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. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
|
Howdy, Ariel. I hope your Saturday morning finds you with much coffee and some nice quiet time to rest and relax so you can recuperate from your recent illness. :)
I'm just doing a little bit of work and learning about AJAX before heading off to a wedding later today. Have a great one! -- Mike Vitale 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
--
Hdt83
Chat has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
They're going to take AfC down in November :-( -- Agüeybaná 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Argh, more meaningless drivel for admins to clean up. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I created an article "John L. Fugh" here but it doesn't appear to have been approved and neither has it been rejected. I thought I'd ask if the article has been passed over (?) here seeing as you're one of the administrators of that page. I'm not all that familiar with the article creation/pending review process so I thought I'd ask for your comments regarding that submission. Thanks (I'll check back here for comments). 220.255.35.70 23:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what the heading looks like to me... I'm not that good with web design, or, I'd fix it myself... BTW, I see you around everywhere, and you seem to have a great grasp on how things work here, have you ever thought about requesting adminship? Heck, if I can pass, nearly anyone can, in theory :) SQL Query me! 06:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
As i said if you think it could be improved you should do so... It was not anywhere near word for word from the site... infact it is far more less than the rest of the article.. witch by the way is word for word from varies sites only not referenced... I spent all night writing this small section and you just delete because it doesn't meet your standards... If you have a problem with certain phrases then remove or reword them... why should anyone waste their time trying to improve articles if people like you just delete are contribution as soon as they are written.... Trail Rider —Preceding comment was added at 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
ok fine with me i shall waste my time no more... oh and by the way please don't post copywrited text on my page... you can do me one favor and tell whoever you tell they can cancel my account.. as i will make no more contributions from this day on... User:Trail Rider... —Preceding comment was added at 15:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to clean that up. I have been busy fixing up Burger King related articles and have not been able to get back to KFC. Good job. - Jeremy ( Jerem43 17:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC))
Blatant WikiLove on the page
User talk:Kyoko
Welcome to Wikipedia. While we invite everyone to make meaningful contributions to our encyclopedia, edits that seem intended solely to amuse or spread good cheer are considered
obvious examples of WikiLove. If you continue in this manner you may receive a smile and/or hug in return. Please accept my thanks. Keep spreading the love, and consider improving a
random article too. Thank you.
*hug* Thanks, AG! -- Kyok o 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate your comments and help adding references to the new article at Spaceflight participant. Rillian 20:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I realize that using templates will probably allow you to do a better job of making conversions than if you did them with a calculator or with pencil and paper. But when they've already been done by someone else, that someone else is most likely a whole lot more competent at making them than you are. Please leave them alone. For example, here are some of the conversions you added to Space Shuttle in several different edits.
was | ArielGold template | ArielGold seen | GN says | notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
The payload capacity is 50,000 lb (22,700 kg). | convertW|50000|lb|kg|1|lk=on | The payload capacity is 50,000 pounds (22,679.6 kg). | original or "50,000 lb (23,000 kg)" or "50,000 lb (23 t)" | [1] |
each provide 2.8 million lbs of thrust at liftoff, | convertW|2800000|lb|kg|1 | each provide 2,800,000 pounds (1,270,058.6 kg) of thrust at liftoff | 2.8 million lbf (12.5 MN) | [2] [1] |
about 150,000 feet (45.7 km), | convert|150000|ft|km|lk=on | about 150,000 feet (45.72 km), | original | [1] [3] |
about ½ inch (1.27 cm) thick [had just been changed to] about ½ inch (12.7 cm) thick | convert|.5|in|cm|lk=on | about .5 inches (1.27 cm) thick | retain the common fraction either ½ inch (13 mm) or ½ inch (10 mm) | [1] [4] [3] [5] [6] |
It weighs 7,500 lb (3.4 t) less | convertW|7500|lb|S/T|2|lk=on| | It weighs 7,500 pounds (3.75 S/T) less | original | [5] [1] [7] |
Operational altitude: 100 to 520 nmi (185 to 1,000 km) | convert|100|nmi|km|2|abbr=off|lk=on convert|520|nmi|km|1|lk=on |
Operational altitude: 100 nautical miles (185.2 km) to 520 nautical miles (963 km) | 100 to 520 nmi (190 to 960 km) | [8] [1] |
Speed: 27,404 ft/s (7,643 m/s, 27,875 km/h, 17,321 mi/h) | convert|27404|ft/s|mph|0|abbr=off|lk=on (7,643 [[Mile#Statute miles|m]]/s, 27,875 km/h) | Speed: 27,404 foot per second (18,685 mph) (7,643 m/s, 27,875 km/h) | original (might be overprecision in all of them, needs looking into | [9] [10] |
