|
Please read this box first! Welcome to my talk page! Questions, information, warnings? Say it here! Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, please sign your topic by placing ~~~~ (four tildes) at the very end, and please remember, assume good faith! You can click here to start a new topic. |
Dear Chizero, Thank you very much for the improvements and lesson on the use piped links. You might note that I put your lesson into practice right away by hot linking Hellzapoppin (without the apostrophe) to Hellzapoppin' (musical), incorrectly listed with an apostrophe. I haven't figured out how to make a correction on an article title. (There is, by the way, an apostrophe in the movie version of Hellzapoppin').
I have what I think is a related question you may be able to answer. For the link to "Alexander Pantages," I would like to go directly to the section, "Pantages Theatre Circuit" included in the Alexander Pantages Wikipedia article. I have a memory of seeing a way to do that, but I haven't been able to relocate the instructions. Again, many thanks for your help. Brad Smith ( talk) 13:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved by Látches ~~~~
User:Chizero → User:ChiZeroOne — New account, forgot old password. ChiZeroOne ( talk) 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:John_Carter#Re:_GabrielVelasquez. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 08:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi ChiZeroOne! You made useful criticisms around election day and soon afterwords. Please look at recent events on the talk page. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC).
Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight at 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC).
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:
If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:Chizero.
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 17:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC).
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC).
I replied to your comments about my suggestion on the village pump. Thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts on the discussion. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Would you be interested in forming WikiProject Jupiter? If so, please show your support by clicking on the link above!-- Novus Orator 06:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The Downlink | ||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 0, December 2010 | |||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC).
Wow, well done with putting the new banner up on so many pages! It's very much appreciated! :-) Mlm42 ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The Downlink | |||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 1, January 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
The Space Barnstar | ||
In recognition of your contributions to the reorganisation of WikiProject Spaceflight, and for your work on updating the project banners on talk pages, I would like to award you
The Space Barnstar.
G
W
… 15:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Seconded by me - an absolutely stellar effort sir! :-D Colds7ream ( talk) 18:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC) |
Hi ChiZeroOne...read your comments...I am trying to get the article on RocketShip Tours re-written to a more encyclopedic word-smithing style/format...I took a look at the list of "Peacock Words " and phrases section that you referred to and I'm currently in the process of correcting same. Thanks for pointing out your concern...should have this revamped within the next 48 hours. MediaMogulMan ( talk) 07:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spaceflight for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview here. If you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, feel free to skip it. If you have any questions, you can drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. – SMasters ( talk) 05:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
i don't think the mos you cited applies. Category:European Space Agency probes is the diffusing category. -- emerson7 16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow, the task of replacing the old banner with the new one is almost done: 101.6% complete! If I didn't know better, I'd think that was a mistake. :-) Mlm42 ( talk) 03:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The Downlink | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 2, February 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
Hi ChiZeroOne. You've been doing a yeoman's job on getting the spaceflight-related articles identified and banners added. I've been doing (compared to you) just a very little work in that area. My question is: Do you know of any WP or Wikimedia tools for watching the Spaceflight wikiproject, and seeing the DIFFERENCE in articles in the project based on a few simple categories, over some period of time (say the last week, or the last month)? I'm looking for something that would show stats on articles added/removed from the project, or class or quality ratings changed. Thanks very much. N2e ( talk) 14:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I just added Flight to WPSpaceflight. Rationale: it seems a rather core concept to our project, and it has a (brief) section on Spaceflight. Moreover, it has been assessed as "This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have." so it generally makes the release versions of Wikipedia.
My question for you is, given all this, is Mid importance high enough for the spaceflight project? N2e ( talk) 17:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The Downlink | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 3, March 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC).
Hey ChizeroOne, I thought I would mention to you that user, Jenks24 is suggesting to rename the Kepler observatory article to "Kepler mission". I entirely disagree but I was hoping for your input as you are a relatively prominent editor and member of WP:Spaceflight. Thanks! -- Xession ( talk) 01:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the choice of "rocket engine" as a disambiguator is the best since its not a pure rocket. Why not leave it at the manufacturer model title like aero-engines (which it technically is). By way of comparison the North American X-15 engines are at Reaction Motors XLR11 and the Blue Steel missile's are Rolls-Royce RZ2. It would also fit in with Scimitar GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
"The X-15 motors are at XLR-11?" Yes, the first couple X-15s used LR-11s for most of the first 32 flights in the program. That noted, there was was nothing "X" about the LR-11 after over a dozen years and hundreds of flights it, and the very similar LR-8, were not the least experimental by the time of the X-15 flights. Nor was the LR-99 experimental by the time it was installed in X-15 #3. Most certain of all, the LR-11 was nothing more than a stop gap while the XLR-99 was tamed. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 23:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I almost wish I had not bothered to try and add the needed citations and references. I did not mean to end up with the page being nuked.
Please give me a heads up so i may move as much pertinent data to the other relevant pages before the work disappears.
