User talk:Andyjsmith/Archive 8

Msoamu revisionism
I noticed that you prevented some of User:Msoamu's revisionism here. I filed an ANI report which a number of users contributed to regarding his revisionism and refusal to engage in discussion, but an admin told me it was overly long and might not be read, which seems to have happened. If you do have the time, he has been quite active in trying to prevent any other editors from contributing to Barelvi, Wahhabi and Ahl al-Hadith - all of them also Muslim religious movements. If you see the talk pages, you will see a lot of personal attacks as well. I'm just asking because so far nothing has been done but this user is basically trying to force all others off of these articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I opened up a discussion about this at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I hope you can find the time to check it out and perhaps comment. Whatever the result, I would like to see if this can be resolved soon. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have zero interest in the topic so I'm not in a position to comment. But I can spot unconstructive edits! andy (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's awesome, though! As a person who doesn't believe in any religion at all, you're in a good position to make objective judgments. As a person who isn't concerned with the content being discussed, you're again in a good position to make objective judgments on the helpfulness of edits. Your lack of interest and credence to these religious beliefs are a huge asset should you choose to monitor the discussion, especially on Barelvi where a discussion of content is ongoing. I know it seems like fairy tales to you, look at it this way, it's a set of fairy tales you can help be presented in an objective, non-dogmatic fashion.! MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Copify
Why did you tag this article for speedy deletion per WP:CSD 20 minutes after it was created, even though it was sourced to The Guardian, and that newspaper's article discussed the pros and cons of the service in some depth? Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   14:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because there is no evidence that it satisfies wikipedia's notability requirements at WP:ORG. Feel free to add a "hold on" tag and put your reasons on the Talk page. andy (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've fallen into a common trap there. CSD A7 specifically states that the criteria is a lower standard than notability. All that is required that is a claim that the article's subject might be notable and there might be sources available that satisfy it. It's designed to stop articles going to AfD that haven't got a chance of coming out with anything than a "snow delete" vote. If you don't think the sources quoted in the article are enough, you can redirect or go to AfD instead. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   14:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Reversion at List of inventors
See your revert here. I'm not sure that he did invent it; reference for that? Hehe. Keri (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoops! I screwed up the revert. andy (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Meetings, incentives, conferencing, exhibitions
Thanks, I took too much when deleting the ttgmice spam link. Cheers, FlatOut 10:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Band PPOT article
Andy, I found three nontrivial (significant) sources that discuss the Danish band PPOT so I restarted the article using those sources WhisperToMe (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. andy (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I'll restore the rest of those links today.-- Anderson   I'm Willing To Help  21:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dailygalaxy.com
I've restored the dailygalaxy links across all the articles it was removed from.-- Anderson   I'm Willing To Help  21:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Shri rani sati
I came across the this AFD and in exploring how to !vote, I ended up researching and rewriting the article from scratch. Since the current version differs dramatically from the one you (reasonably!) voted to delete, can you review the current version and reconsider? Abecedare (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Dundee F.C.
Just as a heads-up, on Dundee F.C., upon closer examination, Georgeframe's edit was actually vandalism. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, missed that. andy (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Our mutual friend
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding personal attacks and edit warring. The thread is WikiEditor2563 and Colonization of Mars. Thank you. —Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks andy (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Effects of microgravity known to have serious adverse health effects.
Andy, regarding your reasoning for editing the "Differences" bullet point on Mars microgravity
 * There doesn't seem to be any substantial research on low(ish) g effects, so let's keep it as "not known")

Low gravity and microgravity are the same thing! And the effects of microgravity are WELL ESTABLISHED and about which scientists do not debate, causing muscle loss, bone loss, and increased near-sightedness.

Even in another item on the SAME WIKI PAGE for this, Mar’s gravity is described as one-third that of Earth. This means MICROGRAVITY! Microgravity doesn’t mean or imply “zero-G.” Microgravity is ANY KIND OF GRAVITY THAT IS LESS THAN THE FULL GRAVITY OF EARTH ! Mars, of course, isn’t zero-G, but it most certainly and obviously has MICROGRAVITY!!!

The 6 people living on the ISS constitutes more than substantial research. Microgravity is microgravity, it doesn't matter if it's on the ISS, the Moon, or wherever. Furthermore it's not like it would be all or none. The effects of microgravity would be matters of degree, based on the extent of the microgravity, which has been shown in the lunar astronauts, the Space Shuttle, and people living for the last 10 years (in 3-6 month increments) on the ISS.

