Difference between revisions of "User talk:Featherwinglove"

Latest revision as of 00:00, 28 July 2013

Reverting of the KEO introduction

Hi, I noticed that you reverted the introduction of the KEO article back to an older state. I left a statement about it on the article's talk page, could you please explain the reason for the edit there? --dgelessus ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:05, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

Sorry about the broken promise, apparently I either didn't save the discussion page, or the save didn't take (maybe I didn't notice the "This is only a preview" before logging out or something like that.) Featherwinglove (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

Maybe you can rewrite it, as I still have no idea what was wrong with my changes. — xZise [talk] 14:31, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

"A spacecraft on this orbit will stay in the sky above a constant longitude, making it easy to track a satellite and contact to them." contains bad grammar, and the rest of the intro sounded tentative, like you either didn't understand English, didn't understand astrodynamics, or both. It didn't sound like it had been written by someone who knew what they were talking about and had actually run the numbers and flown it in the game. My next challenge is to see how close I get to KEO with my current generation of spacecraft that use nothing but RT-10s and Sepratrons for propulsion. Featherwinglove (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

Okay granted they only stay on the same longitude, when they are stationary. If not they form an eight. To fix my grammar you simply could do so, but afaik the revert where to a worse state: There was this speculation thing, Clark orbit (wtf?), nothing about the difference between synchronous/stationary. Of course that inclination change at apoapsis was correct but at least I only questioned and not deleted it. Btw I'm neither English/American nor Astrophysicist. — xZise [talk] 15:14, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

Why did you vandalize my work? Then you come onto my talk page, blow a gasket, and sign off by acknowledging that you really don't have the qualifications to do anything with the KEO page? How am I supposed to feel about that? If that "I'm an admin/sysop" I find on your user page is all that matters, perhaps I should just cut my losses now and start pretending that I never purchased KSP (I'm already pretty close to doing that after the way Squad has treated my suggestions on the forums.) Feel free to ask, and of course if something seems inappropriately "in-character" (what does that mean and why is it such a crime? :/) you can go ahead and remove or change it... But please trust that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the physics and the maneuvers, otherwise I wouldn't have started the page. Regarding the Clarke Orbit, according to Wikipedia's page on Arthur C. Clarke, the International Astronomical Union named GEO in his honor. It's hard to get more official than that! In light of all this screwiness, I'm not going to make any more contributions to this Wiki until you explicitly tell me that it is safe to do so. (Kinda sad: I was giving some serious thought to updating the parts pages.) Featherwinglove (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

Regarding the "vandalizing" part, right under the edit box it says:

"Please note that all contributions to Kerbal Space Program Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."

If you publish an article here, you have to expect other people to change and improve it. If you want to have an article that no one will modify, either put it under your user page (e. g. "User:Featherwinglove/KEO") or on a private website. Also just because he isn't a native English speaker and astrophysician (none of which I am) doesn't mean that he can't edit the page. He does understand physics quite well, and even if not, there's no problem in others finding and correcting his mistakes. --dgelessus ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:09, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

First, Dgelessus, I'm giving up on trying to explain anything to xZise. Below, he couldn't even get the context of one of my comments and responded with "On reading what?" Maybe you know his native language and can do a better job of explaining things to him. So, as a guy who knows rocket science and English, I made a page using that knowledge, then had it butchered by someone who doesn't know English nor rocket science. And he's an admin of this Wiki. That tells me the world is upside down. As for the "in character" stuff (KSP and Squad's derpiness mentioned elsewhere), I want to see it because one of the things that really pissed me off about Kerbal Space Program is this half-baked approach of being a game containing serious rocket science taking off into the sort of cartoony direction that makes the turn-based Galactic Civilizations 2 seem to have a more serious character. KSP was first announced on the forums of a serious spaceflight simulator with eighth order symplectic and Runge-Kutta physics. I don't mind cartoony games, even ones that have realistic physics and resources, but I don't want that sort of thing to catch me so off-guard as it did with KSP. If the game is going to be derpy, some of that derpiness should be inherited by its Wiki, or we are not being honest with the gaming community. Just think, if this were a serious treatise on the Apollo/Saturn V, moon hoaxers might have something to grab onto. This Wiki is doing the opposite to KSP: making it appear far more serious than it actually is, and we can therefore expect more gamers who are frustrated in exactly the same way that I am. Squad has no problem advertising the non-serious nature of KSP, so why should we? I'm not about to start a page about how kerbals don and doff their helmets, but I hope you see can see my point without such a page. (I took a look at the Minecraft Wiki to see how reasonable my concerns are, and how well its derpiness comes across, only to remember that Minecraft is actually much more serious than KSP!) Featherwinglove (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2013 (CDT) P.S.: The main reason I didn't edit the KEO page after I created it in February is because there was nothing to update.

How did I vandalise your page? You created it in February and never touched it again. Now I stumbled on it a few days ago and thought, nice article and maybe this should be more general (why do we need an article only to the Kerbin stationary orbit, is there something important about this in particular). So I did a few modifications mostly to make it more “Wiki” like, removing (real) speculation (fyi: there is nothing special about a synchronous or stationary orbit in KSP yet except RemoteTech, so I wouldn't say it so popular, because every other orbit hasn't a special name/property) and yes not everything was correct. Then you did a revert and except for this physics glitch your wasn't that better. Of course this Sat TV anecdote is nice, but it was irritating for me what you wanted to tell with that sentence until I read it multiple times.

And I preferred KSO over KEO, because KEO sounded like the Kerbin-equivalent of LEO. — xZise [talk] 15:15, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

Low Kerbin Orbit (LKO) is the Kerbin equivalent of LEO. (I prefer LEO to stand for Low Energy Orbit so it is the same over all bodies and not just Earth. Apparently that's just me.) Featherwinglove (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

That why it only sounded like the equivalent of LEO: It isn't. Now the E in GEO does mean Earth and not equator so saying KEO for Kerbin equatorial orbit is a bit problematic as it might cause confusion if GEO is a Geo(stationary) equatorial orbit. Now GSO/KSO have only the difference in Geo-/Kerbin- so they can be translated well. And if you insist the KEO can still redirect and add as a name to the page. — xZise [talk] 17:40, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

There is no consensus as to whether the 'E' in GEO stands for Earth or Equatorial. I spent much of the day trying to figure out if there was. Those results are right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geosynchronous_orbit#Definition_of_GEO Featherwinglove (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

So my current plan for KEO is: Replace it with the text from User:XZise/synch (I only changed the introduction and a bit in the chapters) and then move it to stationary orbit and add a redirect from synchronous orbit to stationary orbit. That way we also cover all stationary and synchronous orbits. — xZise [talk] 15:37, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

Okay, I give up. On reading this, I rushed to get a screenshot of the maneuver table that's the reason I kept coming back to the KEO page... actually, that table is the main reason I published the KEO page in the first place... I thought maybe I wouldn't be the only player who'd want to have that information handy while fiddling around in the VAB. Featherwinglove (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

FYI, you can always check the page history. --dgelessus ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:09, 27 July 2013 (CDT)

On reading what? When you want to create your own little cheat sheet here use a user page and I won't edit it (unless to fix a redlink or something like that). And I never touched your table? — xZise [talk] 17:40, 27 July 2013 (CDT)