Thanks Mark Lincoln ( talk) 23:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Not being a WikiGod, I accept the dictum ex cathedra. I am glad I would get warning that things would change so that work would not be wasted.
Unstated upon my page is that I was an Aerospace Engineering student who took a major in history for relaxation. I have never worked in either.
I never worked in aerospace engineering because in the early 1970s the combination of historical trends (fewer programs), the end of the Vietnam War, and the lend of the Space Race (cancellation of Apollo flights and Apollo Applications Technology had discarded 40,000 over-qualified engineers upon the Los Angeles taxi driver worker pool. To do academic history would have limited my life to becoming ever more expert about an ever smaller part of history. I ended up as a small and very small businessman. Working in a number of rapidly evolving businesses where my technical and historical comprehension allowed me to surf the bleeding edge of many technologies for decades.
I don't mind doing the work, but also don't like seeing good work discarded because it does not fit the desire of some bureaucrat or exactly comply with the eternal desire of bureaucrats to drive round reality into square holes.
I am trained to see engineering problems and historical events with both an engineering and historical perspective. The only 'bias' I must adhere to is the bias of reality whether it be evidenced by physical reality or historic events and perspective.
I think that the "Sputnik Crisis" is a most appropriate title for what has been a divided effort between the "Sputnik Program," and the rather anemic article "sputnik crisis." I would be glad to integrate the information in Sputnik Crisis into the current Sputnik Program page.
Every book I have cited is in my personal library. I use the Internet all the time, and wrote my first web page in hand coded html during the mid-1990s. I do not confuse the web with a reliable source unless filtered by trained intelligence. I used 'Arpanet' long before Al Gore 'invented it' (I am also aware Al Gore NEVER claimed to have invented the internet).
I always try to cite and reference anything I write or add since I learned how to do it. I always try to maintain a neutral bias unless a honest treatment of the subject requires the statement of a positive bias to convey reality as it happened. History is not without bias. Some folks loose wars despite having good reasons and some monsters win them despite deserving to die. To a historian only trying to tell a biased story for propaganda,profit or for ideological justification, is wrong. To insist the USA could have 'won' the non-existent, except in a few minds of a few, 'race' to put up the first satellite would require ignoring why the leaders of BOTH the Soviet Union and USA did not consider being first to do so essential at the expense of greater national goals.
The initial response of Dwight and Nikita was amusingly similar. That one came to realize he had the perfect weapon with which to secure his position and policies while the other had to scramble to take actions which assuaged the public is Ironic. That I have not sought to ram either point down the throats of Wikipedia should also be noted.
Eisenhower was awarded what he had spent tens of millions "vanguard" dollars to achieve by the Soviet Union. Nikita had his desire to out-flank the propaganda value of America's Strategic Air Command by accepting Korolev's argument, that given the delays in the Re-entry Vehicle for the 8K71, the launch crews would be best kept up to snuff by sending up a simple satellite. I do not think I have slighted either man or either nation in my edits.
In the last day I have reviewed the three 'Sputnik' articles and tried to improve two of them. i have also looked at the 'Sputnik Crisis' page and understand what the author was trying to convey and think that the author did as best he could without extensive documentation and the personal experience necessary to convey the facts and the essential nature of the time.
If the WikiLords agree I would like to use the "sputnik program' article as a means of integrating the 'sputnik crisis' page into a single entry, titled with the far more perfect term 'Sputnik Crisis.'
I am NOT a corporate kind of guy who easily fits within any organizational structure. That is why I have spent my life self-employed. I am not out to prove any 'point' except that history and engineering have to be honest or fail. An Engineer will accept reality and try to use it to his advantage. he will never try to pound a square peg into a round hole. A historian will seek to comprehend and communicate what happened and why - to describe and document the geometry - rather than try to make what happened and why fit a preconceived geometry.
I got REALY fed up when a Wiki Editor insisted upon posting an extremely edited version of a communication while refusing to allow the inclusion of, or citation of, the total contents of the message in question which countered the personal opinion of that editor.
But then I was never a bureaucrat kiss ass and can never be one.
I think one of my first Wikipages, US Army Airships was pretty good as originally posted. I think that my recent improvements also have merit. I have at least one linear meter of books on lighter-than-air flight and that my knowledge in the subject is based upon fact instead of desire.
Some fool thinks that everything about Airships can be condensed into a single article. If you look into the "List of US Navy Airships" and the original article addressing the why and how of USN airships which was deleted, it will be apparent that the original article should be a stub of the airships page and should have not been reduced to a mere list which has no context.
No doubt there are people with no knowledge of source material or later scholarship will not comprehend how 'Sputnik' is both an object and an event, but I think it must be treated as both. The Sputnik 1 article is very good, and i have not sought to 'tamper' with it because it is, in my opinion, too dependent upon internet resources and lacking in citations and references which will survive any simple purge of websites or entire servers.
I am, asking for guidance, though I am pledging liege to any WikiGod. If my return to editing is an effort which will not serve the increasingly autocratic forms and formulas of Wikipedia, then let me know.
