Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-02T12:26:15Z

Rras:

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

# Yes, this page is not being honest. I am not against refinement of Conservapedia's rules and suggested a [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|blocking review board framework]]. This is about RobS: being disloyal to his fellow Conservapedians, not wanting to apply rules to himself, playing pointless power games, whitewashing Ashlafly's talk page and often behaving unreasonably. The dishonesty of this web page has probably caused Karajou and TerryH not to vote. Plus, Karajou believes sockpuppets are being used to vote and this page is a sham. Furthermore, I did find it telling that RobS watched my vote and Karajou's vote being removed and did not bother to ask TerryH if he thought he should lose his Admin rights since I maintain this is TerryH's position. Given the dishonesty of this web page, I would not be surprised if others did not vote either and are not going to bother with this web page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:25, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#:'''Comment''' When did you vote and who altered your edit? Show diffs, please, before throwing around reckless, wild accusations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:28, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#::'''Comment''' Does Karajou have any proof to show that people are just socking up? Let him run checkuser and weed them out. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You're going to look at the list of blocks now, TerryB; I'm going after the socks and removing them, beginning with yours. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:46, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#::*Karajou can speak for himself. This is just more [[hearsay]] and [[innuendo]]. We're still waiting for User:Conservative to back up his claim 5 sysops support his scheme. Where are they? I count one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:08, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Conservative made good points about RobS's affiliations with an Atheist site. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:21, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is one of the few people on here in power who is consistently calling for sysop accountability, something that is vital to a collaborative project like this. While I certainly do not support everything he does on here, not including this current issue, it is night and day compared to the nothingness that Conservative and his "articles" bring to this encyclopedia. This is a case of sour grapes from Conservative since he is the main culprit of sysop abuse currently. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 21:58, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#No. He is a diligent and attentive administrator, as far as I am aware.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:13, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. RobS seems to be primarily promoting discussion about the Rules and Guidelines of this site and the accountability of administrators to those guidelines. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 09:08, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. This started out as a simple request from one admin to another for the latter to be more accommodating in the spirit of a wiki. user:Conservative has acted in a manner unbecoming of a sysop, dragging the debate across several pages, including - ironically - Mr. Schlafly's, whilst insisting that people cannot post on his talk page. If anybody deserves censure out of this, it is user:Conservative - he blows a simple request totally out of proportion, divides the sysop body and suddenly runs away - again! - claiming he is "very busy." Somebody this irresponsible should not be in a position of authority. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:12, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. {{personal remark removed}} User:RobS is correct in attempting to discipline him. {{unsigned|JanW}}
#I don't think either should lose their sysop rights. I enjoy reading Conservatives satirical works, they often make me laugh. On the other hand I think Rob is right, I am new here but I get a little nervous when I see how many people are blocked. {{unsigned|John01}}
#NAY! Conservative has been making a mockery of this website. Rob seems to be the only one able to see this and do something about it. Flying Kitties? FLYING KITTIES? --[[User:Rras|Robert Ras.]] 08:21, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-02T12:21:48Z

Rras:

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

# Yes, this page is not being honest. I am not against refinement of Conservapedia's rules and suggested a [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|blocking review board framework]]. This is about RobS: being disloyal to his fellow Conservapedians, not wanting to apply rules to himself, playing pointless power games, whitewashing Ashlafly's talk page and often behaving unreasonably. The dishonesty of this web page has probably caused Karajou and TerryH not to vote. Plus, Karajou believes sockpuppets are being used to vote and this page is a sham. Furthermore, I did find it telling that RobS watched my vote and Karajou's vote being removed and did not bother to ask TerryH if he thought he should lose his Admin rights since I maintain this is TerryH's position. Given the dishonesty of this web page, I would not be surprised if others did not vote either and are not going to bother with this web page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:25, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#:'''Comment''' When did you vote and who altered your edit? Show diffs, please, before throwing around reckless, wild accusations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:28, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#::'''Comment''' Does Karajou have any proof to show that people are just socking up? Let him run checkuser and weed them out. [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 19:00, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You're going to look at the list of blocks now, TerryB; I'm going after the socks and removing them, beginning with yours. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:46, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#::*Karajou can speak for himself. This is just more [[hearsay]] and [[innuendo]]. We're still waiting for User:Conservative to back up his claim 5 sysops support his scheme. Where are they? I count one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:08, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Conservative made good points about RobS's affiliations with an Atheist site. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 01:21, 1 August 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is one of the few people on here in power who is consistently calling for sysop accountability, something that is vital to a collaborative project like this. While I certainly do not support everything he does on here, not including this current issue, it is night and day compared to the nothingness that Conservative and his "articles" bring to this encyclopedia. This is a case of sour grapes from Conservative since he is the main culprit of sysop abuse currently. [[User:Ameda|ameda]] 21:58, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#No. He is a diligent and attentive administrator, as far as I am aware.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:13, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. RobS seems to be primarily promoting discussion about the Rules and Guidelines of this site and the accountability of administrators to those guidelines. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 09:08, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. This started out as a simple request from one admin to another for the latter to be more accommodating in the spirit of a wiki. user:Conservative has acted in a manner unbecoming of a sysop, dragging the debate across several pages, including - ironically - Mr. Schlafly's, whilst insisting that people cannot post on his talk page. If anybody deserves censure out of this, it is user:Conservative - he blows a simple request totally out of proportion, divides the sysop body and suddenly runs away - again! - claiming he is "very busy." Somebody this irresponsible sho--[[User:Rras|Robert Ras.]] 08:21, 2 August 2011 (EDT)uld not be in a position of authority. [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:12, 1 August 2011 (EDT)
#No. {{personal remark removed}} User:RobS is correct in attempting to discipline him. {{unsigned|JanW}}
#I don't think either should lose their sysop rights. I enjoy reading Conservatives satirical works, they often make me laugh. On the other hand I think Rob is right, I am new here but I get a little nervous when I see how many people are blocked. {{unsigned|John01}}
#NAY! Conservative has been making a mockery of this website. Rob seems to be the only one able to see this and do something about it. Flying Kitties? FLYING KITTIES? --[[User:Rras|Robert Ras.]] 08:21, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

