This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 |
Cease and desist. Tayste ( edits) 08:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't stop by wiki without stopping in at your place to visit. How you doing Huntster? - hope all is going well for you and yours. I do sort of miss some of the folks here - you being at the top of the list. But ... my loss of patience in my extended years makes it a better solution to just drop by now and again to say hey. "Hey" :-) — Ched : ? — 17:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Dear Huntster, long time no post. Thank you for your edit in one of the minor-planet object articles you made lately. Would you mind to have a (rather tedious) talk about these amendments?
Since your changes potentially concern articles I have revised consistently over the last two and a half years, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these discrepancies with you, namely:
{{
mpf}}
Another edit concerns (357439) 2004 BL86, where some amendments have either far-reaching consequences, are difficult to implement, or are simply hard to understand. Best, Rfassbind – talk 21:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
mp|357439|2004 BL|86}}
, you changed it back making mention of whitespace in the infobox. I'm obviously not seeing what you are seeing, as it looks exactly the same with the template as without. If there is some replicable problem, then the template needs fixing. —
Huntster (
t
@
c) 23:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)(357439) {{mp|2004 BL|86}}
is better than {{
mp|357439|2004 BL|86}}
for parameter |mpc_name=
simply because on naming, it is much quicker to amend, e.g. (357439) Somename
{{
JPL small body}}
is the last entry in most other MP-articles.{{
Minor planets navigator}}
adding redlinks of "neighboring" minor planets is hardly helpful/maintainable (and distracts from the "central" link to
LOMP.357439 Somename
, one simply needs to replace "{{mp|2004 BL|86}}" with "Somename" (param "mpc_name" is the only instance that contains a "parenthetical number" and might by easily overlooked when amending). This is just a small part of a larger effort to prepare articles for efficient future amendments when being numbered and/or named.{{
val}}
ues with units. Do you also thing that this is the way to go?229.84
yr (83,950 days)
while the body of the article contains "...orbits the Sun at a distance of 32.4–42.7
AU once every 229 years and 10 months (83,950 days;
semi-major axis of 37.5 AU)", using non-decimal, rounded years and months, making the statement true for any kind of year for an orbital period within a reasonable timeframe, I presume.{{
Minor planets navigator}}
template basically is a navigator for the catalog (and allows to toggle between the list and the article) not for existing articles. The central link, which always exists, is not a self redirect (as you might have presumed?). For the first few thousand numbered minor planets, of course, it may also serve as a navigator between sequentially numbered articles in most cases. But that's not the template's main benefit. Alternatively, the caption of the infobox could provide such a link directly to the list of minor planets. What do you think about it?Dear fellow, would you mind showing to me XM234, XM233, XM235 anywhere in the article's last revision [1] you've just reverted ВоенТех ( talk) 20:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
There's a particular type of bias called "cognitive ease", see
[2] and
[3]. You may want to check it and know about it.
Drow (
talk) 17:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
PS Starting to talk like you are talking to a child is required even in the beginning of the most prominent seminars dedicated to the most prominent experts. Trust me.
This user hasn’t been socking recently so can you unblock him please. 73.93.152.91 ( talk)
A disruptive editor, Samuelhinchliffe1991, has been evading his block with IPs. If you see anyone add a reference without a date that has the author name listed as Sam or Samuel Hinchliffe, you can just delete it rather than waste time trying to format it properly. The author is never Hinchliffe, and the reference is not usually needed. Binksternet ( talk) 21:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Huntster – but I'll need to kick this one back to you, or I risk reverting at this article too much. On my end, I cannot access the Facebook link the IP has quoted, so I continue to be skeptical. (Somebody needs to tell them about WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOHURRY!...) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I have made some changes to the Yongchang County, Zhelaizhai & Liqian pages, the ones about the Roman soldiers in western China. Let me know what you think of the edits so far, and please make some edits if you are interested. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 13:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
原星章 | |
Thanks for the improvement of the quality of the articles related to the alleged Roman legion in China ( Yongchang County, Liqian, and Zhelaizhai). I am learning a lot about proper citation methodology through reviewing the edits you made. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 04:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC) |
Kpgjhpjm ( talk) 01:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I had a mix-up in my commemoration. Purgy ( talk) 07:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
In regards to your reversion of my edit on Deep Space Climate Observatory, you are absolutely right that individual humans have absolutely nothing to do with history or the shaping of human behavior... Keep up the brilliance... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 18:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Stevenmitchell. please notch it down and chill There is no call to turn a Discussion of a simple WP:BRD into an repeated attack on an editor. You have accused Huntster of "insis[ing his]is the only one that counts in this matter", of "believe that you own the article and have the final verdict on the article".