Free spirits need bureaucrats almost as much as bureaucrats need free spirits. If Wikipedia has become so calcified in it's bureaucracy that it has no need of free spirits with a big library and a passion to see it does not simply reward myself, so be it.
Thank You Mark Lincoln ( talk) 02:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Since it was created the Skylab Rescue has been expanded and the references improved. It now needs re-assessment. Would you be interested in doing this? Graham1973 ( talk) 13:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for your Pea edit. I and others have being debating this figure, but we now guess that it was a typo error in the emails that I exchanged with C. Cardamone. Anyway, 10^8 years, or more easily 100 million years- very young indeed. Richard Nowell ( talk) 12:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Following the NASA FY2013 budget cuts, it is evident (official) that NASA put on indefinite hold their Flagship Program; I included a couple of refs in its talk page for discussion purposes. I am not familiar with that program and I wonder if you'd like to update (or assist me updating) that article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 16:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The article's talkpage is the place to express what you'd like to about the article, and I had already invited you to do so. I'd like to warn you not to add inappropriate templates to the article itself. Thanks ChiZeroOne ! Penyulap talk 14:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
What on Earth have you been doing with the articles related to Medway? Medway is a unitary authority politically separate from Kent County Council but it most definitely is still in the ceremonial county of Kent and so are all the places within it. Also Medway is a conurbation, not a town or city and therefore your wholesale changing of placenames is erroneous. I say this myself being from Rochester. You have changed so many articles I would appreciate it if you would help reverting them back to their correct state. ChiZeroOne ( talk) 23:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I've just seen what you are doing. If you disagree or don't understand the rationale for an edit the appropriate approach is to discuss the matter. What you are doing is disruptive and can lead to edit wars. First we can discuss it, and if after discussion you still feel that Medway is in Kent, then we can open up a wider discussion.
First of all, what do you feel is incorrect about this opening sentence:
Chatham ( /ˈtʃætəm/ CHAT-əm) is in the unitary authority of Medway in South East England. It was, until 1998, [1] part of Kent and is still ceremonially associated via the Lieutenancies Act. [2]
You have removed that sentence even though it is informative, accurate and sourced.
Second, as Chatham is in Medway, why do you feel it is more helpful to have the title as Chatham, Kent. For disambiguation by place we go for the nearest large recognisable area, so we have Beeston, Leeds, Barbican, Plymouth, Bradwell, Milton Keynes, etc. Before the towns in Medway were formally recognised as a unit to be called Medway, they were known for some time as the Medway Towns, so there has long been a recognition of Chatham as being part of either MEdway Towns or Medway. There would be a possible discussion of the appropriate naming of places like Rainham, which still retain some association with Kent, and I gave that some thouight, but felt that as a disambiguation was needed, it would be preferable to go for consistency with the other places in Medway - but for Rainham and possibly Gillingham there is room for some discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
I considered carefully what you had done, and I have restored to the position before your reverts. I have done this as you were reverting fairly strongly, removing sourced information. We need to have a discussion about this to see how we can move forward and find the best solution. I have this page watchlisted so we can talk here or you can ping me on my talkpage. Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping you could reread the press release regarding the naming of eLISA/NGO ( Press release: 9th LISA sypmosium). You are quite correct, it does indeed say that eLISA = NGO, but that (I believe) is just to state that the design for eLISA is the same as proposed to ESA as NGO. However, if you look through the text you see that eLISA is used preferentially, that it is the eLISA collaboration, and the name NGO only appears in a footnote. I think that adds up to them changing the name back to something LISA-based, which makes sense, as NGO is not a good name, whilst LISA has historical precedence and connection to LISA Pathfinder. Since the main reason for the mission not being selected was perceived technological risks, it would be logical that they wish to make the connection to the proof-of-concept mission. Of course, that is all my opinion, which would not justify reverting the article; however, I do think that the press release form the LISA Symposium backs me up. BobQQ ( talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Why not just yank that whole sidebox with the flags in the instrument section? Nothing like it appears in any of the other rover articles. It's only going to be a target of endless vandalism anyway. All of the participating countries are listed in the appropriate areas. It looks more like something you would find in an Olympics article. Just a thought. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Here is an aknowledgement to your dedication and diligence while developing and successfuly managing the Mars Science Laboratory article. Thankyou! BatteryIncluded ( talk) 15:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC) |
Hello there, what was the point of reverting the SABRE (rocket engine) page back to an edit with dated information? Doesn't seem very constructive to just delete it. If you don't approve the way the new source has been added it might be more appropriate for you to edit it, so that no one will lose time looking for it once again, and the page will remain up to date. I'll reinstate the new version of that paragraph if you agree. We can then move on from there. Or if you prefer, you can write it all over yourself. Cheers, -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Presently unclear - Recent reports seem to suggest Fomalhaut b is a Rogue planet (according to NASA)< ref name="NASA-20130108">Harrington, J.D.; Villard, Ray (January 8, 2013). "NASA's Hubble Reveals Rogue Planetary Orbit For Fomalhaut B". NASA. Retrieved January 9, 2013.</ref> - or - perhaps an exocomet< ref name=Wired-20130108">Mann, Adam (January 8, 2013). "Rogue Planet Confirmed Orbiting Around 'Eye of Sauron'". Wired (magazine). Retrieved January 9, 2013.</ref> - clarification(s) welcome if possible - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 19:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
50.171.10.148 ( talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Hello, I started the ALSE article years ago and haven't looked at it since until today. I was happily amazed at the amount of detail and the links that have been added. You did a wonderful job. Thank you ! 50.171.10.148 ( talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you please try to improve the prose in the Rosetta (spacecraft) article, where it says, "an obelisk was found that helped decipher the Rosetta Stone"? This is confusing to me. The Rosetta Stone was key to deciphering Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, and I didn't see this mentioned. Instead, I saw something that mentioned "decipher the Rosetta Stone". Without the context, I wouldn't know why it would be important to decipher the Rosetta Stone.
