User talk:Derek Balsam/Terra Firma discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

No offense to you, but I have been on here alot longer than you most likely think and I do in fact know the rules and prefered precedures(something you don't seem to know, see later in this comment for my reasoning). It may seem that I am new to this, but that is because I left for a few years and I have forgotten my login info for my admin account. I'm sure that you didn't mean to insult me, but you did. What I did on the solar system page IS a valid fix. In english the planet we live on is Terra Firma or latin for firm ground, firm earth, when you say just earth, you actually say "the earth", which is not a valid name for a planet, it is not "the Venus", in the scientific community when most people refer to our planet formally it is using the same language we use for the other planets (latin) and therefore it is call Terra Firma. I will respect you and not follow your lead of editing without consolation (which if you read the welcome page as you instucted me to do, you would see is the prefered manner of fixing possiblely disputed edits, and not reverting them like you would a vandalized page), and will wait to hear back from you. Gloern

This is not just between you two, Gloren. I think anyone would disagree with you. If you want to do it, though, start a discussion on the talk page of the article, or possibly the Earth page.
I am very well read in astronomy. I am familiar with Terra Firma, but I have rarely come across it, and never have I seen it used throughout a book or article. I have never come across it in tables or planetarium programs. The same goes for Luna. In fact someone proposed changing the title of the "Moon" article to "Luna", and was rejected. Terra Firma has only been on used on about 233 pages in Wikipedia, according to a Google search on site:wikipedia.org "terra firma" (Quotation marks force Google to search for the exact phrase). Only four also contain astronomy.
The other planets are named after mythological figures; this is not the case for our planet or its satellite. Both Earth and the Earth are correct and are nearly always used for our planet. And Moon is just about always the word used for our natural satellite. Saros136 09:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually the main point of my comment was not if I was right or wrong (notice that was in the middle of the statement, not the important beginning or end, and was only 1 of 6 sentances), it was the manner that he choose to edit me. He used aggressive terms that are to be only used for vandalism. Then he had the gall to insult me on my talk page, that my 'test' has been corrected and to not do that sort of thing agian. I think that you Saros136 would agree that even though you disagree with it, a well-meaning person could have made the edit that I did. Therefore the proper method (described in the very place he told me to read {which actually I did reread quickly}) would have been to re-edit my contribution as an edit (and not a spam revert) and then start a dialogue with me about why I made the change on the talk page of the solar system and direct me to it on my talk page. Since he failed to follow the rules, I started the conversation for him. Also since I had resigned myself that my edit was not going to be allowed (discovered after I wrote the note, but before I wrote on the talk page, because I desided to read the arcives of the talk page and found that twice there had been this type of discussion with the majority siding with you two, I was doomed to fail), I did not write on the solar system talk page and only on here. Thank you for your concern that I was not writing to the proper audience, but as I hope you see, I had my reasons. As for Derek, I look forward to your responce. Gloern 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your courteous and thorough reply. Actually, I did a sloppy job of making my point. ( And seeming rude, to me at any rate...I'm sorry). When I said "this is not just between you two" I was only half right. I thought( and think) it was right to answer on Derek's page about his approach. I had no doubt you were making a good-faith edit.
My thinking was that, your proposal was at least pretty non-standard and probably controversial, and I thought it was such a change it would be necessary to seek a consensus rather than just securing Derek's agreement.
I agree that Derek was wrong here. To be honest, I often revert vandalism (with popups) and although I'm usually cautious, I've been wrong once that I know of, and possibly more. It becomes possible when there is no track -or a bad one- record for the poster, and no comment. Here, there were both(and the track record is good, of course)-a sure sign that you're being honest...and the edit itself fell into the probably-good-faith category. And, as you indicated, reverting mistakenly is worse when done as a vandal response, not an edit.
I wish you the very best on Wikipedia, and hope this gets worked out. Saros136 06:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks again to you both and I'm out. Gloern 20:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Gloern and Saros136

Hello Gloern and Saros136! Thanks for taking the time to discuss this issue. Imagine my surprise to see this lengthy discussion between you two concerning a quick edit I made which was made in good faith. Please extend the same courtesy to me -- assuming good faith -- that you are claiming I did not extend to you. My edit comment clearly stated my reasoning, which was simply that the name of our planet was not "Terra Firma", as Saros136 confirms. However, let me expand:

1. Gloern did not discuss on the Talk page his proposal to change of the name of the Earth and Moon to "Terra firma" and "Luna" - which you will agree is a fairly significant proposal -- prior to starting to make that change.

2. A quick search revealed that no proposals to change the bodies' nomenclature had been made to any other Astronomy articles in Wikipedia. It seemed unusual and ill thought out to change the names only in the Solar System article.

3. It was obvious that Gloern had not read the Solar System article archives prior to making his change, or he would have seen the previous rejection of the proposal to call the moon "Luna".

4. Gloern seemed to be a relatively new user. Gloern, you say you are a longtime user, and I believe you. But your profile, which is the only view others have of you on Wikipedia, did not contain a long history, so you must believe me when I say that I honestly thought you were a relatively new user.

So please see things from my point of view. A relatively new user makes a change which has wide-ranging impact, a change at least part of which has already been proposed and rejected once, and makes no Talk page discussion prior to doing so. The change leaves the article in an inconsistent state, with different nomenclature in different parts of the article. Based on these items which were apparent to me, I reverted the change in order to maintain the quality of the article. As Wiki etiquette demands, I did not simply revert the change, but I also informed the User. I used a standard Wikipedia template which is the mildest warning possible to someone. The language about "test" is not an insult. It's just the standard template Template:uw-test1. The usage of this template is clearly stated in Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings: "if you are not sure that an edit is vandalism, always start with 'uw-test1'".

So, Gloern, please accept my statement that I intend you no personal insult. I hope that both of you see that my actions were not only done in good faith, but in accordance with normal Wikipedia procedures. Now, finally, let's continue this discussion in Talk:Solar System if we want to discuss the proposal.

Thanks for your time and useful discussion, folks. Derek Balsam(talk) 17:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me add an additional minor point which I nonetheless must respond to as a matter of courtesy. Gloern said, "He used aggressive terms that are to be only used for vandalism. Then he had the gall to insult me on my talk page, that my 'test' has been corrected and to not do that sort of thing agian."
1. Gloern, what specific 'agressive terms' do you believe I used? My comment, in its entirety, read "(rv edits by Gloern. The name of the Earth is not "Terra Firma".)" There are no aggressive terms in that comment. rv simply means "revert" (See Help:Reverting: "Some Wikipedians abbreviate "revert" as "rv".")
2. What insult did I make on your talk page? As I stated above, I used the Wikipedia Template:uw-test1 which is to be used specifically when one is not sure if an edit is vandalism. Other than the use of the template, I didn't write anything else on your talk page, certainly nothing that can be construed as an insult.
I'm making this response to these 2 issues because I want the record set straight that I would never under any circumstances use aggressive or insulting language to a fellow Wikipedian, and that I did not do so in this case. Gloern, I hope you see that this is the case from my point of view. Thanks, Derek Balsam(talk) 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I guess I went a little over board, but the part that I think you might have missed on the wiki instructions was this:
Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
Along with a couple other similar ones listed on the Help:Revert page. I realize that there was no real way to improve my edit other than to undo it, but even that would have counted and been easier for me to see. I thank you for being a fair person and I appologize for my part. Hope to meet you again on better turns. Gloern 19:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)