You made a Bold edit; it was Reverted. Don't turn your unhappiness about that outcome into an attack on another editor. N2e ( talk) 04:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Stevenmitchell: I'm sorry you continue to feel this way. I gave you my reasoning, I presented you with an alternate option. There appears to be nothing else I can do for you. — Huntster ( t @ c) 06:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey Huntster. Someone recently added a couple of images to BFR (rocket) of two old facilities that are to be demolished. I have so many questions, and don't know how to improve them. The descriptions seem odd/incomplete. No good story on why those images should even be kept in Wikimedia. ...nor, in the WP article, why either pic ties well to the article, or especially, why we have two of them. The additional info on WM seems to be lacking context. Also, we have just a photographer's claim (no source) that these buildings are "to be demolished." Does WM require some semblance of sources? (some of the bldgs on the site SpaceX has leased are historical and the lease doesn't allow SpaceX to tear them down. So it is entirely unclear which buildings are going, and which are staying; with no sources provided.)
Am I just seeing this wrong? Maybe those pics are perfectly okay? But if not, I don't know what cool tags etc. ought to be used to suggest improvement. N2e ( talk) 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
May need help with an image => " File:Possible AT2018cow 244.000927647 +22.2680094118 20180624.png" - the image is for the newly created " AT2018cow" article and is from http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr14/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?opt=G&ra=244.000927647&dec=22.2680094118&scale=0.1981 per the " Sloan Digital Sky Survey" - the image-use page is at => http://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use - PD is mentioned, but so is cc-by, which doesn't seem to have a related Wikipedia template? - in any case - Thanks in advance for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm curious about the many books written about Curiosity. kencf0618 ( talk) 01:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your removal of the image of Curiosity's high- & low-gain antennas: I think it should be kept there to help readers visualize the rover's onboard communications system. My reason for duplicating it is so that readers looking for a gallery of Curiosity component images can see the antenna image even if they are not interested in the text section, and vise versa. Again, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I'm interested in a more in-depth explanation of your decision on this. XYZtSpace ( talk) 06:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Good morning, Huntster!
I saw your reversion on my edit at Wicca. I'm aware that Wicca is not at all strict synonym with modern witchcraft, much less with witchcraft itself. I thought writing that "called by some of its adherents" would be enough to put it clear that it was not a rule, but in the end you were right: a example backed by a source would be the ideal. As soon as I be able to get it, I re-write it. Thanks again for the obs. Have a nice day! EleassarBR ( talk) 18:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC) EleassarBR ( talk) 18:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I know you from your edits about spacecraft, so asking for advice about plasma physics articles is a stretch. But you seem sensible and experienced, and I think I need advice. On the Aurora and Double Layer articles, I've run into problems with another editor. Although he is using a pseudonym, I have good reasons to suspect he is a person with strong views which most of the scientists working in the field disagree with.
I'm not asking you to look into edits, or to offer an opinion on the technical details. Looking over the talk pages should be sufficient. I'm asking for advice on the appropriate way to resolve a difference between editors. I'm new enough to Wikipedia editing to be uncertain on conflict resolution processes, and any advice you could provide would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
On Dec. 26 2017 you updated the orbital elements for Hubble. However, after the orbital period there's this weird string: "1.35.25.83" (it can be seen on the current revision). Is it some IP address (though it doesn't appear reachable)?
SopaXorzTaker ( talk) 13:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Huntster: Please see a question about Salyut 2 Talk:Salyut 2#Crew?. You were an editor of this page when "Crew" was changed from "0" to "3". A reply on that talk page is fine.