Crossrange: 1,085 nmi (2,009 km) | convert|1085|nmi|km|2|lk=on | Crossrange: 1,085 nautical miles (2,009.42 km) | original | [1] |
giving roughly 200 mph (90 m/s) of delta-v. | convert|200|mph|km/h|1 | giving roughly 200 miles per hour (321.9 km/h) of delta-v | original | [5] [1] [3] |
at about 400,000 ft (120 km) | convert|400000|ft|km|lk=on | at about 400,000 feet (121.92 km), | original | [1] |
reduced from 424 mph (682 km/h) to approximately 215 mph (346 km/h), (compared to 160 mph (260 km/h) for a jet airliner), at touch-down. The landing gear is deployed while the Orbiter is flying at 267 mph (430 km/h). To assist the speed brakes, a 40 ft (12 m) drag chute is deployed either after main gear or nose gear touchdown (depending on selected chute deploy mode) at about 213 mph (343 km/h). It is jettisoned as the Orbiter slows through 69 mph (110 km/h). | convert|424|mph|km/h|1|abbr=on|lk=on convert|215|mph|km/h|1 convert|160|mph|km/h|1|abbr=on convert|267|mph|km/h|1 ft to m|40 convert|213|mph|km/h|1 convert|69|mph|km/h|1 |
reduced from 424 mph (682.4 km/h) to approximately 215 miles per hour (346 km/h), (compared to 160 mph (257.5 km/h) for a jet airliner), at touch-down. The landing gear is deployed while the orbiter is flying at 267 miles per hour (429.7 km/h). To assist the speed brakes, a 40 feet (12 m) drag chute is deployed, either after main gear or nose gear touchdown (depending on selected chute deploy mode) at about 213 miles per hour (342.8 km/h). The chute is jettisoned as the orbiter slows through 69 miles per hour (111 km/h). | original | [1] [11] [12] |
notes
|
Those black box templates are deceptive. Some of the problems with them could be fixed--for how long, who knows? But in order to use them correctly, you need to know all the nuances of the parameters associated with them, you need to be aware of ambiguities in the names of the units converted from or to, and most of all you need to use some common sense to make sure that what gets presented isn't way overprecise or way underprecise. There are often two arguable choices as to where to round them off, sometimes more, but many of yours go way beyond acceptable limits.
Additional problem: Your templates will not show significant zeros following the decimal point.
I haven't commented on your linking choices.
You made some other changes with other templates, too. I just looked for "convert" which found the "convertW" as well, and one {{ ft to m}} got in with the bunch. The {{ convert}} template seems to be a little more polished than the {{ convertW}}.
I'll check back here. I hate ping-pong discussions. Gene Nygaard 04:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that kind of explanation is much more helpful than a giant convoluted table that does nothing to present the issues in a readable format. Thank you. That being said, I was not "insisting" anything, but merely stating my personal opinion, and since your initial comment started out basically insulting my intelligence, and calling me "incompetent", neither of which was very civil or helpful, I may have naturally reacted with a bit of defensiveness, even though I tried not to. You are right that I do disagree with the precision item; I think that with some technical items, "rounding off" is not a good idea, but I'm not inflexible, and I don't edit-war, so feel free to make any changes you see fit, even if you wish to revert every instance of a template in the Space Shuttle article. Or, if you insist they be removed, but don't wish to do it yourself, I'll be happy to do it when I get a chance. I would of course prefer to leave some of them, as I do think that precision is more important in that article than the MOS's recommendations (specific example: operational altitude, which previously rounded 963km up to 1000km) or in some, just remove the parameter that adds a decimal point, which solves most of the issues. But again, I'm not about to argue about it, or edit-war over it. Ariel ♥ Gold 12:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing my user talk page, I probability would have not noticed! Get better soon! Tiddly-Tom 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Thought I would stop by and poke ya! I know im not on much any more, but I am at least passing all of my graduate courses with B's or better (so far). Full time classes and working full time was probably more than I should have bitten off! I hope I will get some time here soon to get back into my normal contributions! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, here's the scam: I've taken over the Eilat page for a major update, upgrade and expansion (it IS my home town, after all) and even got the template to say so. My current problem is this: the Coral World Underwater Observatory Marine Park, Eilat, is the first of its kind in the world, but the link Coral World goes to the second one in the Virgin Islands. What I think is needed is a disambiguation notice on the VI page saying something like "for Coral World EILAT see Eilat page" etc. Then when I've finished with the city of Eilat maybe I'll get around to creating a new page. a) Does that make WP sense? b) Would you do it for me? I'll learn in time.... but right now I'm up to my EARS. Thank you, Shir-El too 04:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. this is from WQ:
Cometh al this new corn fro yeer to yere;
And out of olde bokes, in good feith,
Cometh al this newe science that men lere.
~ Geoffrey Chaucer ~
P.P.S. May we continue here? Ping-pong between your page and mine is a @#$^ in the )(@^#%*($. Thank you!