This confusion led me to the Wikipedia article on the Philae obelisk, where I learned that part of the Rosetta Stone had been lost over the centuries since its creation, and text found at Philae helped fill in the part that had been lost.
I accept that the story is more complicated than I originally understood. Could you please try to improve the prose here so it is easier for people to understand? For example: "The Rosetta Stone provided the same text in three languages, Ancient Greek, ... and Egyptian hieroglyphs. As such, it represented a major breakthrough in the modern ability to read the ancient Egyptial hieroglyphs. An obelisk found at Philae provided another version of essentially the same text, which further contributed to ... ."
And while you are at it, I think the article could use another link to Rosetta Stone. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 22:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Next Gravitational-Wave Observatory. Since you had some involvement with the Next Gravitational-Wave Observatory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. (I know you already have participated in the discussion, but I'm adding this notification since I had not done so yet.) Steel1943 ( talk) 23:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Following a edit you made to the Manchester Metrolink wikipedia page on 17th August 2014, I would like to enquire how you know that Manchester Metrolink Airport line will run to Crumpsall in 2017 and cite your references. Many thanks,
pjm0512 ( talk) 18:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight: Retirement of project member WD Graham You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight#Retirement of project member WD Graham. WD Graham, formerly operating under the editor name of GW Simulations, has retired from Wikipedia. Please pop on over to offer a remembrance, or thanks, or ... (...maybe talk him in to giving it another go.) Thanks. N2e ( talk) 06:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I don't oppose your removal of that paragraph, possibly it could be amended but it was recently added and I'm not sure the contrast in naming with Manchester & Greater Manchester is particularly notable. However, I just wanted to make you aware that "London" is an official name for "Greater London". See the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 Schedule 1, where Greater London is listed simply as "London" (with the extent listed as Greater London). I believe this is for naming purposes, as the act later specifies that the regional development agencies are named per this schedule (I realise these no longer exist but it is nonetheless an example of legislation, and I don't think any current legislation refers to the regions). Also the ONS often uses "London" to refer to the region in statistical bulletins. Though "Greater London" as a legally defined area has existed long before this. Regards, Rob984 ( talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, ChiZeroOne. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, ChiZeroOne. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ChiZeroOne. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I just joined the spaceflight project and have been diligently working on early automatic spacecraft. Thank you for being an inspiration. I aim to earn a Space Barnstar someday! Neopeius ( talk) 05:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |
The Downlink | The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter | |
---|---|---|
WikiProject Notification |
This is a one-time notification to all active WikiProject Spaceflight members. |
---|
The Downlink project page |
I am notifying you, that thep The Downlink newsletter is starting up again, the first new issue will be published on the 1 November 2020. |
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Proxima c hasn't been confirmed yet but there is an editor refusing the edit: /info/en/?search=Alpha_Centauri#Planetary_system It's still an unconfirmed exoplanet: /info/en/?search=Proxima_Centauri_c Cheers. ExoEditor 23:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I see you're an active editor and member of the Spaceflight Wikiproject. I’m working on a rough draft of a new article here [4] for my satellite communications company E-Space, which I hope to submit to the Articles for Creation queue because as an E-Space employee I have a COI and can’t publish it on Wikipedia myself. But since I can see that the queue is very long and I want to have the best possible chance of approval when it gets submitted there, I was wondering if you might be willing to have a look at the draft and point out anything that needs to be improved first?
Thanks very much for your time! Talex000 ( talk) 22:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, ChiZeroOne. Thank you for your work on Global Combat Air Programme. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 20:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi. You copied and pasted some text from BAE Systems Tempest for this article. As such, I respectfully suggest you should have made this clear in the edit summary. As is your edit summary makes it sound like entirely new content. See WP:COPYWITHIN - something to consider for future use of existing content in other articles. Mark83 ( talk) 10:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not against you adding a new image but why not a day one which people can actually see what's there? A night photo isn't appropriate for a lead DragonofBatley ( talk) 19:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Please read this box first! Welcome to my talk page! Questions, information, warnings? Say it here! Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, please sign your topic by placing ~~~~ (four tildes) at the very end, and please remember, assume good faith! You can click here to start a new topic. |
Dear Chizero, Thank you very much for the improvements and lesson on the use piped links. You might note that I put your lesson into practice right away by hot linking Hellzapoppin (without the apostrophe) to Hellzapoppin' (musical), incorrectly listed with an apostrophe. I haven't figured out how to make a correction on an article title. (There is, by the way, an apostrophe in the movie version of Hellzapoppin').
