Archive |
older items |
I think I wiped out the edit you made to remove the uncertainty principle from the Neutrino article. We were both editing simultaneously, and I put in a huge, mostly cosmetic update over-top of yours (I've been checking the citations, and have to compare them side-by-side to find duplicates. So far none, but I'm only ~3/4 done.). However, I'm confused about the edit, because it looks like I removed the mention of the Uncertainty Principle too. Could you please check it, and re-institute your change, if the change is still needed? 107.127.18.55 ( talk) 11:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Would you be interested in joining a WikiProject SpaceX? If you are, can you please make a WikiProject proposal for it (I as an IP, can not make the proposal cause I would be stopped when trying to create the proposal page). @ Mfb:
It also could help improve SpaceX articles coverage, which more broader WIkiProjects have a harder time of doing (like spaceflight, rocketry and space, which are too big to provide the required attention to SpaceX). Would you join? You can post support at its proposal page. 100.2.238.109 talk @ Mfb:
Sorry about that, and thanks for reverting. I think "Starbase" is major part of the Starship system and needs a summary section in this aritcle, but I should have added the summary section before placing that sentence in the lede. Furthermore, unless I can find and cite the references that I think I remember, that (miss?) info cannot be in the article at all. I also absolutely hate the names "Starbse" and "Starship" for these primitive entities that are restricted to this solar system.- Arch dude ( talk) 15:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you have an image of that booster standing on the droneship?
117.249.164.185 (
talk) 01:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Timestamp of "report"???
As a general matter, realizing that this isn't our first discussion. You need to read WP:CRYSTALBALL. You seem to have a tendency to want to get statements into the record before they happen or are confirmed. Don't do that. Tarl N. ( discuss) 03:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, you might recognize me as a Starship addict on Wikipedia Discord. Since you have edited many pages related to SpaceX in general, you might like reviewing SpaceX Starship article at peer review page. I want to get more feedback on improving the article, especially for a launch vehicle in development. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 08:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I have opened talk page discussion at EmDrive talk page about recently removed content and you could be interested about. Thank you. 79.101.168.170 ( talk) 17:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I've just stumbled across some of your highly amusing and on-point responses to cosmic brain types on the archived Higgs Boson talk pages. (Don't even ask how I ended up on those pages, because truly I don't even know myself.) Anyway, bravo, keep up the good work, etc :) Tpth ( talk) 08:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hit rollback by mistake.. Apologies for that. Done reverted my revert.. Happy editing... Volten001 ☎ 09:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § NPOV issues in some sections at Space Race. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 20:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Your remark that the undoing of your June 2021 edit of the article about the equatorial ridge on Iapetus added back "redundancy and strange phrasing" doesn't half strike me as hypocritical, given that a revision of mine that you undid reinstated not only a strange, nonstandard expression ("gone under upgrade"), but a missing period (or full stop) and a misused word on top of that.
The changes of mine that were undone by you can be viewed at the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Large_Hadron_Collider&diff=846329044&oldid=846310457
As I see it, no logical problem resulted from my rewording, for I do not think that the changes I made produced a sentence necessarily implying that inactivity of the Large Hadron Collider caused upgrades to be made to it or created a need for them. This is assuming, however, that I haven't misunderstood your explanation for the reversion – something I admittedly can't be sure of, considering how vague the explanation was.
Either way, I will concede that it now occurs to me that a slightly better rewording might have been to say that the machine was "out of use for two years while it was being upgraded." SevenZeroSix ( talk) 18:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Mfb.