I visited the page before signing off and saw a lot of great changes. In Modern era, could you reference the 1956 - Suez Crisis after Suez Canal? It's perfect for it. G'Night! [And Tks: I'm glad to be back!] Shir-El too 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a very old joke as well as a potential POV can of worms. the Negev was partitioned to the Jewish state because (a) only the Jews were insane enough to try and settle it {Negev is the source of the word magevet- towel, as in toweled dry}, and (b) it looked good on the map. Hence "Palestinian land", which legally refers to "Mandate Palestine". Everyone forgets two important facts: (1) Mandate Palestine included Trans Jordan all the way to the Iraqi border (the British peeled it off to make a thank you gift of it to Emir (later King) Abdallah I of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). (2) "Palestine" was a British administrative designation, never a "people". Even the British acknowledged it in their official documents, including initials equivalent to "LI", Land of Israel under Palestine, even on coins.
Nobody thought the young state could hold onto it all. Egypt tried to grab a direct land link to Aquaba before the final armistice came into effect. Ben Gurion wanted access to the Indian Ocean, and he saw the Negev as Israel's greatest potential resource in terms of raw materials and agricultural communities. Hence the importance of the Ink Flag.
Egypt doesn't want the boat rocked today because Israel and the international community have agreed on the current borders - after Israel developed Sinai into a tourist goldmine and after Israel developed the Abu Rodes oil field between 1967-80.
Apropos "Palestinians": the current situation doesn't make sense unless you understand that all Arab society and culture is and always has been feudal in nature. Loyalty is to family and clan, not base on an abstract nationality, nor is territory an absolute definition because it is won or lost through warfare. That explains why what we think of as "corruption" is so rampant: one has to take care of oneself and one's family/clan first. Islam was a unifying force for a while, but today the closest thing to a pan-Arab organization is El'Qaida.
Sorry to bore you: will try to keep it down in future. Thank you, Shir-El too 12:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
So now you'll have to explain all the alphabet soup and I thought you were asleep???? G'Night!!! Shir-El too 15:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
anyone of the myriad that watch this page know much about doing programming of any kind to get info out of MEdiaWiki? Not for Wikipedia, but for the office Wiki. Drop me a line either here or on my talk page. Thanks! — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 03:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
(undent)Anytime! Glad to be of assistance :) SQL Query me! 05:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Happy Halloween! To Ariel and all of the people on this page. Or, to be nice, happy unspecified pagan holiday! But if any of you really do dislike Halloween, then I just wish you a happy almost November. i (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
— Wknight94 ( talk) 14:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think for NASA STS missions its fine to assume crew members represent the USA, and I agree using a flag icon draws unwarranted attention to nationality. For ISS expeditions, which are inherently inter-national in nature, I think it makes more sense to be completely consistent: either every crew member gets a flag icon, or none do. ( sdsds - talk) 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ariel, I came upon this user page, and I did blank the page but I suspect its a vandalized page - maybe there's another name for this kind of thing. Anyway if you check the history you'll see what I blanked . I would think the whole thing should be deleted . It does use your User name "in vain". Bad puppy! ( olive 21:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)) [ [1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ariel, and thanks for your cogent points on the Jay Barbree references / Deke Slayton authorship.
Re. the Barbree story, it is an anecdote that appears in his book, that the writer of the MSNBC (same affiliated company as Barbree) repeats in the context of talking about his book, and the only source of which can be Barbree (as the other person, Shepard, is long dead). Therefore, it seems more accurate to cover all bases by saying "Barbree says Shepard told him" - but it would also work to say "In his book, Barbree writes that Shepard told him" - I'd be happy to amend to that. It therefore then correctly leads to the source. As Barbree's books are not an accurate account of the space program (there are a huge number of factual errors in the most recent one, and many of the anecdotes are unreliable) it is best to show that the source is him, and not a fact coming from another source. In this instance, the only possible source for the MSNBC story is Barbree. MSNBC, by repeating it, do not by default verify it.
Re. the Slayton authorship, I also believe it is more correct to say:
In 1993, Shepard, journalist Howard Benedict, and Barbree collaborated to write the best-selling book, Moon Shot.[3 Astronaut Donald K. "Deke" Slayton is also listed as an author, although he passed away before the project was completed.
Slayton colleagues have said that the "Moon Shot" book was one he had no actual participation in, but that he allowed his name to be placed on before passing away without ever seeing a draft. I thought my wording was therefore a more accurate summary, in that it still names him as a listed author, without (incorrectly) suggesting he was an active participant. The wording you have changed it back to "In 1993, Shepard, fellow Mercury astronaut Deke Slayton, journalist Howard Benedict, and Barbree collaborated to write the best-selling book, Moon Shot.[3] Slayton died before the book was completed" is factually incorrect (although impossible to source this) as it lists Slayton as an active collaborator. I'd recommend it be changed to the more accurate, more open version which allows both possibilities, not just the factually incorrect one.
I realize that we are in the somewhat murky waters here of impossible-to-source information, therefore my wish that a more neutral pose is taken. Otherwise, the page is pushing in the direction of incorrect information, no matter how meticulously it can be proved that the incorrect information is repeated by other journalists. Thank you, and I appreciate and admire your longstanding and hard work to keep these pages accurate. Authorinfo 22:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ariel, Okay, I guess we'll agree to disagree on the author listing - the page is incorrect, as any reliable space historian would tell you. but I understand the need to keep things grounded in sources. I have made the other change, as you suggest, and thanks for understanding the viewpoint on that one.
