Levi_OPTalk21:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.
These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
Much as I understand (and appreciate) the sentiment, I think it violates NPOV and is antagonistic to post on the article talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes for real, I think it is needlessly provocative and could have just been dolled out to those really deserving of it, rather than a blanket to everyone. At this time we need to fight Russian disinformation, but we also must not take sides as such. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I heard about the lores and stuff there, until I realised that a fellow spaceflight editor named Leijurv is literally beating the server to its knees. LOL! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
On your talk page comment about "anti-Musk." I left a note there about going to the appropriate noticeboard if necessary. I do have some off-Wiki evidence of it as well but hope everyone there can work together to get it cleaned up to more of a NPOV article.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
CNMall41, I don't think I can deal with the situation there. For me at least, it seems like there's a group of editors that keep insisting to do it by their way and it would be unproductive to persuade them otherwise. I still hold that 1/4 of his page is devoted to controversies is totally not due in proportions – regardless of how controversial Musk is. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I was just keep auto-translate, then it later starts to get a lot warnings. Currently for the process, I already done all except Super Heavy and the rest. CoolChib124 (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the edit you reverted at the above by the new editor who appeared to join wikipedia just to made this edit...I created the article and I saw their edit and decided to let it stand. It didn't seem like vandalism to me. I wondered if it was original research, but as it was about removing gender labels and leaving some things neutral, it seemed very much like good faith. I wonder if it should be left as per their edit? I think they only removed content and none of it was crucial, no edit seemed controversial or malicious. CT55555 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Rose Carrot Joaquin". The reason given for Rose Carrot Joaquin's block is: "Vandalism-only account".</nowiki>
Hi, You have made a error at a couple of FACs. These project pages have their own Talk Page. You should have moved content to there. Perhaps you should self-revert? Graham Beards (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Article passed due to cursory review. An in-depth review would have likely failed it
September 24, 2021
Featured article candidate
Not promoted
Article was withdrawn by nominator. Prose, sourcing and layout issues prevented it from advancing
October 11, 2021
Peer review
Reviewed
Prose, consistency, and terminology issues. Stability of article version is lacking. Stability is required for FAC
October 12, 2021
Guild of Copy Editors
Copyedited
Basic copyedit performed, but same issues remain
October 21, 2021
Featured article candidate
Not promoted
Sourcing improved, but lack of backend system (like Zotero) noted. Article still unstable.
November 21, 2021
Good article reassessment
Kept
Concern about synthesis. Withdrawn by nominator
December 2, 2021
WikiProject A-class review
Not approved
Out of scope of MILHIST
January 24, 2022
Peer review
Reviewed
Important milestone reached. Consensus is that article is improved and has moved into a new stage of editing for accuracy.
March 12, 2022
Featured article candidate
Not promoted
Prose and source quality issues still present
March 17, 2022
Good article reassessment
Delisted
Article content is not stable. Sourcing issues remain. NPOV issues raised.
Let’s go over this and get you back on track. That way you can create an outline with milestones to meet. This isn’t hard or difficult. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Question: were you the original author or primary contributor when you first nominated the article for GAN? If you weren’t, that would explain a lot of problems. Although there are many exceptions, when it comes to article improvement, you generally want to be the primary or secondary contributor during the process to best address and fix concerns. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Once you have a good outline together for the rewrite, update the milestones you will need to meet. Then, focus on on each one at a time. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Conclusions
Don’t bother editing revisions before January 24, 2022. The consensus is that version was one of your better ones.
Review the entire corpus of literature and choose the highest quality sources (see advice from FAC)
Focus on rewriting in your user space
Get in the habit of using reference management software like Zotero or something similar. This allows you to preserve text-source integrity and check your work for issues. During a review, you can easily go back and look at the original sources for answers to any questions. It also helps keep your article writing organized if and when any new developments occur.
Given the above criticism from your participation in the article improvement process, FIRST focus on creating a stable article.
After you are able to accomplish that milestone in your user space, focus on citing the best sources and verifying the integrity of the sources and the text.
After that milestone is reached, work on NPOV.
Lastly, focus on the prose quality.
Do not do all of these things at once. Focus on each milestone one at a time. In your user space.
Do not concern yourself with the article improvement process anymore for now. You’ll just run into the same problem. Stop doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
I’m happy to discuss this with you moving forward. I think you came very close to meeting your goals in January, but you dropped the ball when it comes to the importance of presenting and maintaining a stable version of the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
You’re not alone. Many of us are here to help you. The first thing to do, is to extract all your current sources and either export them to a reference management system like Zotero, or failing that, use the subpage in your user space, like User:CactiStaccingCrane/SpaceX Starship/sources. I’ve done that before, and it works well.