I have what I think is a related question you may be able to answer. For the link to "Alexander Pantages," I would like to go directly to the section, "Pantages Theatre Circuit" included in the Alexander Pantages Wikipedia article. I have a memory of seeing a way to do that, but I haven't been able to relocate the instructions. Again, many thanks for your help. Brad Smith ( talk) 13:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved by Látches ~~~~
User:Chizero → User:ChiZeroOne — New account, forgot old password. ChiZeroOne ( talk) 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:John_Carter#Re:_GabrielVelasquez. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 08:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi ChiZeroOne! You made useful criticisms around election day and soon afterwords. Please look at recent events on the talk page. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC).
Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight at 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC).
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:
If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:Chizero.
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 17:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC).
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC).
I replied to your comments about my suggestion on the village pump. Thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts on the discussion. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Would you be interested in forming WikiProject Jupiter? If so, please show your support by clicking on the link above!-- Novus Orator 06:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The Downlink | ||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 0, December 2010 | |||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC).
Wow, well done with putting the new banner up on so many pages! It's very much appreciated! :-) Mlm42 ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The Downlink | |||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 1, January 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
The Space Barnstar | ||
In recognition of your contributions to the reorganisation of WikiProject Spaceflight, and for your work on updating the project banners on talk pages, I would like to award you
The Space Barnstar.
G
W
… 15:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Seconded by me - an absolutely stellar effort sir! :-D Colds7ream ( talk) 18:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC) |
Hi ChiZeroOne...read your comments...I am trying to get the article on RocketShip Tours re-written to a more encyclopedic word-smithing style/format...I took a look at the list of "Peacock Words " and phrases section that you referred to and I'm currently in the process of correcting same. Thanks for pointing out your concern...should have this revamped within the next 48 hours. MediaMogulMan ( talk) 07:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spaceflight for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview here. If you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, feel free to skip it. If you have any questions, you can drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. – SMasters ( talk) 05:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
i don't think the mos you cited applies. Category:European Space Agency probes is the diffusing category. -- emerson7 16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow, the task of replacing the old banner with the new one is almost done: 101.6% complete! If I didn't know better, I'd think that was a mistake. :-) Mlm42 ( talk) 03:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The Downlink | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 2, February 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
Hi ChiZeroOne. You've been doing a yeoman's job on getting the spaceflight-related articles identified and banners added. I've been doing (compared to you) just a very little work in that area. My question is: Do you know of any WP or Wikimedia tools for watching the Spaceflight wikiproject, and seeing the DIFFERENCE in articles in the project based on a few simple categories, over some period of time (say the last week, or the last month)? I'm looking for something that would show stats on articles added/removed from the project, or class or quality ratings changed. Thanks very much. N2e ( talk) 14:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I just added Flight to WPSpaceflight. Rationale: it seems a rather core concept to our project, and it has a (brief) section on Spaceflight. Moreover, it has been assessed as "This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have." so it generally makes the release versions of Wikipedia.
My question for you is, given all this, is Mid importance high enough for the spaceflight project? N2e ( talk) 17:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The Downlink | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 3, March 2011 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC).
Hey ChizeroOne, I thought I would mention to you that user, Jenks24 is suggesting to rename the Kepler observatory article to "Kepler mission". I entirely disagree but I was hoping for your input as you are a relatively prominent editor and member of WP:Spaceflight. Thanks! -- Xession ( talk) 01:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the choice of "rocket engine" as a disambiguator is the best since its not a pure rocket. Why not leave it at the manufacturer model title like aero-engines (which it technically is). By way of comparison the North American X-15 engines are at Reaction Motors XLR11 and the Blue Steel missile's are Rolls-Royce RZ2. It would also fit in with Scimitar GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
"The X-15 motors are at XLR-11?" Yes, the first couple X-15s used LR-11s for most of the first 32 flights in the program. That noted, there was was nothing "X" about the LR-11 after over a dozen years and hundreds of flights it, and the very similar LR-8, were not the least experimental by the time of the X-15 flights. Nor was the LR-99 experimental by the time it was installed in X-15 #3. Most certain of all, the LR-11 was nothing more than a stop gap while the XLR-99 was tamed. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 23:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I almost wish I had not bothered to try and add the needed citations and references. I did not mean to end up with the page being nuked.
Please give me a heads up so i may move as much pertinent data to the other relevant pages before the work disappears.
