User talk:Abebenjoe/Archive 2

David Lewis (politician) Good Article Review
Hi there: I think all the copyedit work has been completed on the David Lewis (politician) article, thereby completing the last item on your to-do list before it can be reviewed again. So I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and give it your seal of approval? Thanks again for your insights, they did improve the article substantially. --Abebenjoe 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize that I'm really busy this week and can't get to the article right now. I'll review it as soon as I have a chance. Cla68 21:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agnes
This is the thing, Agnes Macphail *was* a member of the CCF from 1932 until 1934 when the United Farmers of Ontario withdrew from the CCF (which is why she ran for re-election as a UFO candidate in 1935) and she was even president of the Ontario section of the CCF from 1933 to 1934. Political parties were not officially recognized in parliament for a few more decades or so (though they did exist for the purposes of the elections system) so the MPs who founded the CCF in 1932 are not listed in the parliamentary record as CCFers because they were not elected as CCFers in the 1930 election.

For the purposes of categorization it doesn't make sense not to recognize the MPs who founded the CCF in 1932 as CCFers. Perhaps we can come up with a specific wording that is more precise such as Category:MPs who were founding members of the CCF? Reginald Perrin 12:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Apollo 8
Regarding this edit:, I think the fact is wrong.

{{blockquote|text=They had been the first people ever to leave the gravitational influence of the Earth} }}

I won't nitpick and claim it isn't possible with our current understanding of the universe to leave the gravitational influence of earth. I think the fact is wrong because leaving the gravitational influence of earth would mean entering a solar orbit. Going through a little math, halfway to the moon, earth was pulling on it with a little more than 1 netwon. Not much, but there is a difference. 10,822 m/s is also slower than escape velocity. Maybe I am nitpicking... 171.71.37.207 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I realized that if the CSM was orbiting the earth around halfway between the earth and the moon, it would be pulled towards earth with about 1 newton of force. If there's enough force for an orbit, it's not really out of Earth's gravitational influence. 171.71.37.207 19:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you almost have it right, but not quite. It's like going over a hill. To quote Andrew Chaikin from his authoritative book A Man on the Moon, "It was as if the moonship were coasting up a hill, one that became less and less steep as it went along. About two days from now, on the afternoon of December 23, Apollo 8 would reach the gentle crest of that hill, the place where the earth's gravitational influence gave way to the moon's. From then on it would begin falling toward its destination." (Chaikin, p. 95) All bodies in space have a gravitational field, even an astronaut on an EVA has a gravitational field around them. In this case, the moon's gravitational influence becomes stronger, and the earth's disappears, even though the moon orbits the earth, it's the moon's gravity that is having an effect on the spacecraft when it reaches a certain point in space. Therefore, it is correct to say that Apollo 8 was the first manned mission to leave the earth's influence.--Abebenjoe 01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My reply's at User:171.71.37.207. 171.71.37.207 18:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to start getting into Lagrangian points, or barycentre, etc. For practical purposes, they left the earth's gravitational influence. Otherwise, it is also under the sun's gravity influence, and furthermore, under Galactic Centre's influence. All these are true to a point, but of course their influence is minor. Since the earth may still have a small influence in the region near or on the moon, in fact it stopped being a factor in real terms once Apollo 8 was about 55 hours into its mission, because the moon's gravity field took over, and it was this field that accelerated the CSM towards the moon. Furthermore, when Apollo 8 was orbiting the moon, it was being acted on by the moon's gravity, not earth's in terms of practicality. In some ways, you would be correct that Apollo 8, by orbiting the moon, it is still orbiting the earth, but the real order is Apollo 8 orbiting the moon, and the moon is orbiting the earth. Even not reaching true escape velocity, by a mere 400 meters per second, didn't prevent Apollo 8 from being captured by the moon. So, after this long winded explaination, I agree with you that there is still a minute influence from the earth, but for all practical purposes it is insignificant to the flight once Apollo 8 was near the moon or in lunar orbit. That's why for all intents and purposes, it is correct to say that Apollo 8 was the first manned spacecraft to leave the earth's gravity influence.

P.S., if you are going to continue to contribute to wikipedia, you should create an account. If your ip address changes, you won't be able to read replys or edit locked pages.--Abebenjoe 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

1960s
Thanks for the encouragement and suggestions. I don't know how much time I have, but I'm in the midst of some work on the Sixties anyway, and my first priority this morning (after the necessary Java) seems to have me back at Wikipedia. I'll do what I can. JStripes 13:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like we've begun! It's daunting how much more needs done. At least it no longer begins with the election of Kennedy leading off social movements.


 * BTW, I know that Quebec had an electoral victory for the Left in 1960. Perhaps you could add something regarding Canadian Politics. JStripes 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Toronto Meetup
I've updated the notice page. nattan g 03:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mark Warner (Canadian politician)
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. GreenJoe 16:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The way you worded it had me questioning your motives. You did mention misunderstanding, but some of your other comments weren't so delicate. I appreciate the clarification.GreenJoe 16:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Apollo 8
My point on fact-tagging that Apollo 8 was planned and launched in 4 months is that the sentence, standing alone, makes it sound like someone had the bright idea of the missing, and then the rockets, capsule, astronaut training, everything occurred in 4 months. Could you come up with some more precise phrasing about the 4 month time frame? Thanks - Tempshill 00:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Expo 67
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Expo 67 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 2 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Sorry about the length of time it has taken to get to this review. We have quite a backlog :) Pursey  Talk 02:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've partially completed this review, but just had a long 12 hour day. So, your review should be up a few hours after I have a snooze tonight. I'd say around 12 hours from now. Cheers, thanks for patience. Pursey  Talk 08:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Complete. Full details available on talk page. Don't want to spoil the surprise and tell you it has passed. :) Pursey  Talk 10:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ontario election
You were right to remove the John Tory prediction from the article, but it doesn't constitute vandalism, and looking at the article history I don't see any notable surge in the kind of edits that would necessitate page protection. I'll keep an eye on it over the next few days (obviously), but it's not at protection stage yet. Bearcat 07:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate sectionhere. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Wikimania 2009
Did the bid succeed? Type 40 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 00:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Ferreira
I've relisted a request for peer review that you made about six months ago, WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Paul Ferreira, which received no comments. You may wish to watchlist the page to see if you get any further interest. DrKiernan 11:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good article. Type 40 (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

FA Review of Apollo 8
Apollo 8 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Papa November (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Lower Bay pictures

 * I happened to miss it due to some personal matters. Hopefully I can attend next year.OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Make_this_your_canada_lr.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Make_this_your_canada_lr.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates atFair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want toopt out of receiving this notice? MECU ≈ talk 18:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Make this your canada lr.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Make this your canada lr.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriatecopyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:


 * Image use policy


 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, seeMedia copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Doors Open TTC's Bay Lower Station leaflet middle panel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Doors Open TTC's Bay Lower Station leaflet middle panel.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.


 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:5 Star Silver Dart Centenary 2009 222.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:5 Star Silver Dart Centenary 2009 222.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriatecopyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:


 * Image use policy


 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, seeMedia copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Opening ceremony Expo 67 e001096646.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Opening ceremony Expo 67 e001096646.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If the image is public domain, that's fine- use it all you like. The image was tagged as non-free, and the usage did not meet our non-free content criteria. Obviously, the point is moot if the image is free. Thanks for dealing with this. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi
It's current, it's biography, what do you think about it: George Miok? I put a wikiProject Canada template onto the talp page of this article. I try to protect this article from the deletion. --Eino81 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On the talk page there is already two supporting messages. I live in Hungary, every day I watch the net for news about the situation in Canada about Mr. Miok. I hope, at the end the article won't be deleted. I will do my best. --Eino81 (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I can't sleep, and yes, it's 3:06 am now here :) --Eino81 (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I need your supoort: Articles for deletion/George Miok --Eino81(talk) 09:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is now 4 supporting and three un-supporting vote, we need your help, if you support us :) did you see the video link, which I sent to you here? --Eino81 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, here is a fine Hungarian article (http://canadaquebecmontreal.network.hu/blog/kanada-vilaga-hirei/gyaszol-az-edmontoni-magyarsag-is), but the main thing is a video, down there, it's in Hungarian, but you can see, how fine it is. --Eino81 (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The page, where the video is, yes, it's a Canadian-Hungarian page, but the video is originally from Duna TV, which is Hungarian. Thank oyu for your support. --Eino81 (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's from a hungarin TV http://www.rtlklub.hu/video/79685 --Eino81 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Jim Irwin article
Hello. Thank you for the message you left on my talk page. In the past week, sockpuppets of GayleNuffer have attacked various articles in via four different IP addresses. Since WP:RBI does not seem to be doing the trick, I opted use the protect button to instead give Gayle the opportunity to get bored and move on to something else. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pamela Taylor
I reversed your last edit of this article as not being vandalism. Although it perhaps is "vote" stacking, I do not believe it can be classified as vandalism. I have added an SPA tag to the entry to help identify there is an issue with the "vote". My best to you.  ttonyb (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review
I've taken the Pam Taylor deletion issue to Deletion review though I may have made the issue moot by adding her to the 2007 candidates article.Fred the happy man (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy
I'd be very surprised if Kennedy could mount a credible campaign for mayor right now. The perception that as Stéphane Dion's kingmaker he bears some of the blame for 2008 has, fairly or not, somewhat dented his reputation; outside of PHP, in truth, too many people would spend the entire campaign looking askance at his political judgment. And the fact that Iggy's been keeping him on the backbench has been denying him the opportunity to keep his name and face in the news nearly as much as George's name and face have been. But at any rate, we certainly shouldn't say anything about it here in the absence of any reliable media sources.

The article is definitely going to need manageability improvements of some kind soon. I haven't given much thought to it, though — my involvement recently has been mainly about the whole Mark State thing. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Image removal
Can I ask why you removed the second photo from the Cheri DiNovo article??Tabercil (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good enough a reason for me. And you're right it was a good photo - I have the photographer (Tsar Kasim) on my Flickr contact list as he frequently gets photos of notable people and he uses Wiki-friendly licensing.  Tabercil (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lewis peer review
Hi - I see you've listed it for peer review, which is great; I've watchlisted the peer review page, and I'll try to assist with any issues that come up. Only thing is that you need to replace the ellipses on that page (in "I've listed this article for peer review because…") with some explanation of what you're looking for. If you're not sure what to write, just say that you're looking to bring it to FAC, and that there were concerns with the writing last time it was there. Steve Smith (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of sources at Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations
I would kindly like your input at the Federation talk page. Thanks you. Silver seren C 19:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See my reply on the article's talk page.--Abebenjoe (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the much-appreciated barnstar. I was glad to help, and I wish you success in the quest for FA. Finetooth (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

CAF
Removed illiterate and unsigned nonsense from " —Precedingunsigned comment added by HaltonMcSquinty(talk • contribs) 23:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC) "

Abebenjoe (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

David Lewis (politician)
HI Abebenjoe - I've partially reverted your revert of my edits - I think you should have just rolled back the last edit - I think that I went to the point you meant but just undo if you disagree - Peripitus (Talk) 04:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - buggered that up so rolled myself back - will look again - Peripitus (Talk) 04:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald MacDonald (Nova Scotia politician)
Hi, I just noticed that you reverted my edit to this article, but I'm a little confused as to where I went wrong. I thought following wikipedia policy was the correct way to edit an article.


 * WP:CREDENTIAL states "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name in the first line (although they may occasionally be used in articles of which the person with the degree is not the subject to clarify their qualifications)."


 * WP:MOSBIO states "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms".

I'm hoping you can shed some light on this for me. I have edited hundreds of articles using the same policy, so I guess every edit I have made to a biography has been wrong. What I don't understand is why none of those articles were ever reverted, or why it was never pointed out to me until now. If you can explain where I went wrong, it will be greatly appreciated. Cmr08 (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it's quite easy to point out where you are wrong. The correct Wikipedia rule that governs this rule of style is WP:INITIAL. That's why his post-nominal stays and should not be excluded. As for your second edit, you will find in most FA articles, which is the test of well written article on Wikipedia, that it is quite common to see, at some point, the use of the person's first and last name together in other parts of the article, not just in the intro paragraph. The operative word in the WP:SURNAME rule is should, not must, therefore it does not fully rule-out the use of first and last name in the article, after the initial usage.--Abebenjoe (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me and for explaining the policy for me. I never would have removed the accademic degrees from the post nominal inititals had I known they should be included. I don't know what confused me about this, but I was under the impression that accademic degrees were not included in the post nominal initials after a name in the lead, but that they could be discussed in the article and listed after a name in an infobox. This was how I had seen other editors deal with them, and reading the policy I had cited in my original post is where the misunderstanding came from. But, if can you tell me with 100% certainty that accademic degrees are supposed to be listed in the lead sentence post nominals, then I have screwed up big time because everytime I came across an article where they were listed, I removed them and cited the wrong policy, WP:CREDENTIAL as the reason for the removal. I know you're probably busy with your own editing, but any help you can provide to help rectify the problem would be appreciated. Once again, thank you. Cmr08 (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Voskhod 2 edit war
Why do you keep reverting this edit? "Too much information was removed" doesn't make any sense; it can only possibly refer to the phrase "launched by the Soviet Union". This is clear from the context of the section about Voskhod; there is no way anyone is going to be confused and think the US launched this flight, also given the context of this period in history, long before astronauts/cosmonauts were launched on other countries' spacecraft. Also, my edit makes it consistent with the previous paragraph about Voskhod 1, which does not say "launched by the Soviet Union" either.

Please tell me what you're thinking (or discuss on the article's talk page.)JustinTime55 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, this article is poorly constructed, and it is easy to get confused with it, so it is not just this section. I just rewrote some of this section to make it clearer, but in reality, this whole article needs a massive rewrite, including inline citations, which this section, and the whole article for that matter, is sorely lacking.Abebenjoe (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer


Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you toreview other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism orBLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (seeReviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be foundhere.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats
Congrats on the FA for David Lewis (politician). It's a keeper. Finetooth (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

CCF
Any idea who the National Chairman of the CCF was from 1950-58 or who the National Secretary was after 1950? 67.68.50.246 (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * At the July 1950 National CCF Convention, Percy Wright, an MP from Saskatchewan, was elected National Chairman to replace the retiring F.R. Scott. He defeated Angus MacInnis (Woodsworth's son-in-law). M.J. Coldwell was re-elected as Party President. David Lewis was elected english-speaking Vice President, while Ms. Therese Casgrain was elected as french-speaking Vice President. Toronto Star (1950-07-29), pp. 1,7. M.J. Coldwell was likely president until 1958, when Lewis was elected to that position -- Coldwell was defeated in the 1958 Canadian Federal election, known as the "Diefenbaker Sweep" and only stayed on as the National Leader at the request of people like Lewis, Scott, MacInnis, Grube, etc.... I don't think Percy Wright was the National Chairman for the entire time between 1950 to 1958, but I'll research that a little more.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Space Race revision(s)
Hi: I was looking over the major revisions that you made today on the Space Race article, and although in some cases they improved some aspects of the article, they also introduced new errors, both factually and stylistically. I suggest that this major rewrite be done in an user sandbox page, likeUser:Abebenjoe/Sandbox2, where the article can be fine-tuned and then migrated to the main article.--Abebenjoe (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Abebenjoe:


 * Please, be specific and give concrete examples; as the (self-appointed) article owner, you are obliged. Your style of editing is your business . . . or do I require your permission to participate in correcting the right-wards tilt narrative of a "done deal". Example: “When the Russians effected the first space walk . . . that was okay, but the Americans did it better” . . . is not objective . . . gosh . . . What might I say?


 * I am an ex-US Army officer (Infantry) and am risibly impressed at how you Cold War REMF jokers are tougher than men of arms, especially here, in Wikipedia . . . where such “toughness” results in flagged articles on account of right-wing bias. The USSR is dead (not Russia), so nil nisil bonum.


 * I refer to your Voskhod 2 article quarrel with an editor who sought to identify the USSR as launching it, but, rather than address his matter . . . you copped out and dismissed the entire article . . . just to disregard him . . . oh boy! You are one (intellectually) tough guy . . . yet . . . you WEASELED out from answering a direct EDITORIAL question . . . Why, sir? Was that other editor factually wrong?


 * Again, the morally outraged tone betrays you. Schadenfreude, perhaps, the spirit of the sore winner? Friend, return to Earth, set your feet on the ground, take off your work boots, set a spell . . . Hell, even the astronauts respected the cosmonauts . . . um . . . possibly because they were military men, intellectually secure, and thus unafraid of . . . the Other (?). Let me know, if you are able to be objective: the won some, we won some, they lost some, so did we. Just report, do not interpret, because the facts do not support your RAH-RAH-RAH misrepresentations.


 * You are misrepresenting the historical facts when the introduction states that the space race began and ended; yet in your Disney conclusion the space race never really ended . . . oh . . . which is it? It occurred or it is occurring? Please, provide the facts that support your self-contradiction. Dude! It is a done deal, It happened, and not as you misrepresent it. Meantime, I shall continue contributing FACTS, I defer opinion to you.


 * Best regards,


 * Mhazard9 (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was away on vacation and just noticed your reply. I'm an ex-Canadian Armed Forces infantry soldier as well, involved in the last years of the Cold War, but being in the American or Canadian armed forces doesn't mean much to this article. Anyway, I didn't write this article, and I find it has huge stylistic and content problems, but your edits just made them worse. As I said, I've written or helped write a few FA articles, and will fix this one up shortly, as I do know the subject matter, and know how to properly cite works, and write from a neutral point of view, which is the basis of an FA article anyway.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Space Race
In understand what you are saying. And it it important to humanity as a whole, rather than individual nations. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quindie (talk •contribs) 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The prose you have introduced into the "Space Race" article is a problem in that it requires considerable clean-up to be readable. There are many sentence structure errors and run-on sentences, in addition to poor punctuation. I wonder if you might please consider spending a bit more time before you introduce your edits so they won't require so much cleanup. Thanks.Apostle12 (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The edits improved the article, warts and all. Thank you for correcting mistakes relating to style.--Abebenjoe (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I do have one concern about an edit that you reverted. The reverted version reads "Had von Braun's team been allowed to orbit, the Space Race would have been over before it started." I think this needs to be restated for a couple of reasons: 1./ Taken literally, the sentence means that the team itself wasn't allowed to orbit (as in the team orbiting the earth). I know that the intent here is to say "Had von Braun's team been allowed to launch a satellite into orbit..." Even so, I think the sentence needs to contain a specific date, since von Braun's team WAS eventually allowed to launch a satellite into orbit. 2./ When you write "...the Space Race would have been over before it started," that doesn't sound right to me. After all, the article itself pegs the beginning of the Space Race to 1955, so it HAD already started. Also, Von Braun's early launching of a satellite would hardly have signalled the "end" of the Space Race, rather it would have been a significant coup for the United States, just as the launching of Sputnik ended up being a coup for the Soviet Union. My edit wasn't very good either, however it was date specific and it defined what specifically an early Von Braun launch would have accomplished. Anyway, I think this needs work! Apostle12 (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's try to figure this one out. If von Braun and the ABMA team orbited a satellite in September 1956, the USA would not have felt the need to further compete with the Soviets. The biggest favour the Soviets ever did to the American space program was to beat them, not once, but twice to two important firsts: first artificial satellite, and then the first human in space. If the Americans orbited the first satellite, Korolyov would not have had a leg to stand on, sort of speak, with Mr. K., because the R-7 was almost a year away from its first successful launch. If anything, Yangel would have gained favour, and Alan Shepard likely would have been the first person in space, and the first moon-landing likely would have occurred in the 1980s or even 1990s. The project Apollo that occurred in the 1960s, could not have happened without the public humiliation the United States endured due to Sputnik 1 and Vostok 1. That's why the Space Race would have been over before it began. Also, again contextualizing this with the times, most Westerners didn't consider the Russians to be able to build a proper refrigerator, let alone launch an Earth orbiting satellite when they announced their intentions in 1955. The Americans did not know that Korolyov existed, for if they did, von Braun would have been allowed to have launched a satellite as soon as he could. That's why both his failure to orbit a satellite is crucial, just at Korolyov's ability to manipulate the Soviet system in the late summer of 1955 was so crucial for  The Race to actually occur. As you can probably infer, the R-7 was a terrible military rocket, due to the extremely long time it took to prepare it for launch, especially if combat conditions were considered, but it was a superb space launcher, arguably the first and best that has ever existed, as Korolyov intended. So the question remains, how do we project the sense that if von Braun did not launch a rocket into orbit in 1956, that, in effect, the Americans would not have taken the Soviets seriously, because they only did it after them? It is highly unlikely the United States would have put 5% of its annual 1960s budget towards the space program if they were already leading, in some way.Abebenjoe (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Paul Ferreira lo-rez.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Paul Ferreira lo-rez.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk 20:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals
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. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf ofWikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Timeline of Spaceflight activity
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 ofWikiProject Timeline of spaceflight at 07:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProjects Moon and Mars activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the space-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the lists of members of WikiProject Moon (here) and Mars (here). If you still consider yourself to be an active editor either of these projects, 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 ofWikiProject Solar System at 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight activity
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 ofWikiProject Spaceflight at 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot
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 ofWP: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 ofWikiProject Spaceflight at 00:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 0

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member ofWikiProject 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 theopt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf ofWikiProject Spaceflight at 16:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 1

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member ofWikiProject 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 theopt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf ofWikiProject Spaceflight at 14:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Ronald Caplan
Just to let you know, I've moved your sandbox page on Ronald Caplan to the titleUser:Abebenjoe/Sandbox7, as sandbox pages belong in userspace rather than mainspace.Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Leadership election
-

-

Please don't violate the decision of a move discussion, if you have opinions, start a move discussion, so that it can be discussed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

-


 * If you wrote the articles, you should have been involved in the move discussion, where it was decided that despite what the parties call them, there needs to be consistency across all parties.117Avenue (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

-


 * Yes there was consensus, to move it to election. It says right at the top of the discussion: "The result of the move request was: Move to leadership election. Consensus seems to be that "election" is encyclopedic, clear, unambiguous, consistent with other articles. Concern was expressed that "election" might be interpreted as implying something about the franchise of the electorate, but this seems a minority view. Discussion on "common usage" was more evenly split but other factors outweigh this. Further other proposed terms either suffered some serious drawback (a convention is not an election, just something that often goes with one, "contest" and "race" are possibly more nebulous, and would not apply to an uncontested election). Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)." If you move any pages involved in the discussion, you will be seen as violating the decision, and will be reported. 117Avenue (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

-

-

The Downlink: Issue 2
-

-

-


 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member ofWikiProject 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 theopt-out list.

-

-

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf ofWikiProject Spaceflight at 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

-

-

-

Meetup at Linux Cafe
-

-

Hello Abebenjoe, nice meeting you here. I have been wondering if adding names who actually attended that meeting would be an invasion of privacy. Obviously there are a few people who signed up but did not attend. What's your idea ? Thanks. I just went ahead adding a few names. --Ktsquare (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

-

-

File:Aerial view of whole Expo 67 site e000990829.jpg
-

Hi Abebenjoe, I have reverted your changes to this file. Note that on the LAC website "restrictions: nil" does not refer to its copyright status. Copyrighted images from the LAC have a very restrictive policy (see here) and even if it is a government work, crown copyright has a duration of 50 years. There is a discussion about this on Commons, here: Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Library_and_Archives_Canada_non-PD_images. -Gump Stump (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

-

-

Nomination for deletion of Template:Elections Ont maps
-

Template:Elections Ont maps has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. MGA73 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

-

-

The Downlink: Issue 3
-

-

-


 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member ofWikiProject 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 theopt-out list.

-

-

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf ofSpaceflight at 09:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

-

-

-

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
-

-

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

-

-

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

-

-

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

-

-

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250,LivingBot (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

-

-

Mike Sullivan
-

-

Just for the record, Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus that we use the dates that are listed by Parliament's website as their official term in office — and their website has always listed the start date as the first actual sitting of the House of Commons after the election, not the date of the election itself. For instance, Rob Oliphant's term is listed as being from 2008.11.18 (first sitting after the 2008 election) to 2011.03.26 (drop of writs to start the 2011 election). If you feel that we should change the term dates to the election dates themselves, you're welcome to propose that at WP:CWNB — but Mike Sullivan isn't an isolated case who gets to have May 2 in his infobox while all of the 100 or so other newly-elected MPs still have May 30. We need to either change every MP to the actual election date or none of them, not just Sullivan alone. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

-


 * Prior MPs' pages have never listed the election date as being the start of their terms in office; every single MP who has ever served in the House prior to the most recent election has their start date listed as the first actual sitting of the House after the election. Do you have evidence that they've chosen to change that to the election date for this election, or can you otherwise prove that the election date being present on Sullivan's page isn't just a temporary placeholder until the Parliamentary session actually opens?

-


 * Again, I'm not saying that we can't make the change you'd prefer — but if we do, it needs to be made across the board to every MP on Wikipedia who has a full date listed in their infobox. We can't just change Mike Sullivan to the actual election date while leaving everybody else at some other followup date (and I'm not the one who started using May 30, so if it's also wrong you need to track down whoever thought it was right rather than talking to me about it.) Bearcat (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)