Then, once you’ve got all your current sources in one source repository, you can start sorting them by type: scholarly, industry, news, popular, press release, etc. Once you’ve done that, you can start adding new sources and eliminating old ones. Then, you can start putting your outline together. Something to keep in mind is that the stability criterion will have to be imposed on your outline due to the nature of this changing subject. That means, start with a general outline that will be unlikely to change. For specific dynamic developments that will destabilize your scope, think about including those potential new additions in your outline. Think about how the puzzle pieces will fit in the future. Don’t worry about writing a lead section, as that will come last. Sometimes it helps to write an article backwards; other times it helps to write it from the middle.
However you do it, choose a skeletal outline that emerges out of your best sources. By doing it this way, you will create a sound and firm foundation for the article to come, and your writing will naturally emerge out of what the sources say. Once you have the sources and outline in place, the article will write itself. Don’t worry about the prose. I will help you clean it up, as will others. But you will need to lay the new foundation and pour the concrete for the structure. Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I have compiled all the sources to Zotero (very cool tool btw!) and starting to create a fresh and new article at Draft:SpaceX Starship. I don't really like to write in my namespace as this is a complete rewrite and, well, that's what the namespace is for. I will be busy a lot during this and next month, so I'm sorry if I cannot respond to you promptly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I’ve removed my comments from the article talk page, as they were never intended for that namespace; they were addressed solely to you for this talk page. You can compose a draft wherever you like, but most editors do so in their user space. You are free to do what you like. Viriditas (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Going against consensus and then reverting someone who restores the status quo is the exact opposite of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Please open a formal discussion on nationality if you think the consensus should be changed. Overriding the consensus is not being 'bold'. Thank you. ‡ El cid, el campeadortalk17:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being disruptive earlier, I thought that the discussion is already a rough consensus. I will take a look at the article later to see how the discussion goes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Sources
Zotero allows you to work on both desktop and mobile and helps create sources for export. If you don’t want to use it, you can try to create a sorted list with notes like this. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Viriditas, thanks for your suggestions! I am currently mining some sources to get the most amount of info possible, which I do feel guilty of just using one citation for one fact in the main article... I am going to place notes inside square brackets next to the source like this:
You can do it however you want, but I recommended using separate indented paragraphs for notes like I did in the above example. Brackets are often used in reference formatting. By putting your notes on separate indented paragraphs, it’s easy to see as an explicit commment about the source. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with what you said. So, I think an ideal source entry would look like this:
Just wanted to check in with you about Draft:SpaceX Starship. I see you are working top down, starting with the lead, and that’s fine, but if you remember, I recommended working on the body and doing the lead last as it’s a summary. No matter, you do it the way you want. As for the sources, I see you are focusing on the NYT for some reason, but wasn’t one of the criticisms that was raised in another review was that you weren’t using more formal or scholarly sources? For example, there’s the Heldmann et al. 2021 source that received a lot of coverage. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to do the overview first then start branching out to other sources. I mean, I can start with other sources as well, but you know... whatever :). As for the "Accelerating Martian and Lunar Science through SpaceX Starship Missions", I would consider it at best a grey literature article due to the involvement of SpaceX employees. This isn't exactly a bad thing, but a lot of what the article said is already available in other more reliable sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. signed, 511KeV (talk)15:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Just a note
Just wanted to point out that in this edit to Philadelphia Flyers that you added a citation needed tag to (1086114668), that if you don't take the words "are owned" literally then that addition has all signs of being vandalism.
At this point I'm erring on the side of not assuming it is vandalism and just reverted it with an explanation and without warning the IP (I'd bet someone more knowledgeable on the subject would be able to tell immediately if it was, but I'm not), but if you hadn't taken it at face value I don't think I would have even noticed there was a possible legitimate meaning to that.