Thanks Mark Lincoln ( talk) 23:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Not being a WikiGod, I accept the dictum ex cathedra. I am glad I would get warning that things would change so that work would not be wasted.
Unstated upon my page is that I was an Aerospace Engineering student who took a major in history for relaxation. I have never worked in either.
I never worked in aerospace engineering because in the early 1970s the combination of historical trends (fewer programs), the end of the Vietnam War, and the lend of the Space Race (cancellation of Apollo flights and Apollo Applications Technology had discarded 40,000 over-qualified engineers upon the Los Angeles taxi driver worker pool. To do academic history would have limited my life to becoming ever more expert about an ever smaller part of history. I ended up as a small and very small businessman. Working in a number of rapidly evolving businesses where my technical and historical comprehension allowed me to surf the bleeding edge of many technologies for decades.
I don't mind doing the work, but also don't like seeing good work discarded because it does not fit the desire of some bureaucrat or exactly comply with the eternal desire of bureaucrats to drive round reality into square holes.
I am trained to see engineering problems and historical events with both an engineering and historical perspective. The only 'bias' I must adhere to is the bias of reality whether it be evidenced by physical reality or historic events and perspective.
I think that the "Sputnik Crisis" is a most appropriate title for what has been a divided effort between the "Sputnik Program," and the rather anemic article "sputnik crisis." I would be glad to integrate the information in Sputnik Crisis into the current Sputnik Program page.
Every book I have cited is in my personal library. I use the Internet all the time, and wrote my first web page in hand coded html during the mid-1990s. I do not confuse the web with a reliable source unless filtered by trained intelligence. I used 'Arpanet' long before Al Gore 'invented it' (I am also aware Al Gore NEVER claimed to have invented the internet).
I always try to cite and reference anything I write or add since I learned how to do it. I always try to maintain a neutral bias unless a honest treatment of the subject requires the statement of a positive bias to convey reality as it happened. History is not without bias. Some folks loose wars despite having good reasons and some monsters win them despite deserving to die. To a historian only trying to tell a biased story for propaganda,profit or for ideological justification, is wrong. To insist the USA could have 'won' the non-existent, except in a few minds of a few, 'race' to put up the first satellite would require ignoring why the leaders of BOTH the Soviet Union and USA did not consider being first to do so essential at the expense of greater national goals.
The initial response of Dwight and Nikita was amusingly similar. That one came to realize he had the perfect weapon with which to secure his position and policies while the other had to scramble to take actions which assuaged the public is Ironic. That I have not sought to ram either point down the throats of Wikipedia should also be noted.
Eisenhower was awarded what he had spent tens of millions "vanguard" dollars to achieve by the Soviet Union. Nikita had his desire to out-flank the propaganda value of America's Strategic Air Command by accepting Korolev's argument, that given the delays in the Re-entry Vehicle for the 8K71, the launch crews would be best kept up to snuff by sending up a simple satellite. I do not think I have slighted either man or either nation in my edits.
In the last day I have reviewed the three 'Sputnik' articles and tried to improve two of them. i have also looked at the 'Sputnik Crisis' page and understand what the author was trying to convey and think that the author did as best he could without extensive documentation and the personal experience necessary to convey the facts and the essential nature of the time.
If the WikiLords agree I would like to use the "sputnik program' article as a means of integrating the 'sputnik crisis' page into a single entry, titled with the far more perfect term 'Sputnik Crisis.'
I am NOT a corporate kind of guy who easily fits within any organizational structure. That is why I have spent my life self-employed. I am not out to prove any 'point' except that history and engineering have to be honest or fail. An Engineer will accept reality and try to use it to his advantage. he will never try to pound a square peg into a round hole. A historian will seek to comprehend and communicate what happened and why - to describe and document the geometry - rather than try to make what happened and why fit a preconceived geometry.
I got REALY fed up when a Wiki Editor insisted upon posting an extremely edited version of a communication while refusing to allow the inclusion of, or citation of, the total contents of the message in question which countered the personal opinion of that editor.
But then I was never a bureaucrat kiss ass and can never be one.
I think one of my first Wikipages, US Army Airships was pretty good as originally posted. I think that my recent improvements also have merit. I have at least one linear meter of books on lighter-than-air flight and that my knowledge in the subject is based upon fact instead of desire.
Some fool thinks that everything about Airships can be condensed into a single article. If you look into the "List of US Navy Airships" and the original article addressing the why and how of USN airships which was deleted, it will be apparent that the original article should be a stub of the airships page and should have not been reduced to a mere list which has no context.
No doubt there are people with no knowledge of source material or later scholarship will not comprehend how 'Sputnik' is both an object and an event, but I think it must be treated as both. The Sputnik 1 article is very good, and i have not sought to 'tamper' with it because it is, in my opinion, too dependent upon internet resources and lacking in citations and references which will survive any simple purge of websites or entire servers.
I am, asking for guidance, though I am pledging liege to any WikiGod. If my return to editing is an effort which will not serve the increasingly autocratic forms and formulas of Wikipedia, then let me know.