As the person who began the Barbree page, FYI you may wish to look at areas such as recent Amazon.com reviews on Barbree's new book, including from a well-known Apollo spacecraft engineer. It might be informative to you as to why many people are concerned whenever they see Barbree's anecdotes repeated as fact in web pages that others may use as reliable sources.
So pleased to see that you are working on so many fronts to keep the space information updated and widened on Wikipedia - great work - thanks! Authorinfo 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ariel,
Yes, I read the book the other month. I'm sorry to say, it has all of the errors in there that are listed on Amazon. I was immensely disappointed, as I have always enjoyed Barbree's work.
I agree, Amazon reviews are not something that could ever be used or relied on as a source, that was just FYI. In this instance, those negative reviews are correct, as information like rocket heights, mission lengths, rocket fuel amounts etc. can be checked and verfied against non-memoir sources, and they are often incorrect in his book. There are even lines from the "Apollo 13" movie used as if they really happened, although there are verifiable sources saying they were invented for the movie. I found and noted all the same points as mentioned in those reviews, as have other space historians.
For an outside space enthusiast, I bet the book reads as a wonderful, exciting account. For those who were there or have researched the events, it is painful to read for the amount of errors. The fact that it uses a faked photo is damning in itself, when it comes to accuracy.
I certainly agree with you that something like "Slayton had nothing to do with it" would be far too strong for somewhere like Wikipedia - I was instead trying to write neutrally but with wider options. But I quite understand what you are saying, and the care that needs to be taken for any changes, however subtle. I have to admire the way you do your work, even when I disagree sometimes! Thanks.
And there are some great other books out there about the early years of spaceflight - here is probably not the forum to make recommendations, but I'd encourage you to see what else is out there, too. Authorinfo 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ariel, sounds like you are thinking about all of the ramifications and looking for accurate information, which is great. Indeed, memoirs tend to be less reliable than other types of publications - all the more reason not to rely on them for objective facts, and to tie anecdotes from them back to the memoir. Glad you are interested in the subject, and appreciate your work.
Authorinfo 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou very much! And thankyou also for your support in my RfA. I look forward to getting started. Best wishes, Lra drama 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. IslaamMaged126 16:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a quick reference of all socks and suspected socks or did you just happen to know about Albi? Thanks JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
At WP:EAR I saw some personal information which you later removed. I would have removed it myself - I was there a few minutes before you - but I thought that an admin could remove it completely (even from the history files), where all I could do is a normal edit. If I run across that kind of thing in the future should I just go ahead and remove it instead of waiting for an admin? Can an admin in fact remove it completely? Sbowers3 23:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ari, how are you? I hope that some interesting things will be happening soon! Happy November! Love, Neranei (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Happy November! ;) Tiddly-Tom 18:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This is very cool! — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 21:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
<- No, a friend IM'ed it to me. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This does not surprise me in the least. /me wonders why an archive would be so popular... — Soleil (formerly I) 20:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What??? :) Heh, heh, you may want to see this old userpage revision to find out why I don't think November is boring. :) Acalamari 21:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you know that I just noticed this now? :-) So, belated thanks for reverting the troll. I guess I'm pretty famous around here, considering the fact that I've already been impersonated several times :-) -- Agüeybaná 00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello dear! I know that you've already retired for the night, but I wanted to leave you this little note for you to wake up to. :) Whether it's answering questions, defending me at my RfA, or being one of the very first to say congratulations once the smoke cleared, you've been so helpful and incredible about everything, and I just wanted to thank you from the bottom of my heart. See you on IRC soon, I hope! We're waiting in your channel. :) Glass Cobra 02:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried to add this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2007-10-30#Les_Parrott
on 10-30, and... it's still sitting there, not disapproved, just forgotten. Could you please look at it, Ariel? Thanks!! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.214.92 ( talk) 08:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WOW!! You found way more info on him than I did-awesome article!! Thanks!! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.214.92 ( talk) 21:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks very much for your help, but I am still a bit confused since I have found at least two pages (many more are out there) Ruggero Santilli and Giovanni Amelino-Camelia who have their page as well and I am pretty sure that they edited it by them selves. I know both of them. Anyway I will read all the links that you gave me and I will try and understand a bit better what "third-party sources" mean. Can I get back to you if I am still confused? In the mean time the page won't be deleted I will be glad at least until I understand.Thanks a lot for your help.-- Cardone Fabio 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
An article I maintain (out of a grand total of two) was one of those targeted for speedy deletion last week. Several of us have upgraded the article [ link] this past week. When do we know the article in question has achieved notability and when can we take the non-notable and hangon tags down? Or is that done my an administrator?