WikiEditor2563 (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to shout. Presumably anything more than 1g, e.g. Jupiter, is macro gravity. Thanks for the heads up. Shall I tell NASA or will you? andy (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion tag on Bangkok MICE Tourism
Hello, I have removed the WP:PROD on Bangkok MICE Tourism as I believe the article is useful addition to WP:TOURISM. Further I have edited some of the details of the article which I found might be a bit promotional. If you still have any objection please discuss it on the talk page Talk:Bangkok MICE Tourism or try to edit the article as you feel necessary wherever. Regards Mr RD (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Tip
Hi!

A PROD tag of yours was manually removed by User:Mr RD.

One tip: If you want Twinkle to keep track of all pages you PROD so you can see the outcome:

Please visit your Twinkle preferences panel.

Enable "Keep a log in userspace of all pages you tag for PROD". You may also enable "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" if you like.

Then click the "Save changes" button at the bottom.

Cheers!

—Unforgettableid (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ta. I didn't know that. andy (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Voskhod Spacecraft "Globus" IMP navigation instrument
Hi Andy. This is my first use of Talk, please advise if I use improper format. The "Wikipedia's hidden manuals" didn't provide complete how-to. For instances, you added a message in my Talk page: should I have replied there instead of here? Anyways, thanks for the revisions. I still debate whether or not the Globus article should be referenced in Air navigation. After all, many techniques and instruments used on spacecraft originated in aeronautics, as you know, and the frame of reference for an Earth-orbital flight is based on the ground track like aircraft's. François Guay (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Oxfam
I will discuss the matter on the Talk Page. But I do not see how the material I inserted was more controversial than that which existed before. The pre-existing entry was full of accusatory weasel words that clearly betray a pro-Israel bent. And the section I edited was about Israel and Palestine, and contained assertions - exclusively assertions from a pro-Israel POV - about the nature of the conflict and its consequences on the people living there. See the following passage that you insist on reinserting onto the article:"In response to a 2012 Oxfam report which laid the blame for poor economic development" This is not neutral; the bias of whoever wrote it is showing a bit too much; it's clear that, as it is, the passage is violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and siding with the pro-Israel accusators. Yet you don't have a problem with it. I was making it neutral, I was inserting not personal commentary, like that passage's editor did, but a wealth of data on this sense. And by the way, if we have to include a pro-Israel NGO's bitching about Oxfam's findings on the impact of Israel's occupation on Palestinian economy, why not the findings that other institutions have independently arrived on the same matter? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually said '"nowhere"! andy (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's just not how WP works. Which is why you keep getting reverted. Oxfam is a place for writing about Oxfam, not Israel. And nowhere in wikipedia is there a place for putting a political point of view. Any point of view. You may represent what people say, provided it's directly relevant to the article and they're notable sources. Otherwise not. andy (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "in wikipedia is there a place for putting a political point of view" Then do you agree with removing the weasel wording I pointed out before? As for the rest, I can't disagree; thanks on your advice. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

SpaceX
I'll give two.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdvv8qIl_WI "Hi, I'm Tom Mueller, Vice President of prpoulsio n here at SpaceX, "I'm a co-founder of the company"

A reliable source? I think the fact that Tom Mueller himself said so is pretty reliable... or the fact that the video was made by SpaceX and is on the SpaceX channel.

2. Furthermore you can read the Popular Mechanics article 'The Full story behind Elon Musk, and Tom Mueller's SpaceX' It tells how Elon approached Mueller before the company was formed about building rockets, Musk then said if Musk financed it would Mueller build the rockets. The company was CO-founded a few months later.

I'm not sure why the fact that Musk can fire Mueller is a reason for him not being a co-founder. This is usually the case.

I am sick and tired of the correct information being changed on Wikipedia. Just because something popular belief doesn't mean it is true. Case in point Musk being the co-founder of Tesla Motors. Therefore i would suggest you change the page back.

On a secondary note, concerning his occupation, by definition he is not an inventor. The only thing that he could possibly be mistaken for inventing his hyperloop. However he has said himself he conceptualised the idea, and tasked his engineers as Tesla and SpaceX to coming up with the schematics (don't think he specified whether he contributed to math and engineering tasks, though given his lack of training it would suggest not). Since we are only listing significant occupations, I chose not to include 'conceptualiser' nor inventor because they are not one of the same.

