I'll respond where the conversation was started (unless you request otherwise). And umm... be civil? Kthxbai. Bsimmons666 ( talk) ^Friend?

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

The image you constructed based on mine and the image on the Economist page here [1] indicates that Camp Leatherneck is a good 150+ miles south of where it should be; IE next door to Camp Bastion! Richard Harvey ( talk) 11:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Aah, thank you! I'll redirect it, then. mnmazur   voicemail 

How long was the exposure on your STS-128 photograph? (I took one from 180 miles north, exposed for 143 seconds.) Bubba73 (talk), 18:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I wish I had taken the photo, but my photography skills are no where near that good! The image was released into the public domain by NASA, as the license says on the image page. I don't believe the NASA website says how long the exposure time was. Bsimmons666 ( talk) 18:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks. Bubba73 (talk), 18:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Wonderful idea to create a navigation box about the Empire of Brazil! - -- Lecen ( talk) 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I was wondering how:

1. Wikipedia knew you worked substantially on an article
2. Wikipedia put that little green plus in the top right corner of your screen
3. I could get those things for the articles I created (when they make GA)

please respond on my talk page. Thanks Nezzadar ( talk) 23:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks Nezzadar ( talk) 00:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		You know, I think you are the first person to ever thank me for something I did on Wikipedia. Them be powerful words. I thank you in return with this gaudy medal. Sincerely Nezzadar ( talk) 02:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

:) Bsimmons666 ( talk) 02:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. You loaded an image, or at least thought you did for the article at Joint Legislative Committee to Investigate Seditious Activities, however, it didn't fully load. I do not know how to load images, so I don't know what it is missing, otherwise I would fix it... Regards, Steve... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 12:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Done. Bsimmons666 ( talk) 14:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

You have showed interest in working on Oil collaboratively, via Wikipedia:Spotlight. The article has been approved and is currently the article under the Spotlight. Please visit #wikipedia-spotlight IRC channel to collaborate with us on the article. We have been inactive for a while but are now very active. See you later, -- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 12:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I am concerned about this edit summary; would you please explain? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

...It's an internet meme that's an expression of frustration. See the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on "RAGE" _{(hopefully not spamfiltered; tinyurl; oops)} entry if you wish; I can't find one on Urban Dictionary. I, on the other hand, am concerned that the Overman Committee article is not being given a fair review at FAC. Bsimmons666 ( talk) 00:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

My apologies for the delay; I responded on my talk. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I forgot my sig :) Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Just a really quick, short note. You're currently listed as a spotlight participant, here, but you are not on the list of people who want to get the newsletter. If you want to receive updates about spotlight, then please add your name on this page. If not, no further action required, and I won't bug you about it again. Thanks,  Chzz   ►  15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I've resolved your concerns, I believe. Thanks a ton for your comments! :) ceran thor 16:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks again. ceran thor 16:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

No hurry, and my apologies if my comments came off as harsh (and my compliments to you for graciously accepting criticism). There's obviously a lot to like about the article, but I think the prose and context issues are major barriers right now. I'll do whatever I can to help overcome them, though. Steve Smith ( talk) 22:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning ( talk) 08:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

I just saw that the article on the Overman Committee made FA! COngratulations! Here's a well-deserved barnstar for all your hard work on it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Original Barnstar
		Given with respect and admiration to Bsimmons666 on the occasion of Overman Committee making Featured Article. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The barnstar's much appreciated, thanks. Bsimmons666 ( talk) 01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

In order to keep the queue down at WP:FOUR, we ask that nominators review another nomination.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I have placed some of my issue with the Project110/Project111 on the talk page. The current wording is misleading as to the opinion of the agency.-- 71.156.89.167 ( talk) 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Overman Committee.

--Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker ( talk) 08:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

thanks. for some reason wikipedia didn't suggest that as an alternative. Grunners ( talk) 20:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, Bsimmons666! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 ( Talk • Phils)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Iran and weapons of mass destruction. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page.

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. You may discuss changes you would like to see to the article here.

Happy holidays!

Nosfartu ( talk) 00:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Here this reference [2]. Qoute: Soon the camp was on fire with strong winds fanning it along to additional buildings. Eventually, every building in the camp, except one, was burned. Only one building in the camp left standing? I think that constitutes a base destroyed. UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 17:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

No problem. And a Happy New Year! :) UrukHaiLoR ( talk) 20:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Bsimmons666. Just wanted to let you know I've opened up the topic of the replication and placement of the Huckleberry Finn criticism for discussion on its talk page. I think the article has some past history of contention and edit warring about just how much weight and repetition that particular charge should carry in the article, so it's probably something the article's regular maintainers should have a chance to weigh in on. Best regards, P.T.isfirst ( talk) 06:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You realise that google hosted news expires after a while (months, I think). Use WebCite to protect access to sources like that. Rd232 ^talk 09:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The space exploration section in the 2000's article needs to be summarized by an expert in this field. thought you might be interested. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 11, 2010. Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The article Statement Relating to Defence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Not developed since creation.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Maidonian ( talk) 01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs ( talk) 17:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Just to inform you ive put this article up for G/A review, since it seems to me to fit the criteria. I don't know if it will be able to get to A-Class or F/A afterwords, but i thought you might like to know its up for review since you've put alot of work into the article. XavierGreen ( talk) 04:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

