Talk:Seven heavenly objects

I would like to talk to the people editing this page, so that we don't end up over-writing each other's changes by accident.

That's good — but who are you? (Sign messages with four tildes: ~~~~.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chrisptx's worries

The following comments were e-mailed to me by Chrisptx, but I thought that it was much better to have these issues aired in public (I've answered in green, so as to make clear who's saying what). They're in response to comments that I'd left on Chrisptx's Talk page:

Sorry not to have replied to your e-mail — i saw it at about the same time I saw the changes to the page. The problem with the new material is in part what I'm worried about throughout the article: it seems to be pitched at primary-school children. I've tried to tighten it a little, and to remove material duplicated in other articles (on the heavenly bodies). Also, the initial summary needs to be tweaked, as it's not the standard definition. Perhaps we can discuss all this on the article's Talk page? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find your chopping out the things I've added to the "Seven Heavenly Objects" page to be a case of censorship in my opinion.

I'm afraid that that's how Wikipedia works; when writing articles, one has to be prepared to have them edited by others. It's not censorship, it's editing. We're trying to make the best possible encyclopædia, and sometimes there are differences of opinion concerning what is best &mddash; which is why the Talk pages are so important.

You said the additions were childish, or implied that by saying that you found them "pitched at primary-school children."

What are you afraid of? Why do you keep chopping out simple examples which show the connection of the words and ideas on the page?

First, being pitched at children isn't the same as being childish (indeed, the two are almost contradictory). Secondly, Wikipedia is aimed at adults; we mustn't speak down to our intended audience. I felt that the examples and explanations you gave were so obvious as to sound patronising to an adult (e.g., “In English, Saturday is the same as Saturns Day. All you need to do is add an "n" after the "r" to make the connection.”) I still feel that.

Are you going to keep removing the examples I give if I put them back after your changes?

Well, yes; no examples or explanations are needed — the facts as they're there are already as simple and straightforward as they need to be.

I appreciate the fixes you've made with typos and general format of the article, but I find your removals of the examples I added to be a case of censorship as I said above.

Incidentally, you haven't responded to my question about the copyright of the image. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since you want to play Wiki-Cop, and you claim that you'll keep changing the above page whenever I make changes to it, I guess there's no point in me continuing to be concerned with the page. You might as well delete the page, and then it'll be one less page for you to worry about censoring or controlling.

Chris Peterson 22:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)chrisptx

One more note about the following comment you made:

Secondly, Wikipedia is aimed at adults; we mustn't speak down to our intended audience.

I guess that counts me out then, since as a teacher who likes to convey information in a simple manner understandable by lay-people and even children, I don't apparently belong here, according to you.

Chris Peterson 22:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)chrisptx

You're rather going off at the deep end, I'm afraid. I take it that you recognise the difference between an encyclopædia aimed at children and one aimed at adults? You'd surely be surprised if you looked up 'Plato' in a philosophical reference work and found an article that read: 'Plato was a very wise man who lived a long time ago in a country called Greece. He wrote about the difference between being naughty and being good...' etc. That's (slightly) exaggerated analogy, but not that far off.

In any case, unless you're saying that it's impossible for you to write in any othger way, impossible for you to adjust to Wikipedia style, then no-one's saying that there's no place for you here. You have to learn, though, that shouting 'censorship' when other editors change what you've written isn't the way to proceed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider giving an example of "lunar" being tied to the moon as being childish or simplistic since many people might not make the connection, as well as the example of Mardi Gras meaning Big/Fat Tuesday as being unrelated or childish examples.

Do what you want with the page, since you've pruned it down to almost nothing at this point. I'm through contributing to it at this point, thanks to you.

Chris Peterson 00:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)chrisptx

Why are you oversimplifying my actions and comments? First, to repeat yet again, I dubbed nothing 'childish'. Secondly, I didn't say that my sole reason for making edits and deletions was that the material was pitched at the wrong level; much of the material was simply duplicating what exists in other articles (see, for example, Days of the week, or the articles on the individual heavenly bodies.

Now, you can go off and sulk if you want to – no-one can stop you – but it would be more useful all round if you spent some time looking at other articles on Wikipedia, making small edits, and working your way up to starting an article once you're more at home with the way that the system works, and with the style and level that's expected. You're likely to get a lot out of it, and Wikipedia will benefit from your presence. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)