CHARLIEPHILLIPS00 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS - YouTube is not a reliable source. And the Popular Mechanics article does not say he's a co-founder. I think you're getting confused between what he says, vernacular usage, and the legal reality of the situation. A founder could be taken to be anyone who was in at the beginning. Or it could mean the guy who thought of it, caused it to be set up, put up the money and had total control from the beginning - i.e. Founder = Original owner. That's how most people would see it. On your interpretation Mueller is probably only one of several "founders". The SpaceX site calls him a founding employee, hardly likely if he had any legal standing as an owner. So let's keep with what his employer says.


 * You know, I might be wrong. I can see a few articles on the web that call him a co-founder. But vastly more that don't. So please find something definitive such as his name on the original company Articles.


 * Anyway, change it again without offering at least one reliable source proves that he was anything other than employee #1 or 2 and it will be clear that you are edit warring. Do not make important changes to articles unless you can prove your claims. andy (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source, but the fact that it comes from one of the leading SpaceX 'people' and was uploaded by the OFFICIAL SpaceX channel, created by SPACEX is a reliable source.

Secondly, PayPal was co-founded by Musk, Levchin, Theil, Howery & Nosek. He is not a single founder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARLIEPHILLIPS00 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy!
But the editor who removed all that text was blocked, right? Do you think that there was still a consensus in favor of that action? Regards. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Mars
Marsadvexpdev (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Then why have you not deleted: Conceptual Space Vehicle Architecture for Human Exploration of Mars (2012) - an item which contains a single paragraph and a reference to a single AIAA paper.

Per my last message - what is the difference between at least this item and mine? and what about all the other comments I made on items there that should be either modified heavily or removed altogether. It this is truly to be a useful Encyclopedia. There are just too many inconsistencies on this whole page.


