User talk:Craigboy/Archive

Image copyright problem with Image:Tv_trigger_t.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tv_trigger_t.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. 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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 20:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I lol'ed though  Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 05:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally using an edit summary. Image seems to have support and concerns have not been raised. Take it to the talk page instead of reverting.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are allowed but this is a collaborative project and if you edit in a manner that is disruptive or against consensus then there is a concern. Also, you wpon't be able to get aything done if you get a block so follow the guidleines.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the following: Consensus amd Editing policy. Sign your comments by typing four tidles ( ~ ) Cptnono (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File talk:USAF PT Uniform.jpg
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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), 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ciphers (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied to Talk:International_Space_Station
FYI Aalox (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Skylon_climbing.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Skylon_climbing.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation 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 at Fair 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 to opt out of receiving this notice? feydey (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Craigboy, you have some replies related to this on my talk page here. Hope that helps. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Spaceliner
Dear Craigboy, as it seems that you are very active on the article Spacecraft, I am contacting you. A new article SpaceLiner as been created recently but when one looks for Spaceliner (with a small "l") there is a redirection to the Spaceraft article. I guess the best solution would be to create a disambiguation page in order to let the user choose between the articles. However I am a beginner on Wikipedia and I am not sure what I should do to solve this problem. Thanks in advance for your advices. Best regards. Eypdu (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

space suit discussion
While I'm happy to discuss the merits of the external link to the NASA video on one of the current suits, and other suit related topics, I do not appreciate being told not to edit Wikipedia until I've met your requirements (i.e. reading the NASA Appropriations bill), simply because I've raised questions for discussion.. Please dont forget to assume good faith. I have done this with you and would appreciate the same. Please also remember that individual wikipedia editors do not own any articles, all are free to contribute.--RadioFan (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Hermes Spaceplane ESA.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hermes Spaceplane ESA.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

class="infobox"
is standard fare. And see wp:deviations; the manual of style eschews hard-coded markup. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploading Reaction Engines Limited Corporate Logo
Hi! Could you obtain permission from this company to use their logo in the Wikipedia article illustration, as well as upload it to Wikipedia? The editors at Skylon really appreciate your previous work in negotiating with that company on the spaceplane image.-- Novus Orator 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Mann created the CG renderings of Skylon (who also retains the rights to them) and has a pretty open policy about using his stuff if you ask permission but with Reaction Engines's corporate logo you would have to contact the company directly which I have no experience in doing so. I'm sorry I couldn't have been of more help. --Craigboy (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks anyway....-- Novus Orator 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 1

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject 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 the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

TransHab -- THANKS!
Great find in the NASA archives! Thanks for finding it, and adding it to the TransHab article so that others could benefit. I have looked it over and made a comment here: Talk:TransHab. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject 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 the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 3

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject 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 the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Spacecraft Docking and Berthing Mechanisms
Good work on starting the Spacecraft Docking and Berthing Mechanisms article. The comparative differences between docking and berthing, and the many different (and proprietary) spacecraft systems to date was something that sorely needed comparative coverage in Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Craigboy (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There's some systems that have been left out temporarily because I had to start somewhere, they are the Kontakt docking system and Shenzhou's (info). Also I'm having trouble finding official names, and sometimes I see different names being used with the same systems.--Craigboy (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of caps in "international Low Impact Docking System"
How can you say it's not a style error? Look at all the text in the table; every entry starts with a capital letter (sentence case), whether the first word is part of an acronym or not ("Original Soyuz probe and drogue docking system", "Modern Soyuz probe and drogue docking system", "Common Docking Adapter, future US vehicles", etc.). So it should be "International Low Impact Docking System", regardless of whether "international" is part of the name. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstand what a style error is, I was previously under the belief that you believed the "I" had simply been forgotten to be capitalized.--Craigboy (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you in essence saying the only reason you reverted the change is that you objected to the description? I'm sorry if I offended you by using the word "error", but there's no reason to use the lowercase "i" and it just looks wrong. Actually, since "International" is not part of the name, it should really be outside the wikilink. With your permission, I'm going to change it again. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Objected? "I misunderstood". And it is part of the name, the the Low Impact Docking System page needs to be updated, see its talk page.--Craigboy (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I finally get it. But I think the world is going crazy when NASA decides to be "clever" and use a mixed-case acronym in defiance of all convention; I still can't see a good reason for it. Notice even their document follows the rule of using sentence case, capitalizing "International" when it's used in the section titles. And renaming the article using lowercase would violate our article naming style (I don't think the exception made for things like "eBay" would apply) and would just add to the confusion.
 * Whatever; life's too short. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Would appreciate your input on a question I just put out. N2e (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi. I appreciate your input on the previous Talkback, on the Unmanned resupply spacecraft article!