I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. |
Could you check the changed made to this the past few days for the FH#4 launch and Hotbird 13G? Also, could you make a note of what would need to be changed after a Falcon Heavy launch with expended boosters for future reference. AmigaClone ( talk) 14:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship regarding a note that a user is repeatedly trying to insert into the "failures" section. The thread is RfC on "clarifying failure in infobox". Thank you. DASL51984 ( Speak to me!) 19:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Here. [1] yeah, you're probably right. TBH, I missed the Tedros comment in the second source cited. Probably jaded by too many editors trying to insert "pandemic's over folks!" content based on their own hopium not sources. Sorry! Bon courage ( talk) 09:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Archive |
older items |
I think I wiped out the edit you made to remove the uncertainty principle from the Neutrino article. We were both editing simultaneously, and I put in a huge, mostly cosmetic update over-top of yours (I've been checking the citations, and have to compare them side-by-side to find duplicates. So far none, but I'm only ~3/4 done.). However, I'm confused about the edit, because it looks like I removed the mention of the Uncertainty Principle too. Could you please check it, and re-institute your change, if the change is still needed? 107.127.18.55 ( talk) 11:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Would you be interested in joining a WikiProject SpaceX? If you are, can you please make a WikiProject proposal for it (I as an IP, can not make the proposal cause I would be stopped when trying to create the proposal page). @ Mfb:
It also could help improve SpaceX articles coverage, which more broader WIkiProjects have a harder time of doing (like spaceflight, rocketry and space, which are too big to provide the required attention to SpaceX). Would you join? You can post support at its proposal page. 100.2.238.109 talk @ Mfb:
Sorry about that, and thanks for reverting. I think "Starbase" is major part of the Starship system and needs a summary section in this aritcle, but I should have added the summary section before placing that sentence in the lede. Furthermore, unless I can find and cite the references that I think I remember, that (miss?) info cannot be in the article at all. I also absolutely hate the names "Starbse" and "Starship" for these primitive entities that are restricted to this solar system.- Arch dude ( talk) 15:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you have an image of that booster standing on the droneship?
117.249.164.185 (
talk) 01:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Timestamp of "report"???
As a general matter, realizing that this isn't our first discussion. You need to read WP:CRYSTALBALL. You seem to have a tendency to want to get statements into the record before they happen or are confirmed. Don't do that. Tarl N. ( discuss) 03:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, you might recognize me as a Starship addict on Wikipedia Discord. Since you have edited many pages related to SpaceX in general, you might like reviewing SpaceX Starship article at peer review page. I want to get more feedback on improving the article, especially for a launch vehicle in development. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 08:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I have opened talk page discussion at EmDrive talk page about recently removed content and you could be interested about. Thank you. 79.101.168.170 ( talk) 17:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I've just stumbled across some of your highly amusing and on-point responses to cosmic brain types on the archived Higgs Boson talk pages. (Don't even ask how I ended up on those pages, because truly I don't even know myself.) Anyway, bravo, keep up the good work, etc :) Tpth ( talk) 08:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hit rollback by mistake.. Apologies for that. Done reverted my revert.. Happy editing... Volten001 ☎ 09:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § NPOV issues in some sections at Space Race. 204.15.72.92 ( talk) 20:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Your remark that the undoing of your June 2021 edit of the article about the equatorial ridge on Iapetus added back "redundancy and strange phrasing" doesn't half strike me as hypocritical, given that a revision of mine that you undid reinstated not only a strange, nonstandard expression ("gone under upgrade"), but a missing period (or full stop) and a misused word on top of that.
The changes of mine that were undone by you can be viewed at the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Large_Hadron_Collider&diff=846329044&oldid=846310457
As I see it, no logical problem resulted from my rewording, for I do not think that the changes I made produced a sentence necessarily implying that inactivity of the Large Hadron Collider caused upgrades to be made to it or created a need for them. This is assuming, however, that I haven't misunderstood your explanation for the reversion – something I admittedly can't be sure of, considering how vague the explanation was.
Either way, I will concede that it now occurs to me that a slightly better rewording might have been to say that the machine was "out of use for two years while it was being upgraded." SevenZeroSix ( talk) 18:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Mfb.
I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. |
Could you check the changed made to this the past few days for the FH#4 launch and Hotbird 13G? Also, could you make a note of what would need to be changed after a Falcon Heavy launch with expended boosters for future reference. AmigaClone ( talk) 14:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship regarding a note that a user is repeatedly trying to insert into the "failures" section. The thread is RfC on "clarifying failure in infobox". Thank you. DASL51984 ( Speak to me!) 19:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Here. [1] yeah, you're probably right. TBH, I missed the Tedros comment in the second source cited. Probably jaded by too many editors trying to insert "pandemic's over folks!" content based on their own hopium not sources. Sorry! Bon courage ( talk) 09:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)