Free spirits need bureaucrats almost as much as bureaucrats need free spirits. If Wikipedia has become so calcified in it's bureaucracy that it has no need of free spirits with a big library and a passion to see it does not simply reward myself, so be it.
Thank You Mark Lincoln ( talk) 02:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Since it was created the Skylab Rescue has been expanded and the references improved. It now needs re-assessment. Would you be interested in doing this? Graham1973 ( talk) 13:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for your Pea edit. I and others have being debating this figure, but we now guess that it was a typo error in the emails that I exchanged with C. Cardamone. Anyway, 10^8 years, or more easily 100 million years- very young indeed. Richard Nowell ( talk) 12:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Following the NASA FY2013 budget cuts, it is evident (official) that NASA put on indefinite hold their Flagship Program; I included a couple of refs in its talk page for discussion purposes. I am not familiar with that program and I wonder if you'd like to update (or assist me updating) that article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 16:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The article's talkpage is the place to express what you'd like to about the article, and I had already invited you to do so. I'd like to warn you not to add inappropriate templates to the article itself. Thanks ChiZeroOne ! Penyulap talk 14:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
What on Earth have you been doing with the articles related to Medway? Medway is a unitary authority politically separate from Kent County Council but it most definitely is still in the ceremonial county of Kent and so are all the places within it. Also Medway is a conurbation, not a town or city and therefore your wholesale changing of placenames is erroneous. I say this myself being from Rochester. You have changed so many articles I would appreciate it if you would help reverting them back to their correct state. ChiZeroOne ( talk) 23:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I've just seen what you are doing. If you disagree or don't understand the rationale for an edit the appropriate approach is to discuss the matter. What you are doing is disruptive and can lead to edit wars. First we can discuss it, and if after discussion you still feel that Medway is in Kent, then we can open up a wider discussion.
First of all, what do you feel is incorrect about this opening sentence:
Chatham ( /ˈtʃætəm/ CHAT-əm) is in the unitary authority of Medway in South East England. It was, until 1998, [1] part of Kent and is still ceremonially associated via the Lieutenancies Act. [2]
You have removed that sentence even though it is informative, accurate and sourced.
Second, as Chatham is in Medway, why do you feel it is more helpful to have the title as Chatham, Kent. For disambiguation by place we go for the nearest large recognisable area, so we have Beeston, Leeds, Barbican, Plymouth, Bradwell, Milton Keynes, etc. Before the towns in Medway were formally recognised as a unit to be called Medway, they were known for some time as the Medway Towns, so there has long been a recognition of Chatham as being part of either MEdway Towns or Medway. There would be a possible discussion of the appropriate naming of places like Rainham, which still retain some association with Kent, and I gave that some thouight, but felt that as a disambiguation was needed, it would be preferable to go for consistency with the other places in Medway - but for Rainham and possibly Gillingham there is room for some discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
I considered carefully what you had done, and I have restored to the position before your reverts. I have done this as you were reverting fairly strongly, removing sourced information. We need to have a discussion about this to see how we can move forward and find the best solution. I have this page watchlisted so we can talk here or you can ping me on my talkpage. Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping you could reread the press release regarding the naming of eLISA/NGO ( Press release: 9th LISA sypmosium). You are quite correct, it does indeed say that eLISA = NGO, but that (I believe) is just to state that the design for eLISA is the same as proposed to ESA as NGO. However, if you look through the text you see that eLISA is used preferentially, that it is the eLISA collaboration, and the name NGO only appears in a footnote. I think that adds up to them changing the name back to something LISA-based, which makes sense, as NGO is not a good name, whilst LISA has historical precedence and connection to LISA Pathfinder. Since the main reason for the mission not being selected was perceived technological risks, it would be logical that they wish to make the connection to the proof-of-concept mission. Of course, that is all my opinion, which would not justify reverting the article; however, I do think that the press release form the LISA Symposium backs me up. BobQQ ( talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Why not just yank that whole sidebox with the flags in the instrument section? Nothing like it appears in any of the other rover articles. It's only going to be a target of endless vandalism anyway. All of the participating countries are listed in the appropriate areas. It looks more like something you would find in an Olympics article. Just a thought. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Here is an aknowledgement to your dedication and diligence while developing and successfuly managing the Mars Science Laboratory article. Thankyou! BatteryIncluded ( talk) 15:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC) |
Hello there, what was the point of reverting the SABRE (rocket engine) page back to an edit with dated information? Doesn't seem very constructive to just delete it. If you don't approve the way the new source has been added it might be more appropriate for you to edit it, so that no one will lose time looking for it once again, and the page will remain up to date. I'll reinstate the new version of that paragraph if you agree. We can then move on from there. Or if you prefer, you can write it all over yourself. Cheers, -- Gtoffoletto ( talk) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Presently unclear - Recent reports seem to suggest Fomalhaut b is a Rogue planet (according to NASA)< ref name="NASA-20130108">Harrington, J.D.; Villard, Ray (January 8, 2013). "NASA's Hubble Reveals Rogue Planetary Orbit For Fomalhaut B". NASA. Retrieved January 9, 2013.</ref> - or - perhaps an exocomet< ref name=Wired-20130108">Mann, Adam (January 8, 2013). "Rogue Planet Confirmed Orbiting Around 'Eye of Sauron'". Wired (magazine). Retrieved January 9, 2013.</ref> - clarification(s) welcome if possible - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 19:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
50.171.10.148 ( talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Hello, I started the ALSE article years ago and haven't looked at it since until today. I was happily amazed at the amount of detail and the links that have been added. You did a wonderful job. Thank you ! 50.171.10.148 ( talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you please try to improve the prose in the Rosetta (spacecraft) article, where it says, "an obelisk was found that helped decipher the Rosetta Stone"? This is confusing to me. The Rosetta Stone was key to deciphering Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, and I didn't see this mentioned. Instead, I saw something that mentioned "decipher the Rosetta Stone". Without the context, I wouldn't know why it would be important to decipher the Rosetta Stone.
