User talk:Urwumpe

Vandals

Hi. There has been quite a lot of vandalism. I have reverted as much as I can. I have set up a category - Category:pages requiring admin attention, in which I have listed all the culprits I could find. Please can you ban them. --GW_Simulations 00:09, 1 April 2006 (MSD)

Sorry that it took so long, can't those vandals just wait until i have enjoyed my social life for today. :( They are now banned and i hope the night will be calm... --Urwumpe 03:04, 1 April 2006 (MSD)

Administrators

Hi. I was wondering what the Orbiterwiki policy on applying for adminship was? Can you help? Thanks: --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 00:38, 17 May 2006 (MSD)

Spam Blacklist

I can't quite work out how this works. Please can you add "http://dvd.1golod.org/" to it. --GW_Simulations_{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 16:02, 16 July 2006 (MSD)

You can assume that all hosts domains looking like 1(...).org are only registered for the purpose of spamming, so you can simply block the whole domain on the spam blacklist by adding a line:

<URL>1golod\.org

thats all. Urwumpe 16:47, 16 July 2006 (MSD)

Solar System Template Edit Comments

The comment I believe you were looking for was:

Moving in other dwarf planets.

Not...

If you edit the template to fit to this bad example of a definition, please do it correctly.

which seems to suggest no-one should do anything if it's not total. Which is a bit daft for a wiki.

HTH, HAND. etc. --BadWolf 05:33, 25 August 2006 (MSD)

Well, if i really followed the definition, we have no planets left - even jupiter has not "cleaned its orbital neighbourhood." I changed the template to fit to the official interpretation of the rules accepted by the remaining 450 scientists in prague, but i think if this definition survives 2006, something is very wrong.

And my tone was just a reply on the "Hurray, pluto is no longer a planet" - tone. If its not neutral enough for your taste, please keep on complaining about my character... --Urwumpe 18:47, 25 August 2006 (MSD)

Jupiter has cleaned its neighbourhood very well. It even cleans ours. As for your comments, admonishing an editor for incompleteness is different to celebrating a triumph of common sense. If, however, you want sole editing rights, just say so, and stop complaining about us mere mortals in edit summaries... --BadWolf 20:50, 25 August 2006 (MSD)

Can you have an example where jupiter influenced the spatial density of objects around its orbit in a way, which you can't find on a smaller scale on pluto? If thats the definition of cleaning its neighbourhood.

And you can have as many editing rights as you want to have. And no, i don't agree to "triumph of common sense" and i hope you don't plan to use this term in an article. Common sense was the old August 16 definition. It was clear, did not rely on either subjective or redundant qualities (cleaning its orbit or impact on spatial density of objects, which would be proportional to its mass, which is already used as limit for the sphere shape). Thats not common sense, and if you would create such a definition as student on university, your professor would usually academically kill you for that. --Urwumpe 21:19, 25 August 2006 (MSD)

Oh, you want to argue about the definition? I thought you were simply slagging off users. My mistake.

Jupiter is the single greatest contributor to the planetery system. Without it all Solar models would be broken. To suggest it doesn't dominate the region it occupies is madness verging on blindness. US politicians and self-taught experts might not understand what's been agreed, but the logic is perfect: Pluto clearly isn't a planet, how do we define planet so as to make it not so? We don't want hundreds of planets. When I say 'exta-solar planetary systems' I don't mean the equivalent of Pluto, Sedna, Ceres and the like. Half the accretion disc would qualify otherwise.

My editing rights are a matter for policy. It's not your position to lecture me as to what they are when they fall within that, thank you.--BadWolf 03:37, 27 August 2006 (MSD)

But thats not the definition. Where in the new definition stands "dominates space by its gravity"? Also, that is again a subjective attribute as long as you don't define a hard value, like eg, "has more mass than 1% of the solar system." Also, where is the domination of space of mercury or mars? There are only very few asteroid belt objects, which are affected by mars gravity, while most have their orbits dominated by resonances with jupiter. And its very hard to ignore something like Jupiter even at the end of the kuiper belt - but because of the pretty small solar gravity potential in that region, even neptune is a major disturbance factor for KBO objects.

And please: Don't try to get as aggressive on other users here. I don't mind if you try to draw discussions with me to the personal level(slagging off, "immortals"), but don't even think about trying the same with others. This is not the Orbiter IRC.--Urwumpe 14:59, 27 August 2006 (MSD)

Damn, I must have forgotton to press save when I typed my reply. In summary:

1) The definition is that it cleans the area around its orbit, which is implicitly by gravity. Do you see thousands of chunks of ex-accretion disc hanging around Mercury or Mars between the Lagrange points? No. Do you around Pluto? Yes.

2) Yes, it's nebulous. It's meant to be. This isn't for scientists, their work is not affected in any way, it's about dictionaries and the general public. When scientists say 'planet' to another scientist, they know they don't mean space chunks like Pluto, Ceres et al. but Joe Public does. Dictionary definitions are rarely non-negotiable and this is often a Good Thing.