I am sorry to bother you with this, but I just want to make sure I am not adding to the problem. Thank-you for all your effort and time. Chadatonic 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
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. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
|
Howdy, Ariel. I hope your Saturday morning finds you with much coffee and some nice quiet time to rest and relax so you can recuperate from your recent illness. :)
I'm just doing a little bit of work and learning about AJAX before heading off to a wedding later today. Have a great one! -- Mike Vitale 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
--
Hdt83
Chat has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
They're going to take AfC down in November :-( -- Agüeybaná 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Argh, more meaningless drivel for admins to clean up. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I created an article "John L. Fugh" here but it doesn't appear to have been approved and neither has it been rejected. I thought I'd ask if the article has been passed over (?) here seeing as you're one of the administrators of that page. I'm not all that familiar with the article creation/pending review process so I thought I'd ask for your comments regarding that submission. Thanks (I'll check back here for comments). 220.255.35.70 23:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what the heading looks like to me... I'm not that good with web design, or, I'd fix it myself... BTW, I see you around everywhere, and you seem to have a great grasp on how things work here, have you ever thought about requesting adminship? Heck, if I can pass, nearly anyone can, in theory :) SQL Query me! 06:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
As i said if you think it could be improved you should do so... It was not anywhere near word for word from the site... infact it is far more less than the rest of the article.. witch by the way is word for word from varies sites only not referenced... I spent all night writing this small section and you just delete because it doesn't meet your standards... If you have a problem with certain phrases then remove or reword them... why should anyone waste their time trying to improve articles if people like you just delete are contribution as soon as they are written.... Trail Rider —Preceding comment was added at 14:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
ok fine with me i shall waste my time no more... oh and by the way please don't post copywrited text on my page... you can do me one favor and tell whoever you tell they can cancel my account.. as i will make no more contributions from this day on... User:Trail Rider... —Preceding comment was added at 15:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to clean that up. I have been busy fixing up Burger King related articles and have not been able to get back to KFC. Good job. - Jeremy ( Jerem43 17:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC))
Blatant WikiLove on the page
User talk:Kyoko
Welcome to Wikipedia. While we invite everyone to make meaningful contributions to our encyclopedia, edits that seem intended solely to amuse or spread good cheer are considered
obvious examples of WikiLove. If you continue in this manner you may receive a smile and/or hug in return. Please accept my thanks. Keep spreading the love, and consider improving a
random article too. Thank you.
*hug* Thanks, AG! -- Kyok o 22:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate your comments and help adding references to the new article at Spaceflight participant. Rillian 20:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I realize that using templates will probably allow you to do a better job of making conversions than if you did them with a calculator or with pencil and paper. But when they've already been done by someone else, that someone else is most likely a whole lot more competent at making them than you are. Please leave them alone. For example, here are some of the conversions you added to Space Shuttle in several different edits.
was | ArielGold template | ArielGold seen | GN says | notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
The payload capacity is 50,000 lb (22,700 kg). | convertW|50000|lb|kg|1|lk=on | The payload capacity is 50,000 pounds (22,679.6 kg). | original or "50,000 lb (23,000 kg)" or "50,000 lb (23 t)" | [1] |
each provide 2.8 million lbs of thrust at liftoff, | convertW|2800000|lb|kg|1 | each provide 2,800,000 pounds (1,270,058.6 kg) of thrust at liftoff | 2.8 million lbf (12.5 MN) | [2] [1] |
about 150,000 feet (45.7 km), | convert|150000|ft|km|lk=on | about 150,000 feet (45.72 km), | original | [1] [3] |
about ½ inch (1.27 cm) thick [had just been changed to] about ½ inch (12.7 cm) thick | convert|.5|in|cm|lk=on | about .5 inches (1.27 cm) thick | retain the common fraction either ½ inch (13 mm) or ½ inch (10 mm) | [1] [4] [3] [5] [6] |
It weighs 7,500 lb (3.4 t) less | convertW|7500|lb|S/T|2|lk=on| | It weighs 7,500 pounds (3.75 S/T) less | original | [5] [1] [7] |
Operational altitude: 100 to 520 nmi (185 to 1,000 km) | convert|100|nmi|km|2|abbr=off|lk=on convert|520|nmi|km|1|lk=on |
Operational altitude: 100 nautical miles (185.2 km) to 520 nautical miles (963 km) | 100 to 520 nmi (190 to 960 km) | [8] [1] |
Speed: 27,404 ft/s (7,643 m/s, 27,875 km/h, 17,321 mi/h) | convert|27404|ft/s|mph|0|abbr=off|lk=on (7,643 [[Mile#Statute miles|m]]/s, 27,875 km/h) | Speed: 27,404 foot per second (18,685 mph) (7,643 m/s, 27,875 km/h) | original (might be overprecision in all of them, needs looking into | [9] [10] |