This confusion led me to the Wikipedia article on the Philae obelisk, where I learned that part of the Rosetta Stone had been lost over the centuries since its creation, and text found at Philae helped fill in the part that had been lost.
I accept that the story is more complicated than I originally understood. Could you please try to improve the prose here so it is easier for people to understand? For example: "The Rosetta Stone provided the same text in three languages, Ancient Greek, ... and Egyptian hieroglyphs. As such, it represented a major breakthrough in the modern ability to read the ancient Egyptial hieroglyphs. An obelisk found at Philae provided another version of essentially the same text, which further contributed to ... ."
And while you are at it, I think the article could use another link to Rosetta Stone. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 22:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Next Gravitational-Wave Observatory. Since you had some involvement with the Next Gravitational-Wave Observatory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. (I know you already have participated in the discussion, but I'm adding this notification since I had not done so yet.) Steel1943 ( talk) 23:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Following a edit you made to the Manchester Metrolink wikipedia page on 17th August 2014, I would like to enquire how you know that Manchester Metrolink Airport line will run to Crumpsall in 2017 and cite your references. Many thanks,
pjm0512 ( talk) 18:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight: Retirement of project member WD Graham You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight#Retirement of project member WD Graham. WD Graham, formerly operating under the editor name of GW Simulations, has retired from Wikipedia. Please pop on over to offer a remembrance, or thanks, or ... (...maybe talk him in to giving it another go.) Thanks. N2e ( talk) 06:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I don't oppose your removal of that paragraph, possibly it could be amended but it was recently added and I'm not sure the contrast in naming with Manchester & Greater Manchester is particularly notable. However, I just wanted to make you aware that "London" is an official name for "Greater London". See the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 Schedule 1, where Greater London is listed simply as "London" (with the extent listed as Greater London). I believe this is for naming purposes, as the act later specifies that the regional development agencies are named per this schedule (I realise these no longer exist but it is nonetheless an example of legislation, and I don't think any current legislation refers to the regions). Also the ONS often uses "London" to refer to the region in statistical bulletins. Though "Greater London" as a legally defined area has existed long before this. Regards, Rob984 ( talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, ChiZeroOne. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, ChiZeroOne. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, ChiZeroOne. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I just joined the spaceflight project and have been diligently working on early automatic spacecraft. Thank you for being an inspiration. I aim to earn a Space Barnstar someday! Neopeius ( talk) 05:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |
The Downlink | The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter | |
---|---|---|
WikiProject Notification |
This is a one-time notification to all active WikiProject Spaceflight members. |
---|
The Downlink project page |
I am notifying you, that thep The Downlink newsletter is starting up again, the first new issue will be published on the 1 November 2020. |
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Proxima c hasn't been confirmed yet but there is an editor refusing the edit: /info/en/?search=Alpha_Centauri#Planetary_system It's still an unconfirmed exoplanet: /info/en/?search=Proxima_Centauri_c Cheers. ExoEditor 23:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I see you're an active editor and member of the Spaceflight Wikiproject. I’m working on a rough draft of a new article here [4] for my satellite communications company E-Space, which I hope to submit to the Articles for Creation queue because as an E-Space employee I have a COI and can’t publish it on Wikipedia myself. But since I can see that the queue is very long and I want to have the best possible chance of approval when it gets submitted there, I was wondering if you might be willing to have a look at the draft and point out anything that needs to be improved first?
Thanks very much for your time! Talex000 ( talk) 22:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, ChiZeroOne. Thank you for your work on Global Combat Air Programme. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for creating the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 20:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi. You copied and pasted some text from BAE Systems Tempest for this article. As such, I respectfully suggest you should have made this clear in the edit summary. As is your edit summary makes it sound like entirely new content. See WP:COPYWITHIN - something to consider for future use of existing content in other articles. Mark83 ( talk) 10:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not against you adding a new image but why not a day one which people can actually see what's there? A night photo isn't appropriate for a lead DragonofBatley ( talk) 19:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)