 * For goodness sake, I explained this in words of one syllable. You'll find the same on many policy pages and in many many discussions. I don't do subtitles. andy (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit war.
You may like to take another look at the edit-war going on at "Skyhook (structure)" so that it can be dealt with accordingly. - 79.67.245.44 (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. andy (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Skyhooks and Mars
Andy, I have responded to your note on my Talk board. I am uncertain if I should do that there, here, or both? Skyhook1 (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears you also removed a link I added to the "See Also" section of Mars Direct as irrelevant. How is a link to another Earth-Mars transportation system not relevant? The transportation system proposed in Mars Direct might work for a start-up situation but sooner or later there will be a need for a more substantial, more capable, transportation system. The link you removed is one possible solution to that issue. If you have another reason for removing it please state it, but non-relevance isn't relevant :) Skyhook1 (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Skyhook technology has never been mentioned in connection with Mars Direct. They have their own technology plans. You might just as well suggest matter transportation - it has nothing to do with the subject which is the plan put forward by the Mars Direct team. If you want to put it in, find some third parties who point out the eventual necessity of Mars Direct in particular using skyhooks. andy (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. It looks like our friend Skyhook1 is back at it again at the Skyhook (structure) (he was also spamming other articles as well). He is prolific; If you have time I will appreciate if you help me keep his bias, OR and POV in check. He particularly dislikes -so he keeps deleting- the Boeing analysis, which was not favorable to the skyhook and to the lack of materials available. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've reported him under 3RR and asked for page protection. Frankly, you should have done this yourself because you're undoubtedly also guilty of 3RR and may well get a short ban. That happened to me once and I've learned my lesson. andy (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Event Standard Syndication
I reverted your PROD of Event Standard Syndication as the article doesn't meet the PROD criteria. (It was already proposed for deletion in the past.) However, I have proceeded to make a full deletion nomination at Articles for deletion/Event Standard Syndication, at which you are welcome to participate. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that. andy (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Space Colonies
Andy - I am sorry that you removed the information I added to the Space Colonies wikipage. I added 'a reason' for space colonies that many people hold to be valid, so I do not understand what is not neutral about that. I don't understand why there would be any objection to this addition. If you object to the fact that I reference my own work in this regard, I get that. At the same time, my edits represent an important dimension of the space expansion discussion that needs to be included. Please reconsider you objection, or at least advise me how to modify my entry so that the essential content can be included on the page in an acceptably neutral way. Regards, Steve (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Your edits violated several of wikipedia's rules, as outlined in my edit summary: conflict of interest - I'm guessing that "Steven Wolfe" is yourself; citation spamming, that is advertising by quoting your own work and giving a link to a page where it can be purchased; original research and advocacy - you say that "it may be that... " (i.e. speculation) and "...was always meant to do so" (i.e. conclusory) and support this argument with your own synthesis of published material; lack of reliable sources - no source is given for some of your quotes and your own work is both self-published and fictitious. andy (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. My apologies. I am new to making wiki entries. I am happy to remove any self-referencing. But, my point that there is an innate human drive to expand into space that goes beyond, or underlies, all the practical reasons given is a perfectly good reason to add to the space colonies article. I cite Frank White and George W. Bush. I can easily find others. Would that be okay as long as I don't cite myself in any manner? I would not want to put more work into this only to face your objection again. I do appreciate your diligence in this regard. SMWolfe119 (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Frankly, no. Any way you slice it, it's a matter of opinion. A lot of people (myself included) disagree - from an evolutionary perspective the idea makes no sense. I'm not aware of any serious debate about this which might make it appropriate to include in a wp article. It's speculation, and wikipedia doesn't do speculation, just published facts from secondary sources (see WP:WITS). andy (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. You win. SMWolfe119 (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on Draft talk:Remote fuel propulsion
Thank you for your time and input Andy! I have placed a request for comments on the Help Desk but there may already be a solution at hand in my response to you. The alternate article name I suggested on the draft page is something that seems excessively wordy and annoying, but holds the same meaning. At your convenience, I would appreciate it if you would return to the talk page and evaluate the alternate article name I mentioned. Matthewhburch (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the article talk page. andy (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy
Remember you removed my restoration of Colonization of Mars's lead paragraph? Well, not it has an ugly opening banner saying that it needs a longer lead paragraph... So wich one is it? Should I restore my restoration? Regards. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope andy (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I don't know whether the lead you restored "does the trick" or not, but what was so wrong about the other one? Greetings! --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A whole bunch of stuff. andy (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Your answers are too short to be illustrative. Thanks anyway... --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Andy! Regarding the message you left in my talk page, which guidelines would be those, and where it says it? I'd like to see if I agree with your interpretation after reading them, or if, on the contrary, I keep thinking that my edits are very constructive. Of course an answer like "Nope" or "A whole bunch of stuff" is not going to "make it"... Kind regards. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I just saw your edit note regarding overlinking policy, but the main issue here is inclusion of text, not linking of that text... Don't be silly and disruptive... (I suppose it is considered civil to say that as you already did so to me) I think that your reversions appear to be unconstructive. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

UTC)
 * It's about adding a pointless and pedantic link. Don't waste your time or mine wikilawyering please. andy (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please join this discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SpaceX#.22Privately_funded.22.3F_2 Thank you, 81.64.167.10 (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. andy (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy, related to Proposed deletion of Whova
I just updated some information in Whova page, add more citations for address the notability of Whova. 1. Sorry, we didn't update many citation in our external links which will demonstrate the notability of Whova 2. also for the NSF award, it's not easy to get. And it's not business grant, it's U.S.A government award it. it has major different with business grant. 3. Would you let us know the criteria of Wikipedia for these kind of software notability issue? in this case, we can avoid deletion in future.

Sorry to take your time to handle our case.

Another things is I delete the top deletion section when I update the content. is that okay? or I need your permission to do that?

Thank you so much Andy.

Best, Zhuoer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhuoerwang (talk • contribs) 02:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Bradley C. Edwards
Hi Andyjsmith, i removed the PROD on Bradley C. Edwards as the research on the space elevator for NASA makes everything connected to it notable even if you dont like the whole idear. You can try AFD if you like, In the way you used PROD on this article i would say you are trying to evade discussing about deleting this article which is not what PROD was ment for. I'm pretty sure you are aware that there is still editing going on on the main article space elevator and you could have discussed it with them. Cheers Mion (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing
This edit User_talk:SarekOfVulcan is Canvassing, pls read it. Cheers Mion (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. The guy had supported a prod and obviously had an interest in knowing what had happened to it. Read the guideline. andy (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Image on Event Planning article
The image I added to the merged Event planning/Event management article seemed entirely appropriate to me and was not intended as a joke - I mean the topic isn't "Event planning in the 21st century in Anglophone culture". There have been large-scale trade shows, academic conferences, and international industry-and-culture fairs like the Pan-American Exposition going on well back into the 19th century (browse through some of the Google Books trade magazines or academic journals from a century ago and you'll see articles about them) and presumably there are similar phenomena going back much further that a full encyclopedic article on this topic would need to cover... per the talk page, this is just a stub-class article at this point.