Crossrange: 1,085 nmi (2,009 km) | convert|1085|nmi|km|2|lk=on | Crossrange: 1,085 nautical miles (2,009.42 km) | original | [1] |
giving roughly 200 mph (90 m/s) of delta-v. | convert|200|mph|km/h|1 | giving roughly 200 miles per hour (321.9 km/h) of delta-v | original | [5] [1] [3] |
at about 400,000 ft (120 km) | convert|400000|ft|km|lk=on | at about 400,000 feet (121.92 km), | original | [1] |
reduced from 424 mph (682 km/h) to approximately 215 mph (346 km/h), (compared to 160 mph (260 km/h) for a jet airliner), at touch-down. The landing gear is deployed while the Orbiter is flying at 267 mph (430 km/h). To assist the speed brakes, a 40 ft (12 m) drag chute is deployed either after main gear or nose gear touchdown (depending on selected chute deploy mode) at about 213 mph (343 km/h). It is jettisoned as the Orbiter slows through 69 mph (110 km/h). | convert|424|mph|km/h|1|abbr=on|lk=on convert|215|mph|km/h|1 convert|160|mph|km/h|1|abbr=on convert|267|mph|km/h|1 ft to m|40 convert|213|mph|km/h|1 convert|69|mph|km/h|1 |
reduced from 424 mph (682.4 km/h) to approximately 215 miles per hour (346 km/h), (compared to 160 mph (257.5 km/h) for a jet airliner), at touch-down. The landing gear is deployed while the orbiter is flying at 267 miles per hour (429.7 km/h). To assist the speed brakes, a 40 feet (12 m) drag chute is deployed, either after main gear or nose gear touchdown (depending on selected chute deploy mode) at about 213 miles per hour (342.8 km/h). The chute is jettisoned as the orbiter slows through 69 miles per hour (111 km/h). | original | [1] [11] [12] |
notes
|
Those black box templates are deceptive. Some of the problems with them could be fixed--for how long, who knows? But in order to use them correctly, you need to know all the nuances of the parameters associated with them, you need to be aware of ambiguities in the names of the units converted from or to, and most of all you need to use some common sense to make sure that what gets presented isn't way overprecise or way underprecise. There are often two arguable choices as to where to round them off, sometimes more, but many of yours go way beyond acceptable limits.
Additional problem: Your templates will not show significant zeros following the decimal point.
I haven't commented on your linking choices.
You made some other changes with other templates, too. I just looked for "convert" which found the "convertW" as well, and one {{ ft to m}} got in with the bunch. The {{ convert}} template seems to be a little more polished than the {{ convertW}}.
I'll check back here. I hate ping-pong discussions. Gene Nygaard 04:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that kind of explanation is much more helpful than a giant convoluted table that does nothing to present the issues in a readable format. Thank you. That being said, I was not "insisting" anything, but merely stating my personal opinion, and since your initial comment started out basically insulting my intelligence, and calling me "incompetent", neither of which was very civil or helpful, I may have naturally reacted with a bit of defensiveness, even though I tried not to. You are right that I do disagree with the precision item; I think that with some technical items, "rounding off" is not a good idea, but I'm not inflexible, and I don't edit-war, so feel free to make any changes you see fit, even if you wish to revert every instance of a template in the Space Shuttle article. Or, if you insist they be removed, but don't wish to do it yourself, I'll be happy to do it when I get a chance. I would of course prefer to leave some of them, as I do think that precision is more important in that article than the MOS's recommendations (specific example: operational altitude, which previously rounded 963km up to 1000km) or in some, just remove the parameter that adds a decimal point, which solves most of the issues. But again, I'm not about to argue about it, or edit-war over it. Ariel ♥ Gold 12:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing my user talk page, I probability would have not noticed! Get better soon! Tiddly-Tom 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Thought I would stop by and poke ya! I know im not on much any more, but I am at least passing all of my graduate courses with B's or better (so far). Full time classes and working full time was probably more than I should have bitten off! I hope I will get some time here soon to get back into my normal contributions! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, here's the scam: I've taken over the Eilat page for a major update, upgrade and expansion (it IS my home town, after all) and even got the template to say so. My current problem is this: the Coral World Underwater Observatory Marine Park, Eilat, is the first of its kind in the world, but the link Coral World goes to the second one in the Virgin Islands. What I think is needed is a disambiguation notice on the VI page saying something like "for Coral World EILAT see Eilat page" etc. Then when I've finished with the city of Eilat maybe I'll get around to creating a new page. a) Does that make WP sense? b) Would you do it for me? I'll learn in time.... but right now I'm up to my EARS. Thank you, Shir-El too 04:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. this is from WQ:
Cometh al this new corn fro yeer to yere;
And out of olde bokes, in good feith,
Cometh al this newe science that men lere.
~ Geoffrey Chaucer ~
P.P.S. May we continue here? Ping-pong between your page and mine is a @#$^ in the )(@^#%*($. Thank you!