3) You threaten me on the basis of mudslinging, yet it is you with your hands caked in mud? This is not M6.

4) What has IRC got to do with it? You imply I routinely attack other users therein? See 3).

I had high hopes for OrbiterWiki, but it seems it's turning into a space encyclopedia. We don't actually need that, we have Wikipedia. And moreso it's turning into a private one where editors are attacked by administrators for, um, editing.--BadWolf 16:54, 27 August 2006 (MSD)

1) Between the lagrange points of pluto? There is most likely nothing - currently. We can't observe things smaller than Nix and Hades (which are currently labelled moons of pluto) yet. What about mercury crosser asteroids, or near mars objects? What about NEOs?

2) If you want to go that level, you can also just say, that its completly irrelevant how we call pluto or how many planets the solar system has. But if it would be like that simple for astronomers, we wouldn't have such a decision. We got the current definition because planet has to be so much different to a dwarf planet or something else. So, a planet according to the new definition will always have "cleared his neighbourhood" when you say, object x is a planet. Which implies that there is a observeable difference. Which does not exist for most planets - look at neptune.

The earlier definition was much better in that case, because it did not rely on subjective or fuzzy terms. It was clear and simple, used logically independent rules - like you should expect as the result of a scientific process. Or was it all about astrology?

3) I only tell you what you can expect if you try to do similar discussion styles with other users on other talk pages. If you attack me, thats my personal problem. If you attack others here, that will become an admin problem. If you attack others on my talk page, you can complain about massive censorship - because i will plainly delete it.

4) Yes, you like to argue until somebody cries. I have been often and long enough on IRC, remember?

So, stop getting pathetic - you had choosen the tone for the pluto edits, if you don't like others to use the same tone, stop it and be a better example. All you wanted was to degrade pluto as soon as possible, celebrated it in the wiki change log - and i answered by completing your edit, and remind you in the same changelog to do the work properly next time, as you had forgotten that the new definition was more than only the degradation of pluto. If i disturbed your celebrations, well, sue me.--Urwumpe 20:01, 27 August 2006 (MSD)

The tone is irrelevent. My celebrations weren't an attack on anyone. Your statement that I must do better work on your wiki before being allowed to contribute were. You attacked me. You know it. You now threaten me about attacking non-admins. Where's your punishment? You did exactly what you warn me not to. As if I were guilty in the first place! You like to fight, too Urwumpe. It takes two to tango. I still read M6 remember? --BadWolf 16:45, 28 August 2006 (MSD)

If you remember M6, i can only repeat it: No personal attacks against other users. My formulation in the changelog was not the political correct neutral form (just like your changelog entry), but it was also far away from being a personal attack (see above, why i had choosen this formulation, i hate repeating myself).

If you would have done accurate work, nobody would have said or done anything against your celebration - but you didn't. All you did was on the edge to be called vandalism. If the now-official terminology would not have been on your side, you would have gotten a VAND1 warning - just like every aganda-driven vandalism, in any wiki i know. But all what you did was celebrating sloppy work, so i corrected the sloppiness and stopped the celebrations for it.--Urwumpe 18:41, 28 August 2006 (MSD)

My change was not incorrect. It was however incomplete. Urwumpe, you're losing the plot if you think that's even close to vandalism! It's normal wiki editing. In what way did you stop the celebrations? By being rude and insulting as you were? That is a personal attack in my book. Physician heal thyself!

Face it, you were upset at the sensible downgrading of Pluto, didn't like the fact I was finally able to take out Pluto, and decided to be rude and insulting to me. Then, when I politely jibed you above about your rude corrections, you accuse me of a personal attack against you and threaten me with your admin privaleges. It's laughable. Sadly it will probably now cause me to stop contributing to this wiki, you don't have many editors as it is. I hope the owner reads this exchange and sees how you encourage contributors. --BadWolf 20:00, 28 August 2006 (MSD)

Well its laughable - its especially laughable that you needed to contribute more to my talk page in the last two days, than to the wiki in the last 6 months. Well, you are old enough for being responsible for yourself.--Urwumpe 21:58, 28 August 2006 (MSD)

Another comment that doesn't appear to make any sense whatsoever. You picked a fight and got called on it, then sought to blame the victim, attempting to use the threat of admin action to cover it up. You then question my contributions, which have been considerable in total. Why should they need to be recent, exactly? If someone posts something I know about, I'll help with it. Pages such as a fictional space empire and the seven-hundreth moon of Uranus aren't something I want to contribute to. But no, instead you'll accuse me of vandalism! Talk about one-eyed.