Separate question. What is a "talk back" template that you ask us to avoid using? WP doesn't describe it, at least not where it is easily found. Thanks on both points. GeeBee60 ( talk) 12:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
For your tireless contributions to space related articles. Hadron137 ( talk) 16:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC) |
Please do not remove references and external links to the Johnston's Archive (JA) as you did here. The JA compilation is one of the best secondary sources on binary minor planets, recommended by the LCDB and even listed at PDS. Rfassbind – talk 22:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I want to ask, why did you reverted my edit on page List of Stargate SG-1 characters? FaHTa3eP 17:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
FYI: It appears you changed the orbit_periapsis= and orbit_apoapsis= units in with this edit from distance to mass. An anon just changed it back to distance, but not sure if it is correct. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 07:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
May need help re: " File:Asteroid-Bennu-OSIRIS-RExArrival-GifAnimation-20181203.gif" - seems the added category (ie, [ [Category:Bennu]]) could be better (ie, image is an asteroid - not bird) - apparently, editing the image file contents is restricted to administrators? - iac - Thanks in advance for your help with this - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 20:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:WSMV 2015.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey Huntster.
COuld you maybe take a look at this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raptor_Engine_Unofficial_Combustion_Scheme.png and see if all the licensing is in good order? I'm pretty sure "HVM" is not the uploader. Moreover, when I wrote HVM on some forum about that image a week ago, he says he only vectorized the image, and gives all credit for the image to author "JWL" (listed on the photo text) (who is a very senior retired rocket engine engineer, also active on that forum).
I saw it a couple of days ago added to WP and figured that the ordinary natural processes of Wikimedia would analyze it, tag it if necessary, and delete it if warranted. (I am asking HVM and JWL about them uploading the image all proper and such.) Cheers. N2e ( talk) 20:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the spaceflight template! Neopeius ( talk) 15:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC) |
I see you have changed the infobox to reflect the length mentioned in a couple of newspapers. The official figure is that given in the existing ref which is from the classification society and is a better source. I appreciate there is some dispute about the actual length caused by the temperature when measurements are taken so I have no problem if you want to use your sources to expand on the prose but the previous figure given in the infobox is official and sourced so I ask you to revert your edit Lyndaship ( talk) 11:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
If possible - re newly created article " EPIC 204376071" (very unusual dimming star, up to 80%?) - is the related image (ie, " File:NASA-Wise-EPIC204376071-ScrnImg-20190306.jpg") ok - seems to be ok afaik, but maybe a good idea to be more sure - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 17:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 |
Cease and desist. Tayste ( edits) 08:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't stop by wiki without stopping in at your place to visit. How you doing Huntster? - hope all is going well for you and yours. I do sort of miss some of the folks here - you being at the top of the list. But ... my loss of patience in my extended years makes it a better solution to just drop by now and again to say hey. "Hey" :-) — Ched : ? — 17:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Dear Huntster, long time no post. Thank you for your edit in one of the minor-planet object articles you made lately. Would you mind to have a (rather tedious) talk about these amendments?
Since your changes potentially concern articles I have revised consistently over the last two and a half years, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these discrepancies with you, namely:
{{
mpf}}
Another edit concerns (357439) 2004 BL86, where some amendments have either far-reaching consequences, are difficult to implement, or are simply hard to understand. Best, Rfassbind – talk 21:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
{{
mp|357439|2004 BL|86}}
, you changed it back making mention of whitespace in the infobox. I'm obviously not seeing what you are seeing, as it looks exactly the same with the template as without. If there is some replicable problem, then the template needs fixing. —
Huntster (
t
@
c) 23:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)(357439) {{mp|2004 BL|86}}
is better than {{
mp|357439|2004 BL|86}}
for parameter |mpc_name=
simply because on naming, it is much quicker to amend, e.g. (357439) Somename
{{
JPL small body}}
is the last entry in most other MP-articles.{{
Minor planets navigator}}
adding redlinks of "neighboring" minor planets is hardly helpful/maintainable (and distracts from the "central" link to
LOMP.357439 Somename
, one simply needs to replace "{{mp|2004 BL|86}}" with "Somename" (param "mpc_name" is the only instance that contains a "parenthetical number" and might by easily overlooked when amending). This is just a small part of a larger effort to prepare articles for efficient future amendments when being numbered and/or named.{{
val}}
ues with units. Do you also thing that this is the way to go?229.84
yr (83,950 days)
while the body of the article contains "...orbits the Sun at a distance of 32.4–42.7
AU once every 229 years and 10 months (83,950 days;
semi-major axis of 37.5 AU)", using non-decimal, rounded years and months, making the statement true for any kind of year for an orbital period within a reasonable timeframe, I presume.{{
Minor planets navigator}}
template basically is a navigator for the catalog (and allows to toggle between the list and the article) not for existing articles. The central link, which always exists, is not a self redirect (as you might have presumed?). For the first few thousand numbered minor planets, of course, it may also serve as a navigator between sequentially numbered articles in most cases. But that's not the template's main benefit. Alternatively, the caption of the infobox could provide such a link directly to the list of minor planets. What do you think about it?Dear fellow, would you mind showing to me XM234, XM233, XM235 anywhere in the article's last revision [1] you've just reverted ВоенТех ( talk) 20:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
There's a particular type of bias called "cognitive ease", see
[2] and
[3]. You may want to check it and know about it.