I visited the page before signing off and saw a lot of great changes. In Modern era, could you reference the 1956 - Suez Crisis after Suez Canal? It's perfect for it. G'Night! [And Tks: I'm glad to be back!] Shir-El too 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a very old joke as well as a potential POV can of worms. the Negev was partitioned to the Jewish state because (a) only the Jews were insane enough to try and settle it {Negev is the source of the word magevet- towel, as in toweled dry}, and (b) it looked good on the map. Hence "Palestinian land", which legally refers to "Mandate Palestine". Everyone forgets two important facts: (1) Mandate Palestine included Trans Jordan all the way to the Iraqi border (the British peeled it off to make a thank you gift of it to Emir (later King) Abdallah I of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan). (2) "Palestine" was a British administrative designation, never a "people". Even the British acknowledged it in their official documents, including initials equivalent to "LI", Land of Israel under Palestine, even on coins.
Nobody thought the young state could hold onto it all. Egypt tried to grab a direct land link to Aquaba before the final armistice came into effect. Ben Gurion wanted access to the Indian Ocean, and he saw the Negev as Israel's greatest potential resource in terms of raw materials and agricultural communities. Hence the importance of the Ink Flag.
Egypt doesn't want the boat rocked today because Israel and the international community have agreed on the current borders - after Israel developed Sinai into a tourist goldmine and after Israel developed the Abu Rodes oil field between 1967-80.
Apropos "Palestinians": the current situation doesn't make sense unless you understand that all Arab society and culture is and always has been feudal in nature. Loyalty is to family and clan, not base on an abstract nationality, nor is territory an absolute definition because it is won or lost through warfare. That explains why what we think of as "corruption" is so rampant: one has to take care of oneself and one's family/clan first. Islam was a unifying force for a while, but today the closest thing to a pan-Arab organization is El'Qaida.
Sorry to bore you: will try to keep it down in future. Thank you, Shir-El too 12:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
So now you'll have to explain all the alphabet soup and I thought you were asleep???? G'Night!!! Shir-El too 15:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
anyone of the myriad that watch this page know much about doing programming of any kind to get info out of MEdiaWiki? Not for Wikipedia, but for the office Wiki. Drop me a line either here or on my talk page. Thanks! — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 03:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
(undent)Anytime! Glad to be of assistance :) SQL Query me! 05:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Happy Halloween! To Ariel and all of the people on this page. Or, to be nice, happy unspecified pagan holiday! But if any of you really do dislike Halloween, then I just wish you a happy almost November. i (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
— Wknight94 ( talk) 14:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think for NASA STS missions its fine to assume crew members represent the USA, and I agree using a flag icon draws unwarranted attention to nationality. For ISS expeditions, which are inherently inter-national in nature, I think it makes more sense to be completely consistent: either every crew member gets a flag icon, or none do. ( sdsds - talk) 18:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ariel, I came upon this user page, and I did blank the page but I suspect its a vandalized page - maybe there's another name for this kind of thing. Anyway if you check the history you'll see what I blanked . I would think the whole thing should be deleted . It does use your User name "in vain". Bad puppy! ( olive 21:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)) [ [1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ariel, and thanks for your cogent points on the Jay Barbree references / Deke Slayton authorship.
Re. the Barbree story, it is an anecdote that appears in his book, that the writer of the MSNBC (same affiliated company as Barbree) repeats in the context of talking about his book, and the only source of which can be Barbree (as the other person, Shepard, is long dead). Therefore, it seems more accurate to cover all bases by saying "Barbree says Shepard told him" - but it would also work to say "In his book, Barbree writes that Shepard told him" - I'd be happy to amend to that. It therefore then correctly leads to the source. As Barbree's books are not an accurate account of the space program (there are a huge number of factual errors in the most recent one, and many of the anecdotes are unreliable) it is best to show that the source is him, and not a fact coming from another source. In this instance, the only possible source for the MSNBC story is Barbree. MSNBC, by repeating it, do not by default verify it.
Re. the Slayton authorship, I also believe it is more correct to say:
In 1993, Shepard, journalist Howard Benedict, and Barbree collaborated to write the best-selling book, Moon Shot.[3 Astronaut Donald K. "Deke" Slayton is also listed as an author, although he passed away before the project was completed.
Slayton colleagues have said that the "Moon Shot" book was one he had no actual participation in, but that he allowed his name to be placed on before passing away without ever seeing a draft. I thought my wording was therefore a more accurate summary, in that it still names him as a listed author, without (incorrectly) suggesting he was an active participant. The wording you have changed it back to "In 1993, Shepard, fellow Mercury astronaut Deke Slayton, journalist Howard Benedict, and Barbree collaborated to write the best-selling book, Moon Shot.[3] Slayton died before the book was completed" is factually incorrect (although impossible to source this) as it lists Slayton as an active collaborator. I'd recommend it be changed to the more accurate, more open version which allows both possibilities, not just the factually incorrect one.
I realize that we are in the somewhat murky waters here of impossible-to-source information, therefore my wish that a more neutral pose is taken. Otherwise, the page is pushing in the direction of incorrect information, no matter how meticulously it can be proved that the incorrect information is repeated by other journalists. Thank you, and I appreciate and admire your longstanding and hard work to keep these pages accurate. Authorinfo 22:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ariel, Okay, I guess we'll agree to disagree on the author listing - the page is incorrect, as any reliable space historian would tell you. but I understand the need to keep things grounded in sources. I have made the other change, as you suggest, and thanks for understanding the viewpoint on that one.