User talk:Rras

2011-05-25T01:07:27Z

Rras: /* Sourcing */

== Sourcing ==
Please do not copy and paste content that you found on the Internet without properly sourcing each paragraph. Treat the articles here like submitting a research paper for a class. Proper citations using: <nowiki><ref>AuthorLast, AuthorFirst. "Article Title". URL</ref></nowiki>. [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[Special:Contributions/JonG|~]] 17:55, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:Hi Jon...not that great with computers. I get an error when I try to add the reference. The following is what I tried. What am I doing wrong?
:The Tranquility node of the International Space Station (ISS) features a viewing dome unlike any other window ever flown in space. The dome, called the Cupola, is literally studded with windows for observing Earth, space, and the marvelous expanse of the ISS itself.
:The Cupola, named after the raised observation deck on a railroad caboose, is designed as an observation platform for operations outside the station--e.g., robotics, spacewalks, and docking spacecraft. Computer workstations inside the dome will give astronauts full control over the space station's robotic arm and dexterous manipulator, while the windows offer unparalleled views of these devices in action. <ref>http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/26jun_cupola/</ref>

::Again, do not copy and paste. Read the content, then put it in your own words. For any content that "isn't common knowledge" you put a source.
::For the <ref> problem, you must also put: 
<nowiki>==References==
<references/></nowiki> 
::at the end of your article. [[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[Special:Contributions/JonG|~]] 16:17, 21 May 2011 (EDT)

Ok..I re-wrote it. I used notepad to do it but it doesn't let me "edit" "copy" then "paste". Help!

This is all so frustrating for an old fart.

User talk:Rras

2011-05-21T02:32:18Z

Rras:

== Sourcing ==
Please do not copy and paste content that you found on the Internet without properly sourcing each paragraph. Treat the articles here like submitting a research paper for a class. Proper citations using: <nowiki><ref>AuthorLast, AuthorFirst. "Article Title". URL</ref></nowiki>.

[[User:JonG|~]] [[User_talk:JonG|JonG]] [[Special:Contributions/JonG|~]] 17:55, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

Hi Jon...not that great with computers. I get an error when I try to add the reference. The following is what I tried. What am I doing wrong?

The Tranquility node of the International Space Station (ISS) features a viewing dome unlike any other window ever flown in space. The dome, called the Cupola, is literally studded with windows for observing Earth, space, and the marvelous expanse of the ISS itself.

The Cupola, named after the raised observation deck on a railroad caboose, is designed as an observation platform for operations outside the station--e.g., robotics, spacewalks, and docking spacecraft. Computer workstations inside the dome will give astronauts full control over the space station's robotic arm and dexterous manipulator, while the windows offer unparalleled views of these devices in action. <ref>http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/26jun_cupola/</ref>

ISS Cupola

2011-05-20T00:34:52Z

Rras: Created page with "The Tranquility node of the International Space Station (ISS) features a viewing dome unlike any other window ever flown in space. The dome, called the Cupola, is literally studd..."

The Tranquility node of the International Space Station (ISS) features a viewing dome unlike any other window ever flown in space. The dome, called the Cupola, is literally studded with windows for observing Earth, space, and the marvelous expanse of the ISS itself.

The Cupola, named after the raised observation deck on a railroad caboose, is designed as an observation platform for operations outside the station--e.g., robotics, spacewalks, and docking spacecraft. Computer workstations inside the dome will give astronauts full control over the space station's robotic arm and dexterous manipulator, while the windows offer unparalleled views of these devices in action.