Drow (
talk) 17:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
PS Starting to talk like you are talking to a child is required even in the beginning of the most prominent seminars dedicated to the most prominent experts. Trust me.
This user hasn’t been socking recently so can you unblock him please. 73.93.152.91 ( talk)
A disruptive editor, Samuelhinchliffe1991, has been evading his block with IPs. If you see anyone add a reference without a date that has the author name listed as Sam or Samuel Hinchliffe, you can just delete it rather than waste time trying to format it properly. The author is never Hinchliffe, and the reference is not usually needed. Binksternet ( talk) 21:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Huntster – but I'll need to kick this one back to you, or I risk reverting at this article too much. On my end, I cannot access the Facebook link the IP has quoted, so I continue to be skeptical. (Somebody needs to tell them about WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOHURRY!...) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I have made some changes to the Yongchang County, Zhelaizhai & Liqian pages, the ones about the Roman soldiers in western China. Let me know what you think of the edits so far, and please make some edits if you are interested. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 13:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
原星章 | |
Thanks for the improvement of the quality of the articles related to the alleged Roman legion in China ( Yongchang County, Liqian, and Zhelaizhai). I am learning a lot about proper citation methodology through reviewing the edits you made. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 04:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC) |
Kpgjhpjm ( talk) 01:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I had a mix-up in my commemoration. Purgy ( talk) 07:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
In regards to your reversion of my edit on Deep Space Climate Observatory, you are absolutely right that individual humans have absolutely nothing to do with history or the shaping of human behavior... Keep up the brilliance... Stevenmitchell ( talk) 18:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Stevenmitchell. please notch it down and chill There is no call to turn a Discussion of a simple WP:BRD into an repeated attack on an editor. You have accused Huntster of "insis[ing his]is the only one that counts in this matter", of "believe that you own the article and have the final verdict on the article".
You made a Bold edit; it was Reverted. Don't turn your unhappiness about that outcome into an attack on another editor. N2e ( talk) 04:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Stevenmitchell: I'm sorry you continue to feel this way. I gave you my reasoning, I presented you with an alternate option. There appears to be nothing else I can do for you. — Huntster ( t @ c) 06:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey Huntster. Someone recently added a couple of images to BFR (rocket) of two old facilities that are to be demolished. I have so many questions, and don't know how to improve them. The descriptions seem odd/incomplete. No good story on why those images should even be kept in Wikimedia. ...nor, in the WP article, why either pic ties well to the article, or especially, why we have two of them. The additional info on WM seems to be lacking context. Also, we have just a photographer's claim (no source) that these buildings are "to be demolished." Does WM require some semblance of sources? (some of the bldgs on the site SpaceX has leased are historical and the lease doesn't allow SpaceX to tear them down. So it is entirely unclear which buildings are going, and which are staying; with no sources provided.)
Am I just seeing this wrong? Maybe those pics are perfectly okay? But if not, I don't know what cool tags etc. ought to be used to suggest improvement. N2e ( talk) 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
May need help with an image => " File:Possible AT2018cow 244.000927647 +22.2680094118 20180624.png" - the image is for the newly created " AT2018cow" article and is from http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr14/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?opt=G&ra=244.000927647&dec=22.2680094118&scale=0.1981 per the " Sloan Digital Sky Survey" - the image-use page is at => http://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use - PD is mentioned, but so is cc-by, which doesn't seem to have a related Wikipedia template? - in any case - Thanks in advance for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm curious about the many books written about Curiosity. kencf0618 ( talk) 01:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your removal of the image of Curiosity's high- & low-gain antennas: I think it should be kept there to help readers visualize the rover's onboard communications system. My reason for duplicating it is so that readers looking for a gallery of Curiosity component images can see the antenna image even if they are not interested in the text section, and vise versa. Again, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I'm interested in a more in-depth explanation of your decision on this. XYZtSpace ( talk) 06:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Good morning, Huntster!