As the person who began the Barbree page, FYI you may wish to look at areas such as recent Amazon.com reviews on Barbree's new book, including from a well-known Apollo spacecraft engineer. It might be informative to you as to why many people are concerned whenever they see Barbree's anecdotes repeated as fact in web pages that others may use as reliable sources.
So pleased to see that you are working on so many fronts to keep the space information updated and widened on Wikipedia - great work - thanks! Authorinfo 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ariel,
Yes, I read the book the other month. I'm sorry to say, it has all of the errors in there that are listed on Amazon. I was immensely disappointed, as I have always enjoyed Barbree's work.
I agree, Amazon reviews are not something that could ever be used or relied on as a source, that was just FYI. In this instance, those negative reviews are correct, as information like rocket heights, mission lengths, rocket fuel amounts etc. can be checked and verfied against non-memoir sources, and they are often incorrect in his book. There are even lines from the "Apollo 13" movie used as if they really happened, although there are verifiable sources saying they were invented for the movie. I found and noted all the same points as mentioned in those reviews, as have other space historians.
For an outside space enthusiast, I bet the book reads as a wonderful, exciting account. For those who were there or have researched the events, it is painful to read for the amount of errors. The fact that it uses a faked photo is damning in itself, when it comes to accuracy.
I certainly agree with you that something like "Slayton had nothing to do with it" would be far too strong for somewhere like Wikipedia - I was instead trying to write neutrally but with wider options. But I quite understand what you are saying, and the care that needs to be taken for any changes, however subtle. I have to admire the way you do your work, even when I disagree sometimes! Thanks.
And there are some great other books out there about the early years of spaceflight - here is probably not the forum to make recommendations, but I'd encourage you to see what else is out there, too. Authorinfo 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ariel, sounds like you are thinking about all of the ramifications and looking for accurate information, which is great. Indeed, memoirs tend to be less reliable than other types of publications - all the more reason not to rely on them for objective facts, and to tie anecdotes from them back to the memoir. Glad you are interested in the subject, and appreciate your work.
Authorinfo 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou very much! And thankyou also for your support in my RfA. I look forward to getting started. Best wishes, Lra drama 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. IslaamMaged126 16:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a quick reference of all socks and suspected socks or did you just happen to know about Albi? Thanks JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
At WP:EAR I saw some personal information which you later removed. I would have removed it myself - I was there a few minutes before you - but I thought that an admin could remove it completely (even from the history files), where all I could do is a normal edit. If I run across that kind of thing in the future should I just go ahead and remove it instead of waiting for an admin? Can an admin in fact remove it completely? Sbowers3 23:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Ari, how are you? I hope that some interesting things will be happening soon! Happy November! Love, Neranei (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Happy November! ;) Tiddly-Tom 18:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This is very cool! — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 21:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
<- No, a friend IM'ed it to me. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 14:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This does not surprise me in the least. /me wonders why an archive would be so popular... — Soleil (formerly I) 20:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What??? :) Heh, heh, you may want to see this old userpage revision to find out why I don't think November is boring. :) Acalamari 21:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Did you know that I just noticed this now? :-) So, belated thanks for reverting the troll. I guess I'm pretty famous around here, considering the fact that I've already been impersonated several times :-) -- Agüeybaná 00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello dear! I know that you've already retired for the night, but I wanted to leave you this little note for you to wake up to. :) Whether it's answering questions, defending me at my RfA, or being one of the very first to say congratulations once the smoke cleared, you've been so helpful and incredible about everything, and I just wanted to thank you from the bottom of my heart. See you on IRC soon, I hope! We're waiting in your channel. :) Glass Cobra 02:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried to add this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2007-10-30#Les_Parrott
on 10-30, and... it's still sitting there, not disapproved, just forgotten. Could you please look at it, Ariel? Thanks!! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.214.92 ( talk) 08:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WOW!! You found way more info on him than I did-awesome article!! Thanks!! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.214.92 ( talk) 21:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks very much for your help, but I am still a bit confused since I have found at least two pages (many more are out there) Ruggero Santilli and Giovanni Amelino-Camelia who have their page as well and I am pretty sure that they edited it by them selves. I know both of them. Anyway I will read all the links that you gave me and I will try and understand a bit better what "third-party sources" mean. Can I get back to you if I am still confused? In the mean time the page won't be deleted I will be glad at least until I understand.Thanks a lot for your help.-- Cardone Fabio 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
An article I maintain (out of a grand total of two) was one of those targeted for speedy deletion last week. Several of us have upgraded the article [ link] this past week. When do we know the article in question has achieved notability and when can we take the non-notable and hangon tags down? Or is that done my an administrator?
I am sorry to bother you with this, but I just want to make sure I am not adding to the problem. Thank-you for all your effort and time. Chadatonic 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)