User talk:Kanasnick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

late 2012/early 2013 Talk page discussion[edit]

Wolfgang42

Happy New Year!

When do you anticipate competing the editorial process on my submission: PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL ISSUES AFFECTING EXPEDITIONARY SPACE MISSIONS?

Kanasnick (aka Nick Kanas)

[email protected]


Chris,

This is Kanasnick. I am new to Wikipedia and am having trouble understanding how to respond to your edit of my article. Please bear with me.

If you are asking about the copyright status of the images in the article, all of them were acquired from Wikimedia Commons, and the copyright information is there.

If you want me to include some suggested categories for the article, I went through the Wikipedia Category index, and the following terms seemed appropriate: popular culture, science and culture, maps, mental health, psychotherapy, positive psychology, psychiatry, astronomy, human spaceflight, interplanetary spaceflight, interstellar travel, astronaut, cultural studies, psychology, sociology.

Kanasnick (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Kanasnick[reply]


Reply[edit]

[1] File upload wizard is for adding images and media. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your post till Wolfgang42 posted on my talk page. I do not know how to move them over either. I would go to WP:IRC and connect to Wikipedia's live editing help channel. Or click this link. [2] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chris and I had a discussion on IRC; apparently he was confused about how commons and the English wikipedia linked together. I'm cleaning up your article a little bit & I'll get back to you on it shortly. — Wolfgang42 (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Wolfgang42--Thank you for clarifying things with Chris and helping tidy up my article. I look forward to having it accepted.Kanasnick (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)Kanasnick[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 20:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my article under "Psychological and Sociological Issues Affecting Expeditionary Space Missions" in response to the editorial comments in the following ways:

1. The style is more encyclopedic, and subjective information has been deleted. 2. As a result, the article is shorter, and the title has been changed to reflect the content. 3. The references have been put in ref/ref format. 

                                   Kanasnick (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Kanasnick[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mephistophelian (contact) 19:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 07:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, Kanasnick. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by heather walls (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]
Hello again, Kanasnick. I don't have time to respond to your further questions at the moment. I will do it later if someone else doesn't get to it first. What we mean when we say "essay": sometimes this indicates made up opinion, but it also means writing with imagery and and/or feeling. Wikipedia articles (for better or worse) are a bit dry and stilted, I believe that's in an attempt to stay neutral to a subject. Neutrality seems to be key. Talk to you soon, heather walls (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kanasnick! Thank you for your contributions. I am N2e and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! N2e (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article creation[edit]

Hello, Kanasnick. You have new messages at N2e's talk page.
Message added 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

N2e (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

text of all related discussion on N2e's Talk page is inserted below

Kanasnick re: Psychological and sociological issues affecting expeditionary space missions[edit]

RESPONSE TO YOUR RESPONSE

Thank you for your response to my submission. I have found this to be a very frustrating experience. I have written a review paper summarizing the research from my lab and others on psychological issues in space. I keep getting accused of writing an essay, yet the last two versions of my article are fact and review based, not opinion based, with ample use of references to papers and books. Apparently this type of review (which is common in scientific journals and books) is not acceptable to some of the Wikipedia editors. So, this is where things stand at the moment. Kanasnick (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Kanasnick[reply]

Thank you for your response to my submission. I have found this to be a very frustrating experience. I have written a review paper summarizing the research from my lab and others on psychological issues in space. I keep getting accused of writing an essay, yet the last two versions of my manuscript are fact and review based, not opinion based, with ample use of references to papers and books. Apparently this type of review (which is common in scientific journals and books) is not acceptable to some of the Wikipedia editors, even though I have read similar accepted reviews in Wikipedia. An earlier version of my manuscript had some opinion, but this was deleted in the last two versions. However, I feel this submisson has been typecast somehow and that the changes have not been appreciated. I was encouraged to write this review by NASA, but it has been so frustrating and time consuming that I am thinking of submitting it to a journal instead.Kanasnick (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Kanasnick[reply]