Unless, is there a more general article on the topic I'm missing due to terminology I'm unaware of? Cheers, ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 18:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is about the current practice of event planning, not its history. That's a picture from well over a century ago showing what was even then an unusual planning activity. At best it doesn't add to the article and at worst is misleading. andy (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * None of things you've said there, apart from the dating of the image, appear true IMO. Hence your statements discourage me from putting any effort into trying to get this article beyond stub-class.  However, I'd much rather have a stub-class article free from spam, which I can see from the page history you've been diligently keeping at bay, than a temporarily-thorough article at the mercy of spammers and SPAs; so thank you for that. -- ▸₷ truthious Ⓑ andersnatch ◂ 22:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * Noted. andy (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oxfam history
Hi Andy,

I noticed that you reverted my changes to the history section of the Oxfam page. You claim that my changes were repetitious and confusing. I deemed the changes I made to be perfectly valid and helpful. Could you please explain in more detail how my changes were repetitious and confusing? While my edited version may not be as concise as the previous revision, I feel as though the information I added is important and improves the section. Many thanks,

Luke


 * Your addition (1) repeats the same material two or three times (e.g. giving the date twice, the full names of participants two or three times, explaining the reason twice); (2) is littered with red links; (3) is confusingly written and ungrammatical; (4) says very little that the previous text did not already say but says it at far greater length. Basically it is unnecessary and unreadable. andy (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andyjsmith I want to talk to u about the page sambrial.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikistar 002 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing to talk about - stop adding unsourced information to wikipedia. andy (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Elon Musk Inventor/engineer
You're the one pushing your point of view, supposing that just because one article states it, and you believe in it then it must be correct. I can find articles calling him a douche-bag, but that doesn't make it true or noteworthy. You are using the title engineer on a literal basis i.e. anyone who creates something, indecently then most people are engineers. He is not a certified engineer, therefore legally cannot work as an engineer, he also does not build anything. He has basic aesthetic design inputs at SpaceX, this does not make him an engineer, and labelling him as one may mislead people to think he's the one building rockets and hyperloop which s absolutely is not. Just because he or you would call him one, does not make it so. Heuh0 (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned if a man is hailed as an engineer's engineer by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, is invited by Stanford University to sit on their Engineering board, has patented many engineering products and has his name on peer reviewed engineering articles, and is the CTO of two engineering companies then there's strong enough evidence to call him an engineer. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet that he's some sort of charlatan, which is why you have several times downgraded him in this article, without any evidential justification. When you removed "engineer" you even ignored the evidence within the article itself. That is disruptive and vandalistic and you should stop doing it. If you do this sort of thing again without giving good reasons, other than your own opinions and prejudices, you run the risk of being blocked from wikipedia. andy (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My issue is with the semantics of it, call me a perfectionist but I think wikipedia has a duty to not mislead people, and if that means being semantic so be it. I will express my reason and views later on the talk page, but after the cofounder dispute has been settled. One dispute at a time.
 * I'd also like to state I do not have a 'bee under my bonnet' but as I said before am a perfectionist. I also like you to drop any personal issue or prejudices you have with me such as the what I would call a personal attack on me when I undid your edit of changing CTO to Chief Designer. You did not add a reference, there was no mention of him as the chief designer on the SpaceX website and you didm;t even given a reason for the change leading me to make the perfectly reasonable assumption that you were vandalising. For some reason, you believed editing in this this to be okay, it was not. Adding insult to injury, you posted a warning for vandalism on my page of the incident, when it was infact you that was committing the vandalism. If you had just provided one reference there would have been no problem. In further discussions, please exclude any personal issues you have with me, as far as know on wikipedia it is unacceptable.Heuh0 (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You should read all the background info and check the references before charging in with edits. And try to get your sense of injustice under control. andy (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Elon Musk. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

I've put in a request - Heuh (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Noted. andy (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)