You're old enough to admit you've overstepped and apologise for your personal rudeness. But you still won't. In fact I predict your reply will instead be personal and rude.--BadWolf 23:06, 28 August 2006 (MSD)

---

I am old enough to admit, what is to be admitted. I had used the same tone as you used, while i should have been a better example. Well, i am just human. About the remaining accusations, get some support and kick me out of business. If i would be wrong, i could have just deleted the discussion here and really cover it up. I also don't say: "Shutup or i will ban you." I only say, if you start similar personal attacks against non-admin users, an admin will have to deal with it - it does not even say that it will be me, who does the dirty work. Don't expect more tolerance from others. After all, you might remember how personal attacks are solved in IRC, don't you?

The articles about fictional space or the seven-hundreth moon of Uranus are something, which matters orbiter users. And you should know that well if you read the forums. We are not wikipedia, we are covering a small topic in wikipedia (Orbiter) better, at the cost of not covering all topics in our own wiki. Of course more physical parameters and navigational data about the 700 hundred moons would be nice - but currently hard to realize.

But its a very bad excuse to say, that no articles appear where you can contribute. After all, its pretty easy to start interesting articles your own. If they are not orbiter related or better covered by wikipedia, we will let you know.--Urwumpe 23:46, 28 August 2006 (MSD)

1) I have not personally attacked you except in response to your personal rudeness and attacks on me. So it's simply another personal slur by you in suggesting that I would. If you believe I have, let's get another admin involved.

2) What I choose to edit is my business, it is not your position to criticise me for what I choose to edit, or demand more thoroughness with the threat of a vandalisation warning(!)

3) My tone was one of happiness, your tone was one of personal rudeness. Don't believe me? Look at the text again. Suggesting your attack on me was simply 'tone' is scoundrelous at best.

4) On IRC we ban people who snipe rudely at other users and refuse to admit they started it. But it's hard to ban a wiki admin. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about IRC. Why? This seems to be yet another attempt at a personal attack, but I can't understand the point your trying to make. --BadWolf 00:06, 29 August 2006 (MSD)

1) Why should i? If you feel i treat you bad, its your job to get one. If you are not sure you did get bad treatment, maybe you should not risk getting additional support for my point of view.

2) Sure it is. About what is vandalism, just feel free to read the same reference, i use: w:Wikipedia:Vandalism, especially the definition of attention-seeking vandalism.

3) Wow, strange how subjective interpretations can get. Thats why its usually common to use a neutral tone in the wiki!

4) Not really, just a compareable situation for you, from the other side of the table.

5) What are you really discussing about? I get doubts its about the edits or the situation of pluto.

--Urwumpe 00:44, 29 August 2006 (MSD)

1) I feel you have treated me rudely, and that's why I'm talking to you about it. It's clear to me you don't care. I'm not so concerned as to file a complaint against you -- I'd have done that already by now, but when you start threatening me with bans I'm going to explain to you why you're wrong.

2) Wikipedia is exactly the example where this is not vandalism. It was a good-faith edit to correct an incorrect page. The version I left was more correct (Ceres is still 1 Ceres, that's an astroid definition, incidentally) than the one that preceded it (Pluto as a planet), therefore it nether comprimised the integrety of the wiki (it improved it) nor was it in Bad Faith. This accusation is totally ridiculous.

3) You didn't complain about the tone, you instructed me to not edit, which was rude and wrong.

4) I can see the exact parallel. There is a comment. There is a rude reponse, it is pointed out, there is another rude comment, it is reacted with angrily, there is a personal insult. Who do we ban? Not the first person, the person who disagreed rudely and started lobbing insults. That's not me, if you hadn't noticed.

5) I'm discussing the point your rudeness turned into insulting behaviour. "If its not neutral enough for your taste, please keep on complaining about my character...", which implies I had said something about your character -- I had not. This I therefore found insulting, and pointed this out. You then accuse me of personal attacks ignoring yours. You then go on to insult me further by suggesting I have personally attacked you, and will do so to others. You seem to think your behaviour is not insulting, but my behaviour is. This is mistaken, and is why this tedious discussion ensued.

What do you think is being discussed? --BadWolf 01:05, 29 August 2006 (MSD)

I am really getting tired of repeating myself in the whole discussion for three days.--Urwumpe 01:35, 29 August 2006 (MSD)

Come on guys, isn't this a minor point? I admit I was a bit surprised about the comment, but I'm sure this is a one-off. Let's just forget about this - I can clear the comment if you like and let's also delete this discussion which can be a sad reminder for a long time. We don't have that many contributors to lose the two of you guys. If you want to discuss the template itself, Template talk page is the best place. --RaMan 10:31, 29 August 2006 (MSD)

Fine by me. Cheers, --BadWolf 13:25, 29 August 2006 (MSD)

OrbiterWiki:Random tutorial

Hi there. I just joined today specially to remove disturbing link spam from the main page that was a result of editing OrbiterWiki:Random tutorial. Is it possible to protect this page? Regards Davidelit 09:04, 2 December 2007 (MSK)