But I would like to get your input on the unmanned/unpressurized/robotic spacecraft docking question also on the Spacecraft Docking and Berthing Mechanisms article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station
Hi Craigboy !

If you have a moment, please drop by the ISS article and look over my new work in the Costs and to a lesser extent Education and cultural outreach sections. I hope you think they are crap and object to their inclusion, or not, whatever you think. Please be the first to have your say ! lolz. ....(seriously I am desperate for help here, It's so lonely I've started talking to myself and answered the poll as if I was a third person, they'll come to take me away soon!) Penyulap   talk 08:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do but I wont have enough free time till this weekend, so I'll go over it then.--Craigboy (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 G W … 03:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

justin
hello, thanks for the link on justin mission from the iss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 08:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 G W … 07:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:Orbital Space Plane Program, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Oneiros (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

robonaut moon and nuclear power
hello, i have found a video on the net about robonaut installing a nuclear powerplant on the moon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhpvNLJgtUc i guess you seen it since you write the article i am not sure about linking it to the robonaut article, what do you think ? --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've haven't seen it before, but the video seems be more about showing what Robonaut could be used for more than what its currently planned to do (testing on the ISS). I don't think the video would be relevant because it only shows one specific (and most likely formerly) proposed mission. The video shows the Altair lander which was canceled along with the Constellation Program and it shows R1 instead of the current R2.--Craigboy (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Proposal comparisons.png
Thanks for uploading File:Proposal comparisons.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Multi-Purpose Logistics Module image
The reasons why I prefer STS-114 Raffaello module.jpg is because the MPLM is the focus, you're able to see the CBM's petals, more detail on the MPLM can be seen and the contrast on the image is better. What's your opinion? --Craigboy (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will grant you that much, I preferred the unobstructed view. But your argument stands. Lets always discuss in future. Thanks for the reasoned response. Leebrandoncremer (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved discussion to | Pressurized Mating Adapter talk page--Craigboy (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, I didnt want to argue, I thought Wiki was a living thing, one that changes with new information. I have been adding alot lately, People come along and have a flurry of changes, additions and well I wanted to contribute. I had no intention of being malicious, simply thought the idea was to improve pages. Like I said no one owns these pages, but like you I get offended when someone deletes or changes their work. Would be better if we coordinate and discuss from now on, if that is ok with you. Leebrandoncremer (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and keep in touch as much as possible. I also hope none of my posts came off as too aggressive.--Craigboy (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No you wern't, Ok I wasnt too certain that was the inside of PMA-2 but the NASA description said it was. Do you have an internal (empty) PMA pic? Leebrandoncremer (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No but the image you put up looks good.--Craigboy (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Found an image showing PMA-1 lined with bags. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-134/html/s134e009323.html --Craigboy (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Craigboy.
It's probably a bit of a late reply, but I've put a note here first time I read that page I think.. Penyulap  talk 12:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the mess that the ISS article is in at the moment, the re-organization is causing havoc with the references, which are either wrong or missing in many places. At the moment, the references the article has are probably not as good as a google. It'll take a little while to fix up, hey, what do you think of the layout diagram ? a bit flashy ? ok ? just what we needed for ages ? it sure makes navigation easier. Penyulap   talk 07:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit summary wasn't intended to be a complaint, but meant to be more of an explanation. The diagram looks like it took a long time to make but it takes up a lot of space and the majority of the information is already shown in "ISS configuration 2011-05 en.svg" and what's not may be easier to explain just in the text.--Craigboy (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is overlap of the function, but in the back of my mind that configuration svg has always annoyed me, I've always wanted a decent photographic image of the entire station, so things can be labeled and people would know what they are looking at. I know you and I can work it out, but exploded rendered instructions are a pain in the old noodle to work out for many people, some people can assemble furniture out of a box, some can't. We almost had a fix before, but the guy gave up before finishing it. I still think you are right, and the other guy is also right. I firmly believe that neither the Svg nor the new layout do the job adequately by themselves. What I think will end any debate would be an annoted image. Like the new colorful layout, you'd be able to click on it and jump direct to that article. The SVG isn't clickable, and the new layout doesn't look anything like the station. But we need a decent image of all the modules in place first. So far I haven't seen one where they're not obscured. Penyulap   talk 09:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No cut and pastes
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Spacecraft docking and berthing mechanisms a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive the templating of a non-newbie, but it's the easiset way to spell out the rationale and give the links. However, as you're not a newbie, you should know that C-&P moves aren't permitted by now already. Please don't do it again. - BilCat (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The presence of a redirect page has made it not possible to move the article. --Craigboy (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not possible for you or me to move the page, but an admin/sysop can do it, hence posting on WP:RM. Sometimes you can personally ask an admin to do it, and they usually will. Also, you can add a db-move header to the top of the redirect page, and the page will be moved within 24 hours by an admin, if it is clearly an uncontrovesial case. - BilCat (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mercury and Gemini
Thank you for the message.

I have changed the info boxes since they were about the spacecrafts and not the projects. The tables about missions and astronauts are moved to separate articles and some red links are deleted, but everything can still be found if you go a month back in the history of the articles. Soerfm (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to say, I am working on a separate article for the Mercury spacecraft but I am not sure if there is enough material. It can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercury_spacecraft&redirect=no by clicking Edit, removing "#" before REDIRECT and then press Show Preview. Soerfm (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

About the Gemini spacecraft, no unfortunately I have not started that article yet. Soerfm (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Tiangong
Hi Craigboy, I'd like to move your graphic and the infobox up to the top of this page, I didn't want to do it myself, as I'm not a studied expert on the subject, sure I've studied, but I'd rather have your opinion as well first at the very least, you obviously know what is going on there. At the moment I am working out the best way to include Tiangong as part of the ISS's context. It's a similar project after all. I left a comment on the talkpage. Penyulap  talk 05:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Which image?--Craigboy (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * sorry, takes a while till i go back and check where i chat. that one, looks rather like it should be at the top of the page. While there are so few articles and there is so little information, the large orbital station may as well be the focus of the article. That'll probably be where the greater interest lays in the end too. Penyulap   talk 09:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dreamchaser ISS DOCKINGsmall.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Dreamchaser ISS DOCKINGsmall.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Space rendezvous
Hi Craigboy. You've done a lot of good work with Spacecraft docking and berthing mechanisms, and I've attempted to help at the margins. If you get a chance, I'd appreciate your eyes on, and review/improvement of, Space rendezvous. I've made a few small improvements recently, but it still needs a LOT of work. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't really know much about rendezvous.--Craigboy (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering, and for the response. Understood.  Let me try one more angle.  As long as we can find sources, it is not necessary that every Wikipedia editor be an expert.  But with your work on the docking and berthing article, I'm hopeful you can, at minimum, help edit to encourage better quality to Wikipedia standards, and perhaps help think with us about what sort of material ought to go into each of the several related articles.   Cheers.   N2e (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In International Space Station, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Scott Kelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ROS pic
I've added the text in ENG and RU, but couldn't work out the two white lines (in a hurry), maybe you could ? I've got to say it looks a whole lot better now. Do you think the arrow is needed ? probably not considering the new, better shading you've done eh ? That's what I think. Penyulap  talk 05:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

ISS talkpage
Talk:International Space Station

Penyulap  talk 17:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A trout is way too big really, but come on, 5RR ? slow down man take it easy! Penyulap  talk 05:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

U5K0 didn't, or hasn't yet suggested I mention to you that my Glaring -(O)-(O)- wasn't working.
I never like talking about people behind their back, I wanted to let you know I mentioned your nefarious activities (Perhaps too strong a word, but I am exaggerating, so it's probably a well proportioned exaggeration) here where I was saying about your cutting in, but I was kind of unsure if you were getting the point or not with the hints I was dropping about it, well, anyhow I was blowing off steam about this whole "Change penyulap's text' business and reverted U5K0's edit when I had a look and saw there was no prospect of any reader knowing who was talking in so very many sections. Penyulap   talk 02:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

talkback
~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Brillaint work !
Mad work on the OPSEK pic, it's been crying out for an image for ages. The launch of Buran, Polyus, and the NM and Nauka are all like man, so crying out too. If you don't get to it sometime, maybe I'll follow your lead on that one. Inspiring. Penyulap  talk 16:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't make it, its a copyrighted Roscosmos pic.--Craigboy (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I always think it's quite annoying to need to justify the usage. It still brings the article to life. Penyulap   talk 09:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

APAS docking
Craigboy, what is a better way to put it, cause although I think it's true that the shenzhou use apas, it's also true to say that the mech is based upon apas instead. Can we say 'based on' ? Penyulap  talk 09:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can say its based on APAS because we don't have any sources that specifies that it is. but I think we can say something like

"A representative of the Chinese manned space program stated that around the year 2000, China and Russia were engaged in technological exchanges regarding the development of a docking mechanism. Foreign sources have stated that the docking mechanism strongly resembles APAS-89/APAS-95, with one American source going as far as to call it a clone. There have been contradicting claims on the compatibility of the Chinese system with both current and future docking mechanisms on the ISS.  "--Craigboy (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll find better sources then. It's going to be impossible to find sources that are any worse than the ones that badmouth it as a clone, which is unacceptable. Penyulap   talk 20:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored.--Craigboy (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We have to find a way to include it all Craigboy, the 'clone' the APAS Russian, the Chinese flavor, everything, the whole picture, we have to put it somewhere on wiki, because it's all properly referenced, and like that Chinese guy saying what needs to be done to make it compatible, needs to go somewhere on wiki. Needs to be linked into the China section. Also, even if they are badmouthing it, that shouldn't rule out us using it. There was the properly referenced things I used in the section here of another article, so if we say who they are, then it should go in. Just because what they are saying is completely wrong doesn't mean we cant use it. It would be good though if we mention some of the co-operation they have had, where they actually DID get it. this bit here might be useful too. So if we wind it altogether thats cool, but if it is simply a matter of they signed up and made a purchase, but western commentators are completely ignorant because they dont care to find out, maybe they aren't notable, but I'd support your stance on that. Let's get it all in there, the whole lot. We can't have an article without it any longer. Penyulap   talk 02:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Pen you need you recognize your own bias (remember how you preferred that obvious error filled obituary over the Boeing document, Beoing was the company that integrated the APAS mechanism into the PMAs and the Space Shuttle's Orbiter Docking System). Clone doesn't mean they stole it (we have sources in the paragraph that mention Russia was involved in the tech exchanges), it could just mean their design deviates very little from APAS-89/95. My long term goal is to have each docking mechanism have its own page but right now I don't know if we have enough info yet to do that for the Chinese mechanism but we can try.--Craigboy (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * here is some relevant stuff


 * http://www.space.com/11048-china-space-station-plans-details.html


 * Regarding space cooperation, Jiang said China intends to strengthen exchanges with other countries in the field of space science research and applications. He explained that the rendezvous and docking project hardware is compatible with the International Space Station


 * http://www.futron.com/upload/wysiwyg/Resources/Whitepapers/China_n_%20Second_Space_Age_1003.pdf


 * In 1994, Russia sold some of its advanced aviation and space technology to the Chinese. In 1995 a deal was signed between the two countries for the transfer of Russian Soyuz spacecraft technology to China. Included in the agreement was training, provision of Soyuz capsules, life support systems, docking systems, and space suits. In 1996 two Chinese astronauts, Wu Jie and Li Qinglong, began training at the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center in Russia. After training, these men returned to China and proceeded to train other Chinese astronauts at sites near Beijing and Jiuquan. The hardware and information sold by the Russians led to modifications of the original Phase One spacecraft, eventually called Shenzhou, which loosely translated means “divine vessel.” New launch facilities were built at the Jiuquan launch site in Inner Mongolia, and in the spring of 1998 a mock-up of the Long March 2F launch vehicle with Shenzhou spacecraft was rolled out for integration and facility tests.


 * it would help a rewrite Penyulap   talk 03:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't know if the Chinese system is truly compatible with ISS which is why I would leave in the contradicting claims part. Your second link seems to be a good source. I've started a draft article, it can be found here. Unsure how we will deal with the name but maybe if we're lucky enough we'll be able to find an official one.--Craigboy (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just go with what everyone would call it in common conversation. Never let not having a title stop you writing an article :) Penyulap   talk 06:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the ISS China section now? any better? the 1995 deal I don't have a cite for, though we have no reason to doubt it, on account of the suits for example, they used both kinds on some mission before. Anyhow, I got the 94 95 date from the CSS article and in turn from the Chinese space program article, but as I mention I have no reason to doubt the dates and I can't see it as controversial, all things considered, I'd just love to read the document really, too see what is interesting in it. Come to think of it, it is probably tootally under wraps just exclusively to keep the american press out of it, lolz. that would explain it perfectly. Penyulap   talk 00:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally stole some material from your sandbox and hid it in the CSS article. I feel ashamed on one hand and blame NASA on the other :D but any sprucing up you can do would help, you have a better eye for docking information that I ever will.  Penyulap   talk 19:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

CSS Pics
If you have a look at the ISS article, there are both, but I figure you saw how they have a configuration as well as a photo. We don't have a photo, and we certainly don't have a final configuration as yet. The Chinese ____Require_____ an airlock module in order to have a long term crewed station, and seriously, we need some of their pics for that, I can't find 'em, except the one I was using as a muse, and then I left it out at the last minute. Have a look at Freedom or the ISS itself, and see how many times they change the overall designs before launch. Science power modules and so forth. Plus, whats wrong with the picture that the Chinese government has on it's own website here, should we tell them it's not allowed ?

How about we call it an early depiction ? Like the power tower or dual-keel in freedom, or the umbrella thing for the ISS, actually come to think of it, we kind of need a series of the different pictures of the ISS in the ISS article don't we, I mean they don't belong anywhere else do they ? hmmm. I am intending to start work on another depiction of the CSS with newer tiangongy textures, what would you say is the best and latest of the configurations I should work with ?

If you can answer on my tp that would be cool, Penyulap   talk 05:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Chinese may intend to have an airlock in the Core Module or on one of the Laboratory modules. In regards to the accuracy of image hosted on their English page, the Shenzhou spacecraft aren't shown with solar panels, the Luch-like antenna is shown being used as a RMS and the station looks nothing like any of the descriptions or images released these passed few years. Not sure if this was ever even a design because it looks like something a graphical artist tossed together.


 * What program are you using to to make the image? I recommend using these images as reference. Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4. Although for some reason no docking mechanisms are depicted.--Craigboy (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you mentioned it on my tp or the article tp, i can't recall which, cause I sometimes forget to check here for replies, sorry ! On a completely unrelated matter i found this ref which is a nice size ref to use, not too big, not too small, but just right for readers. I have no idea where it'd be used though, looking at the pages, so i thought i'd drop it off to the resident expert. It's just the size to keep little fingers quiet. :)  Penyulap   talk 09:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Tiangong 3 and the CCM
Should these be merged ? I put a marker for your comments at Talk:Core Cabin Module, I figure you'll have a good idea about it. Penyulap  talk 12:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right now I'm still under the impression that they're part of different space stations so I would keep them seperate.--Craigboy (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A new bot is ready for work on Tiangong 1
I opened a discussion about a new bot that Z and I have been working on, it's not ready for big things yet, but it can do some small tasks and I've outlined them on Talk:Tiangong 1. I would very much like you to suggest whatever you can Craigboy, as you like to chat and I love to listen ! I could really use some of your ideas. Penyulap  talk 11:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't have much experience with the bots.--Craigboy (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's ok, hey, I wanted to let you know I wrote a bit for the docking and berthing article, so you could go and check it. I stayed on course topic-wise for docking and for the section, un-cooperative docking, and popped in the notable one with just enough to tell the story. I did say who the guys were, but didn't mention they are both twice heros of the Soviet union and one was awarded the order of Lenin :) on account of that is not what that section is about.


 * However ! I did put in two pics, which were as good as I could find of the two guys who did the docking, and that is a bit off course, because I have no idea where to get a picture of the docking mechanism used, and that section looks like it's a bit hungry and deprived in the picture department. Anyhow, I think you should pay close attention to the two extra guys in the pics. One has this chin thing going on and the other has this eyebrows thing going on. It's hilarious. The Chinese have puppies and toddlers, and Russians have eyebrows and chins, and the Americans have ghost music and haunted rockets back in that era as per the comment here, what a blast.


 * Do you know about nasa TV copyright ? how can i find out if a video (not that one) on their youtube channel is PD or ok to use ? I'm sure I cannot simply assume it's all good to go, can I, do you know about it ? Penyulap  ☏


 * After a quick look it all seems pretty well written, although it may need an intro and some of your info on autonomous docking may need to be moved into its own section. I'd prefer if we used images that weren't stamps because they seem to have a bit of a propagandist feel to it (which is common to artwork of significant events) but since we have no other images of the crew then I guess these will do.--Craigboy (talk)


 * What kind of section or title ? Penyulap  ☏


 * Saylut 7 was equipped with this docking mechanism and Soyuz T-13 was equiped with this one. Most NASA video shares the same copyright rules as their pictures, the only time it doesn't is when the video displayed was created by a third party.--Craigboy (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, there is a big ask, a photo of crew that doesn't have a propaganda feel to it. Is there such a thing for any countries program ? I really doubt it. I'll say it is a bit harder to see for anyone who grew up within the influence of the country concerned though, like with the wikiproject icon. I'd figure the stamps compared to the chinese stuff I found is rather tame, but still mildly amusing, well, at least to me it is. Penyulap  ☏


 * There's different levels of propagandist appeal. For example if you were to choose an image for the Apollo-Soyuz article which would you choose, 1 or 2?--Craigboy (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * They are both interesting images, and there are many answers, which would look towards the editorial feel of the article, the second image is good for an article about spaceflight, the first is good for an article about the 'space race'. The first is more about photo realism, but the second removes aesthetically offensive items like the stand in the first, and broadens the time period beyond the chairs in the first. Penyulap  ☏


 * The pics there are the class of mech, but not of the old ones on the station itself. Very hard to find free images like that. Penyulap  ☏


 * The above pictures are of the exact same design used on Salyut 7. I know its hard to find free images and that's why I'm not asking you to do so.--Craigboy (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I know it's a list of mechs, but what about some pics of the ships used in a notable docking ? I'll leave it to you to think of or do if you think it's an idea, unless you request help. Penyulap  ☏


 * No, that wouldn't make any sense.--Craigboy (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * True, I think you're going for a straight technical article by the looks of things, whereas I go for what I think is a nice read across the demographic with the dramatic style :) it depends on the author I guess, you're more specific to your intended audience I think, while I'm broader. Penyulap  ☏  03:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Cygnus (spacecraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATK (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. When you recently edited Dragon (spacecraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terra firma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SpaceX COTS 2 emblem.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:SpaceX COTS 2 emblem.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

COTS Demo 2 Flight Emblem
Hi: Do we know for certain that the COTS Demo emblem is not in the public domain? Since it is a NASA mission, I am assuming -- possibly too much -- that it would fall under the same copyright as a NASA mission. I just came across it on SpaceX's Facebook page. Your thoughts?--Abebenjoe (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure but just to be safe I uploaded it under fair-use. If it turns out to be in the public domain then we can always change the license.--Craigboy (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Got a reply back from SpaceX, they own the copyright. I've just sent a request to a get CC3 license.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like the 7 May launch will be pushed back, according to updates 2 and 3 of Chris Bergin's article. If this happens, then a delay of at least a week, likely more, due to range issues and traffic at the ISS.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Move of Dragon C2+
Since the COTS 2 article was moved (and COTS 3 merged into it) to Dragon C2+, which we found is not the actual name of the mission, I have suggested it be moved to come in line with how we named CRS SpX-1. Discussion can be found here. Cheers! WingtipvorteX  (talk)   ∅  18:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Wingtipvortex
WingtipvorteX  (talk)   ∅  01:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Making images for wikipedia, why bother
editors like the CSS image, but you keep on deleting it, which always makes me think, 'why bother making any more images for wikipedia if they just get deleted'