Hi Kanasnick. I'm quite sorry for your frustration in getting this article going. I really think this article needs to be in Wikipedia, but I also think that it is okay that we'll have to work on it a bit and take some time to get it there. I did some edits to a single paragraph of the article, hopefully serving as a bit of an example of some of the kinds of things that might be needed. If we get the citations fixed in that particular paragraph, and the other paragraphs copyedited, linked and sourced in a somewhat similar fashion, I think you'll find the article will be accepted for Wikipedia.
I'm happy to help, but will have to do it on a rather slow and deliberate way as my two real jobs intervene, and I have a lot of Wikipedia areas I like to work on.
Also, I suggest you not think of the "essay-like" descriptive comments as personal accusations. I looked over many of the comments, and I think you are merely getting responses from various editors about the article content, not about you personally. I certainly meant my comments in good faith and to be constructive, with the aim of getting the article developed sufficiently so it can join the large body of WP:Spaceflight-related articles.
See if the stuff I did in that one paragraph might help you see a bit of an example of some things that other editors are likely to look for in getting away from the "essay-like" criticism. N2e (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the article and saw some changes that I presume you made. Specifically, you made some links (which I don't know how to do), and you took away the names of some investigators and put the sentence in the passive tense and alluded to the investigators by a reference. You also added places for references, but I note that most of these are from the same source. Do you intend to just repeat the reference numbers over and over? In scientific writing for review articles, once you mention someone at the beginning of a paragraph, it is assumed that the rest of the paragraph is from the same work. Anyway, I think I see what you are doing. Feel free to continue at you own pace. Let me know when you want me to review or do anything. Since I have a book to write and other projects to do, I will be checking this article irregularly--if you want, I don't mind your contacting me via email since I check that every day (and frankly I am more comfortable with that system than with the Wikipedia format, although I am slowly learning the latter). My email is: [email protected]. Thanks for your help and sticking with me on this. Kanasnick (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Kanasnick[reply]
Hi Kanasnick. Thanks for the note.
I am not really looking to rewrite that article for the encyclopedia; I'm much more willing to help "teach a man to fish, ..." But I did try to do a bit of cleanup on two places in the article back on 13 Jan, hopefully to serve as a potential example for you, or whomever else might want to improve that proposed article. As I recall, I only rewrote the first paragraph of the last section of the article for that purpose, and then I also added wikilinks to a number of key concepts in the article introduction, and slightly copyedited that introduction to make it a bit less essay-like. You should probably also take a look at the comments I added for each edit (they are permanently kept with the article, and are visible if you look at the article History page, to see what I mean here; one can go through each individual edit any editor makes, and see just that change, as well as any comment they added about the edit.
I think a slow pace for any changes you make is probably a pretty good idea. That way you can learn one or two things, work on that, and then get feedback before doing too much work that might just be redone by other editors. So I'll just comment on a couple of things right now.
  1. In Wikipedia, the convention tends to be to add the citation at the end of the paragraph, if everything in the paragraph is tightly related and all explicitly supported by the same source. Quotations should of course be cited at the end of the quote. Sometimes, for a particularly strong or important claim, or because another editor requests a citation, you may add a citation to some assertion at the sentence level, or even at the phrase level.
  2. However, if you name a citation, like I just went in and did with a couple of refs in the article, then you may reuse the citation multiple times in the article. In this case, if the ref starts out like this: <ref name=kanas2008> ... </ref> then the same citation may be reused, without all the "... </ref> metadata, simply by slightly changing the syntax to this <ref name=kanas2008/> and then skipping the metadata entirely the second, third, etc. time the citation is used in the article. As an example, I have reused the kanas2008 citation once, just to illustrate. Take a look at the references section, and you will see that Reference has two superscripted latin letters (a, b, etc.) by it. Each of those superscripts are hotlinks to the part of the article where that citation was used.
Hope this is helpful to you. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now created![edit]

 Done — After I never heard back from you on my comment of 20 Jan 2013, I did nothing on the draft article for a long time. However, with the recent announcement of 501-day Mars flyby mission in the news, and also a recent noteworthy asteroid visit to Earth, I decided to work on it on my own: I have now created an article on the topic you proposed. See it here: Psychological and sociological issues affecting space travel

It still needs a lot of work, but now that it is out in the article mainspace, you'll find that many more editors will find, and at the margins, begin to improve the article. Out of all this, and over time, we can expect to see a good and useful article emerge. I look forward to your help in improving the article, but do recommend you look over WP:COI and self-disclose who you are and your authorship of many of the sources on the article Talk page before you do much editing. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kanasnick&oldid=692270189"