I saw your reversion on my edit at Wicca. I'm aware that Wicca is not at all strict synonym with modern witchcraft, much less with witchcraft itself. I thought writing that "called by some of its adherents" would be enough to put it clear that it was not a rule, but in the end you were right: a example backed by a source would be the ideal. As soon as I be able to get it, I re-write it. Thanks again for the obs. Have a nice day! EleassarBR ( talk) 18:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC) EleassarBR ( talk) 18:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I know you from your edits about spacecraft, so asking for advice about plasma physics articles is a stretch. But you seem sensible and experienced, and I think I need advice. On the Aurora and Double Layer articles, I've run into problems with another editor. Although he is using a pseudonym, I have good reasons to suspect he is a person with strong views which most of the scientists working in the field disagree with.
I'm not asking you to look into edits, or to offer an opinion on the technical details. Looking over the talk pages should be sufficient. I'm asking for advice on the appropriate way to resolve a difference between editors. I'm new enough to Wikipedia editing to be uncertain on conflict resolution processes, and any advice you could provide would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
On Dec. 26 2017 you updated the orbital elements for Hubble. However, after the orbital period there's this weird string: "1.35.25.83" (it can be seen on the current revision). Is it some IP address (though it doesn't appear reachable)?
SopaXorzTaker ( talk) 13:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello Huntster: Please see a question about Salyut 2 Talk:Salyut 2#Crew?. You were an editor of this page when "Crew" was changed from "0" to "3". A reply on that talk page is fine.
Separate question. What is a "talk back" template that you ask us to avoid using? WP doesn't describe it, at least not where it is easily found. Thanks on both points. GeeBee60 ( talk) 12:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar | ||
For your tireless contributions to space related articles. Hadron137 ( talk) 16:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC) |
Please do not remove references and external links to the Johnston's Archive (JA) as you did here. The JA compilation is one of the best secondary sources on binary minor planets, recommended by the LCDB and even listed at PDS. Rfassbind – talk 22:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I want to ask, why did you reverted my edit on page List of Stargate SG-1 characters? FaHTa3eP 17:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
FYI: It appears you changed the orbit_periapsis= and orbit_apoapsis= units in with this edit from distance to mass. An anon just changed it back to distance, but not sure if it is correct. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 07:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
May need help re: " File:Asteroid-Bennu-OSIRIS-RExArrival-GifAnimation-20181203.gif" - seems the added category (ie, [ [Category:Bennu]]) could be better (ie, image is an asteroid - not bird) - apparently, editing the image file contents is restricted to administrators? - iac - Thanks in advance for your help with this - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 20:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:WSMV 2015.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey Huntster.
COuld you maybe take a look at this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raptor_Engine_Unofficial_Combustion_Scheme.png and see if all the licensing is in good order? I'm pretty sure "HVM" is not the uploader. Moreover, when I wrote HVM on some forum about that image a week ago, he says he only vectorized the image, and gives all credit for the image to author "JWL" (listed on the photo text) (who is a very senior retired rocket engine engineer, also active on that forum).
I saw it a couple of days ago added to WP and figured that the ordinary natural processes of Wikimedia would analyze it, tag it if necessary, and delete it if warranted. (I am asking HVM and JWL about them uploading the image all proper and such.) Cheers. N2e ( talk) 20:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the spaceflight template! Neopeius ( talk) 15:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC) |
I see you have changed the infobox to reflect the length mentioned in a couple of newspapers. The official figure is that given in the existing ref which is from the classification society and is a better source. I appreciate there is some dispute about the actual length caused by the temperature when measurements are taken so I have no problem if you want to use your sources to expand on the prose but the previous figure given in the infobox is official and sourced so I ask you to revert your edit Lyndaship ( talk) 11:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
If possible - re newly created article " EPIC 204376071" (very unusual dimming star, up to 80%?) - is the related image (ie, " File:NASA-Wise-EPIC204376071-ScrnImg-20190306.jpg") ok - seems to be ok afaik, but maybe a good idea to be more sure - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 17:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)