2804:F14:C060:8A01:2143:B1C4:1F66:F4AA, sorry that I don't realized this earlier! I changed "owned" to "won over" to prevent ambiguity next time. Happy editing, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Sounding rocket
The article topic is far too broad for an infobox at all. Not every article needs an infobox, and this one certainly doesn't, especially one designed for ship classes. Someone else has reverted you again, so please don't restore it. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry that I may be a bit too harsh on my revert, I was on a vandalism patrol and have to catch subtle vandals quickly. I hope this don't interfere too much with your edits. Cheers, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
CactiStaccingCrane, you claimed this GOCE request over a month ago, yet haven't started the copyedit. If you don't intend to begin work in the next couple of days, please free up the request so someone else can claim it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acidification. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Starship SN20, feel free to revive it, but I have a hunch that it won't work as well as we expected. Perhaps when I finish tackle these articles, I'd have a better idea on how to make a successful WikiProject. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, CactiStaccingCrane, I usually place this template just before I start a c/e; in this case I forgot, sorry. Cheers, Baffle☿gab17:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SpaceX Starship you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Urve -- Urve (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, CactiStaccingCrane. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Search, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, CactiStaccingCrane. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Usage of SpaceX Starship, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Regardless of the GAN outcome, you've done some great work on a great subject. Also, thanks for dredging up that photo of Musk at the Mars Society. Cheers, ~ HAL33318:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey Cacti, since we've run into edit conflicts a few times in editing the SpaceX Starship article, I wonder if we might both want to consider tagging the article {{in use}} when you are about to do multiple edits. That would let the other of us know to try to find another time to edit it and avoid frequent edit conflicts. What do you think? N2e (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hey Cacti. I did a few undos, and made a few edits, to the SpaceX Starship page, following the 29 consecutive edits you made to that page on 3-6 July. It was quite challenging to review your edits, and to use wiki tools to do so given the widely-all-over-the-article extent of your edits. In particular, leaving some of your good edits can make it impossible to use the tools to undo some of your earlier edits. In general, I think it would be easier for other editors to work in the article space if your edits, in any given focused period of editing, were a bit more focused and less scattershot across the entire article.
I see you were a new editor just 10 months ago. If you might want any help to grow in your editing skills, and Wikipedia community skills, I'd be happy to help mentor you in editing in and around Wikipedia. Let me know if that might be helpful. N2e (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
N2e, I guess that I've treated the publish button more like an auto-save button now and I don't think it would cause a lot of headaches like what you've said. In the past, my browser would frequently unable to save my edits or even crash, so this is my mechanism to fight that; now that I've got new hardware, I don't think that it is necessary to do so anymore. It would take a few weeks of adjustment (cause old habit dies hard) but I think that I can do this on my own. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
In appreciation
The honourable opposer's award
By the authority vested in me by myself I present you with this award in recognition of one or more well argued opposes at FAC. I may or or may not agree with your reasoning and/or your oppose, but I take a Voltarian attitude towards your right to state it. Thank you, such stands help to make Wikipedia stronger. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I entirely agree, and they should be used with caution. Nevertheless, there are times when they are appropriate and it is good to see editors other than reviewers giving well-reasoned Opposes to articles. That you do this is (IMO) commendable; that you realise the potential drawbacks is doubly so. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Article improvement suggestions for CastiStaccingCrane
Hi CactiStaccingCrane,
Thank you for all of your ongoing hard work to improve the United States article. 👏🏻 It does not go unrecognized. 🙌🏻
As evidenced in your good article talk thread there, the core group of page regulars is incredibly pleased and impressed with your efforts, especially since they admit that they do not have the time, stamina, and competence to take on such a project.
I found a few other spots in the article needing improvement that you may not have noticed:
In the science and technology section, the photo shows an obsolete spaceflight mission from half a century ago that gives readers no insight on the current trajectory of the spaceflight industry; a SpaceX Starship image would be an improvement to educate readers on the overall big-picture scope of science and technology, especially considering that the greater Wikipedia community supports your extensive hard work to build the SpaceX Starship article.
In the transportation section, the map shows national highway infrastructure almost entirely completed by the immediate post-World War II period in the 1950s-60s; it's outdated, and it should be improved with a Tesla car image since the Tesla navigates highways on behalf of drivers nowadays. As you may know, the mass of human article readers are increasingly buying Teslas in recent years. With autopilot, the need for article readers to manually interpret highway maps while driving, is a dying practice.
The energy section should be restored and it should have an image like all the other longstanding sections; it had a shaky foundation because it was short and lacked an image. Additional detail about modern renewable energy and a Tesla Supercharger image would make it a rock-solid educational and encyclopedic section for the readers that improves the article.
I badly wish to make those improvements myself right now, but unfortunately the page is locked for me to edit. 😭
Can you please make those improvements on behalf of the entire Wikipedia reader and editor community?