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 08:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC). reply

Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across User Talk pages to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒ DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 18:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Space Colonization. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, we 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 Space Colonization at 16:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC). reply

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 0, December 2010
Welcome to The Downlink · Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects · User Activity Checks Welcome to The Downlink Welcome to The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Future issues will contain information on issues under discussion, newly featured content, and articles written by members of the project to appear in the newsletter. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter. If you were not aware of being a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, membership of the former Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight and Space colonization WikiProjects was merged into WikiProject spaceflight during the reorganisation of the spaceflight projects, for more details, please see below. Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects The ongoing discussion of the future of Space WikiProjects has been making progress. WikiProject Space was abolished on 5 December 2010, with the Spaceflight, Astronomy and Solar System projects becoming independent of each other. On the same day, an assessment banner, {{ WikiProject Spaceflight}} was created for WikiProject Spaceflight to replace the generic space one which had been used previously. On 9 December, WikiProject Space Colonization was abolished, with its tasks being subsumed into WikiProject Spaceflight. On 12 December, the Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight WikiProjects became task forces of WikiProject Spaceflight, whilst WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight became a working group. A number of issues are still under discussion: Introducing better defined assessment criteria and an A-class review process Setting clearer importance criteria for assessing articles Establishing a joint task force with the Astronomy and Solar System projects to cover space telescopes and planetary probes Defining the roles of projects, taskforces and working groups, and processes for establishing new ones Improving the profile and activity of the project Much of the current discussion is taking place on the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page, however there is still some discussion on the original proposal page. User Activity Checks A series of checks are underway to establish the numbers of users who are still active within WikiProject Spaceflight, its task forces and working group. All usernames on the members lists were struck out, and members were asked to unstrike their own names if they were still an active member of the project. If you wish to do so, and have not already, please unstrike your name from the master list, plus the lists on any applicable task forces or working groups Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC). reply

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 1, January 2011
Welcome to The Downlink · Project News · News from Orbit · Article News · Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics · Salyut 2 Welcome to The Downlink Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements. Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details. Project News A new working group has been formed. The space stations working group is expected to work towards creating Featured topics related to space stations. It currently has three members. Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal. A discussion regarding opening relations with the Aerospace biography task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation was held, but no conclusions were reached. The Article Alerts bot has resumed operation, and a problem with the information the bot had been delivering was discussed and resolved. New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented. Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it. Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised. One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{ WikiProject Space}} and {{ WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{ WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class. News from Orbit On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article. On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles. On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite. 17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles. Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger on mission STS-51-L. Article News It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight. Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain. Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited. The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts. Missile Range Instrumentation Ship is currently listed at requested moves, with a proposal to rename it tracking ship. The only open good article nomination is of the book Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, which is currently awaiting review. Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic. Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project. One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative. To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN. This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided. I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content. Selected Article – Salyut 2 Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission. The Salyut 2 article describes the station: “ Salyut 2 (OPS-1)( Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyut space stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973. ” The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC). reply

I don't mean to be a pain but User:Bsimmons666/Gaucho Theory would be deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion as per WP:FAKEARTICLE. I'd suggest you move it offsite, ASAP. jorgenev 04:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Bsimmons666, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser for the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign, we're interviewing as many of the very active and productive Wikipedians as we can to broaden the range of appeals we run come November. I wonder if you would want to tell me more about your experiences editing and writing here? If so, I'll ask you your personal story and I'll ask you some general questions about Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're interesting by emailing amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Thanks! user:Aaron (WMF)

Thanks for uploading File:Pinkerton Consulting and Investigations Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 06:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.

You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC). reply

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Given for your willingness to take pointed, constructive feedback, leading to a very productive, quality-centered outcome to an editorial discussion (recently, at the JHP talk pages, [3]) Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 16:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Seersucker Thursday requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ogress _smash! 03:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Not Yours to Give. Since you had some involvement with the Not Yours to Give redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD ( talk) 17:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Ottoman Civil War (1509–1513) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Delete per WP:OR. It is not based on a single source. The source of Finkel, Caroline, mentions only the name of Istanbul, not even the "civil war".

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Beshogur ( talk) 16:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I was viewing the operation silver shovel page and I saw Lawrence Bloom was permalinked to his wiki page, yet when I clicked on it I see he has no wikipedia page. I'm going to try and make one. But since I see you've created operation silver shovel page and I was wondering if you could check on your end if the Lawrence Bloom page was ever created as I'm not well versed in wiki. Also another bug on your profile makes it so that I can change your talk page, fwi. Johnathon Smithsonian ( talk) 11:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply