User talk:Andyjsmith/Archive 10

May 2016
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Globe Theatre has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted a vandal, but obviously not far enough! Andyjsmith (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Bitsquare
Hi Andyjsmith. I declined the CSD:A7 that you placed on Bitsquare. A7 does not apply to software (or products), although I sometimes wish it did.- MrX 13:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i forgot that. :( Andyjsmith (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Leo Tyrrell
Hi there, You undid my changes on this page, however the details that are currently on the page are incorrect (ie I am correcting mistakes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.70.58 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Event Management Software List
I noticed that you removed my addition regarding event management software: a list of EMS. I added this list as the one found in Workflow management system. My intention is to contribute so we have the same level of information. Why this page would be different?

Codo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codospra (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The companies you listed were not linked to articles, so the list had no real value to a reader of wikipedia. Also there was no way of telling if any of the companies passed Wikipedia's notability test, but if they had entries in wikipedia like the companies in the Workflow article then we'd know that they were worth including. You should also read WP:EL Andyjsmith (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

revert Space Colonization
Hello. Noticed you axed my contribs to Space Colonization, grounds: opinion. I feel the sentences I added were factual and obviously so. May I recommend that you refer to the corresponding main WP articles for the specific colonization targets. Please get back to me with the results of your research.Wikkileaker (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The material in that section - not just your own - is either speculation or it has a sound footing. If it's speculation we don't want it and if it's sound there will be a reference somewhere in a reliable source, so please add it. Personally I think that the idea of interplanetary craft aerobraking in order to rendezvous with an orbital colony is so far in the future as to be highly speculative, but if you can find a reliable source (you know, NASA study, that kind of thing) then I'm happy to be proved wrong. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are unfamiliar with the literature for space colonization. Do you have access to this book "Mining the SKy" by Lewis? I don't have it handy right now but I can rectify that. In this book Lewis suggests that a profitable activity for a moon colony is the manufacture of shields for sale to Earthside space powers/corporations, to be used for aerobraking returning spacecraft. If you knew anything about aerobraking you would realize that it makes braking by retrorocket unnecessary. Returning spacecraft can shed their excess velocity in the atmosphere and rendezvous with another spacecraft orbiting Earth, or alternatively reenter the atmosphere as did the Apollo CMs.


 * This is hardly speculation. On only need apply a little physical intuition and common sense. I am going to undo your revert. Next week I will give the exact page number in the book that Lewis states the above.Wikkileaker (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Parenthetically, this discourse actually belongs on the talk page for the article itself. I am going to start a new section and paste all this in. This way, perhaps someone more knowledgable can chime in.Wikkileaker (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Do not take material from my personal talk page and put it into article space. If I want to write on the article talk page I'll do it myself - do NOT do it for me Andyjsmith (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have edited out your contrib. Also noticed you have not deigned to reply.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits
Thank you for the notice and observations.

I will write another piece and post if on your talk page for comments.

SincerelyLOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

See additional sources regarding Musk. Added professional clinic source + documentary on Silicon Valley for video proof. If you need any further feel free to see the available google indexed sources. It is widely accepted which there isn't any reasons for this not to be on Wiki under health and appearance as it is for other famous celebrities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.164.13 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Are you actually saying a HT surgeon and a video of Musk itself prior to surgery is unreliable info? If that's the case, I don't know what reliable information is. Please illuminate all of us. Trying to get your rationale on record.
 * This is scurrilous personal trivia. The sources are not reliable per WP:RS. andy (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already pointed you to the main guideline that applies here, WP:RS. In addition you have presented other people's speculation as fact and presented your own opinions as fact - see WP:OR. You must follow these guidelines. And there's also the issue of including trivia in an article, but let that rest for now. andy (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Chlorella - yes that is what it says. Blue-Green algae. And IBT was quoting John Hopking's. You have a quick rev before you look at it.207.119.112.48 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "More stupid" is merely an attention grabbing headline that isn't borne out in the body of the article, which is in any case a rewrite of someone else's article. The phrase actually used is "minor cognitive impairment" andy (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Revert of Scientific Literature
Hello. I noticed that you reverted a version of the article: Scientific Literature for poor grammar and for being opinionated, etc. I was just wondering if you could show me where I had gone wrong with some of these errors?

Dylanvanetta (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Your revert on Jewish deicide.
You reverted an edit on Jewish deicide using an automated tool, incorrectly stating that the edit you reverted had no edit summary. I assume this was an error on your part, and have fixed it. As a reminder, though, when you use Twinkle, you commit to providing an appropriate edit summary with each of your edits when reverting good-faith edits - it is not acceptable to revert them using inaccurate or misleading edit summaries implying you believe them to be vandalism. I can understand having a bit of an itchy trigger finger on an article that has seen frequent vandalism, and it's fine if it was just a mistake, but still, please be more cautious in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

My bad. I couldn’t see the edit summary. Probably because of editing on an iPad. Andyjsmith (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, if it was just a technical issue like that, then it's fine! --Aquillion (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
I still want to thank you.

I have another article. Can i send it here for you to look at?

I will appreciate your help.LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Undone edit
Unconstructive? Not really. It was meant to be a somewhat humorous comment on the stupid usage of the word 'crewed', with the (obvious) underlying suggestion that an alternative should be sought. Please reinstate it. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

the talk page is for constructive discussions not facetiousness. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reinstated it. It's not my fault you've had a humour bypass. I note from further up your talk page you've got a bit of form in this 'unconstructive edit' business. 86.156.221.64 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Sir
Thank you Sir.

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits
Yes, I am reviewing carefully and not editing yet. Thank you for your helpLOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sweeping of edits
Dear Andyjsmith,

you wrote in the comment of your undoing of my edits on decolonization that you do not understand, but how can you judge it then?

Indigenous peoples rights are a widely discussed issue of decolonization, there is even an own Wikipedia article about it (Indigenous decolonization). I have merely differentiated that decolonization is not only about independence, since indigenous peoples struggle for rights is taking place without claims of independence and within independent countries, which is not opinion but rather refering to other issues and articles.

Furthermore did I differentiate space colonization from mere "living in space" for the purpose of space exploration, which is no opinion either but simple differentiation of living in space for the article of space exploration and space colonization. Though maybe I should have used "colonialistic" instead of "colonialist".

Thirdly in the article Colonialism, if something is opinion then it is the part I took out about ancient greek military, and I explained why, and I repeat because ancient greece is not an issue of the article. The other edits of on military innovation have I also explained in the edit.

Again these are not opinions but merely making the articles more clear cut.

Last but not least, if my sentances are not understandable then at least take them to the talk page to discuss better wording or provide solutions, I dare to argue that undoing might be opinion too if not based on knowledge on the issue.

Thank you for your work and all the best. Nsae Comp (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your grammar is poor, your sentences verging on incomprehensible and your edits are opinionated and often off-message. Wikipedia is not a place where you make political points. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that is incredibly aggressive. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No aggression, just my opinion stated in response to your opinion. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Elon Musk: Engineer or not?
This RfC discussion might interest you based on your past discussion on this subject: Talk:Elon_Musk --David Tornheim (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

edits on article Publishing
Hello Andy,

Thank you for your feedback on my edits! I will take them into consideration! My edits were based on attempting to emphasize the role of the designer in the publishing domain which is referred to almost all the time. However, I will re-edit the article by adding citations to the existing information. Let me know what you think. Thank you Zeech00 (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeech00 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Andy,

I am confused by your deletion of my edits, which I just found out about in my notes today. I am new to Wiki and was under the impression that it was important to keep subject pages up to date with the latest developments in a particular field. I am interested in Gerald Bull and the HARP Project and ballistic launch. Recently I found an article about a company that was continuing his launch methodology. As a fan of this technology I thought others who share my interest might want to know about it too. Thank you (talk) BrigidBurgan (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

5.^

Hello Andy,

The following link ^ Is by a YPG article about he continuation of the HARP launch approach at Yuma Proving Grounds where HARP set the world altitude record for ballistic launch 1966. Unsure why it was removed from the HARP See Also links. Thank you (talk) BrigidBurgan BrigidBurgan (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I want to remove Mars 2020 from that page now
Please i removed those topics due to being currently operational and that page is for those missions that are planned, about to be launched or land or is enroute. Otherwise it meant that any mission like 10 years old curiosity Rover can also be fited on that page. I removed Mars 2020 as all it's components have landed and are fully operational. Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"Joe Cell" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Joe Cell. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 11 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Astrooceanography
Hi, Andy. I've declined your speedy deletion nomination of Astrooceanography, because the present version of the article is nothing like the deleted one, making a G4 deletion invalid. However, I have searched for information about the subject,  and found mostly wikis, blogs, and other unreliable sources, a number of which were clearly derived from the Wikipedia article. However, if you want it deleted you will have to go through WP:AfD.JBW (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ve listed it at AfD Andyjsmith (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extraterrestrial_liquid_water&oldid=1064042173#Liquid_water_in_the_Solar_System
Why are you constantly reverting this as original research or irrelevant? This does not say more than the source article says, and simple "calculation" (which are more orders of magnitude than real calculution) can't be considered OR in itself, nor irrelevant since comparing the total mass with other celestial bodies may be useful to have an idea of what it represents.

Yes in fact I often use different IP's but I can't do much about this, and since I saw messages on talk:Extraterrestrial_liquid_water are often left unanswered, so I thought it would be useless to do so.

193.54.180.221 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

monobook.js script page
Hi, I'm chasing an issue reported at WP:VPT where old copies of the popups script have a bad category link in them. I have been fixing that issue by clearing out duplicates for the most part.

You have a copy of popups in User:Andyjsmith/monobook.js. I was wondering if you have turned on the gadget version of it so that I might clear out the copy. (This issue can also be fixed by removing the offending line either way.)

It looks like you also importScript Twinkle, which also has a gadget version, and the other importScript, recent2.js, also has a copy in your common.js page, which means you're loading it twice and should probably remove the monobook version.

If you're no longer using monobook skin, you can also let me know that since these can be removed trivially for that reason also.

Please let me know! Izno (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Event management software for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Event management software is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Event management software until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.  Velella  Velella Talk 10:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)