Hi CactiStaccingCrane, I provided retroactive attribution in the edit summary of this diff for the content you copied from Elon Musk. For future copying, just be sure to note it in the edit summary (with a wikilink to the original page). This is needed to satisfy attribution requirements as described at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, CactiStaccingCrane. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Search".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I don't think science is at the level needed for GAs, link. There are plenty of sources here, but many of them do not correspond to the cited material or are unreliable. Take this source: Putting aside its reliability, it does not verify "cater to the needs of a much wider readership", "including notable discoveries and advances in certain fields of research", or any of the examples of science magazines. I don't see the value of asking ten writers about science fiction, and then transmitting their opinions about its relevance as fact. We cite Marcus Tomalin's entire book (no pages), Linguistics and the Formal Sciences, to help support that mathematics is a formal science. The footnote [a] doesn't seem cited for the question of whether the universe is open. We cite the about page of a journal to say that mathematical physics exists. We cite a 2008 OECD report for the state of scientific funding. We cite a 1950s book, From Witchcraft to World Health (no pages), to suggest a present nickname for Hippocrates. I don't have the time to do any kind of review - too much to work on - so these are just examples of a wider problem to consider. Urve (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Urve, this is a huge oversight by me as I've wholeheartedly trusted these citations... I have withdrawn my GA nom and will try to get my hand on the sources for spot-checking. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I mean, the issue isn't really even spotchecking. I'd be surprised if nowhere in Tomalin was there a mention of math as a formal science. Even if there was a page number for the witchcraft book, that wouldn't ease anything. It's an issue of staying abreast of the state of research and preferring recent, reliable sources, for a subject that -- as its own article says! -- can quickly accrue "incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or over-simplified expositions". As an aside, some very interesting wording in the article: "women were frequently being passed over for job opportunities" (no longer?); "Lifestyle choice plays a major role in female engagement in science" (or is it perhaps being discouraged by sexism, and not entirely by their choices?); "elimination of sex discrimination greatly increased the number of women scientists" (discrimination was eliminated?). Urve (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Dreamers are often ridiculed because they end up giving up before they’ve even begun. You can dream big, but you need countless helping hands of you want something big to happen. The U.S. didn’t get to the Moon just because of a handful of academics sitting in folding chairs. It also required the efforts of the most refined industrial nation of the 20th century. And the way it started? Not necessarily because the common human wanted it to happen, but because the higher-ups had the time, resources, charisma, and purpose to make it happen. If you want this Vital project to succeed, you need an eager crowd to help you. And how do you gain an eager crowd? You need to show us that you have the guts to get your own things done. Start off small. Work on another project if your current one fizzles out. It may take years, nay, decades even, to bring forth the figure from the stone. But if you can make a Featured Article happen, others are more likely to listen to you. Good leaders need to show that they can work, learn, and cooperate. That is the secret to success. I doubt that all the vital articles will get a bronze star, but there are still 10 important ones that can at least become GAs. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
...In other words, I suggest working on smaller GAs before working on the more important ones. Better yet, try a completely new subject that you haven’t tried yet, such as a film, book, or video game. Once you have gained enough experience and grit, I suggest at least trying to make the lvl 1 vitals GAs. If you can make some small ones, others are more likely to trust and help you with the task, as they can see that you’re committed. Big things have small beginnings. Rant over. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for encouragement CollectiveSolidarity, but I think I'm gonna do something else for now. United States just get hit by socks (to the point a certain somebody accuse me of being a sock), and science like Urve said needs a lot more improvement before reaching towards GA. It's becoming more and more unproductive and exhausting, so I would like to take a break before attempting a Vital GA for the second time. The goal would eventually be achieved. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
You may find interesting, and less intensive, topics to work on in {{Human missions to Mars}} and {{Politics of outer space}}. I know this isn't part of your vital plan, but it could be a good stepping stone to writing GAs on subjects not as fraught with change.
Most of 'my' GAs are on topics of similar scope, and I shy away from the big topics, precisely because I don't feel comfortable working in such changing environments. It's also easier to create GAs from articles that you personally created, I've found; maybe hang around WP:Requested articles, or list articles? That's how I learned of Lorenza Böttner and Astri Aasen, two GAs, fwiw. Urve (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I'm all for improving the article if it meets FA criteria
But can you please explain why you removed the pictures you did? None of them seemed superfluous to me (except the symbols). Serendipodous11:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Giuseppe Piazzi's image – it sandwiches the text between it and the infobox, plus it doesn't really have a lot of encyclopedic value, one can just click the link to an article about him instead
Symbols – clearer vector images are added inline instead
Mass chart – maybe a bit arbitrary on my part, but I think I've removed it because there's already quite a lot of images at the top and I don't want readers to get distracted
Composition image – the colors don't really corresponds to the elemental composition (it's just a map of Ceres in 750 nm+ 920 nm wavelength)
Older topological map ("Topographic map of Ceres as of February 2015...") – blurry and add little to the article
If it's true that the composition image doesn't show composition, then the only image I care about is the Piazzi image. So I restored it below the infobox. Serendipodous15:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