thing is, we need free images of things for wikipedia, if some articles are to be illustrated at all, the Chinese and Russian space stations especially, as there are no free images and there won't be. Fair use doesn't apply to drawings of the stations, and I don't think you get that part, so I'll show you with opsek, so someone else can explain, and accuracy is in the eye of the beholder, after all, anything less than a photo is not accurate, well, to most people. Penyulap  ☏  19:02, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I've nominated File:Proposed OPSEK.jpg as improper fair use rationale, because if artists could be bothered, then the articles about subjects that don't yet exist could be illustrated. Penyulap  ☏  19:12, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Pen, because you failed to create an image of CSS. You created an image of something else, you even agreed with me on that and joked about how poorly created the image you based your drawing off of was. If I make a picture that looks like the ISS and say it represents a Salyut station then it should not be used to do so. Why can you not understand this?--Craigboy (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand it perfectly, up to the point that it can't be used, which is not correct. We can use whatever we want to, same as the government website is doing. There, they can do it because it is their program and website, here, because there is clear consensus in favour of it. Arguing and deleting against consensus just damages the whole project and reduces the chances of getting decent illustrations which cannot exist any other way.


 * No picture is perfect, and the CSS has 3 dimensions, not 2, so mine is better for the overall image and yours is better for configuration. I'm not alone in thinking this either.


 * Also, I think it might be naughty to delete the nom on that opsek pic. Penyulap  ☏  13:05, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * Pen, I've tried reasoning with you. I'm done.--Craigboy (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning: Edit warring on International Space Station
Your recent editing history at International Space Station shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Both you and Penyulap have already violated the three-revert rule. Discuss it on the talk page, and don't change the article until you both agree on a compromise. If you can't find anything to agree on, then go to dispute resolution or open a request for comment. I am sending this warning to both parties, I won't report either of you at this stage, but if you continue then you will be blocked. -- W.  D.   Graham  13:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Formerly planned Unpressurized Cygnus.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Formerly planned Unpressurized Cygnus.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Artist Cygnus high.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Artist Cygnus high.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. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
-- W.  D.   Graham  20:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

re: Did you even read the deletion discussion? - File:Artist Cygnus high.jpg
I'm furious because you came to a decision that is entirely inconsistent with what was discussed. I demand for you to tell me how you came to this conclusion.--Craigboy (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I did read the discussion. There is a physical mockup (as shown by the flickr link). An image could be taken, and released under a free licence, of this physical object. I can see this asserted in the debate and no refutation of it. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you not read "an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information"? The mock-up is merely for display purposes and was created by Orbital Sciences and thus all pictures of it would still be copyrighted.--Craigboy (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi Craigboy,

Let me say I admire (truly) your ability to continue editing (I assume that is what you are doing) without getting involved in the Wikiproject Spaceflight issues with Penyulap. You originally brought up the issue however, so if you have any comments or input I'd appreciate it. Please don't feel that I'm forcing you to, but given that I was rather uninvolved in all the issues and I am apparently the only one who is doing something to get the problems between WDGraham and Penyulap solved, I would definitely not mind the help. Its a pity two of the best editors in the project can halt so much. I'm doing all I can to try to get them to move on, but my willingness is running out and could use other ideas on where to go.

Best,

-- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  00:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For the next month I'm going to be swamped with work so I don't know if I have the free time to look into it.--Craigboy (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear ya, no worries. -- WingtipvorteX   PTT   ∅  18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 'I am apparently the only one', are you sure about that ? I have observed that Mlm42, Mir, and wingtip are 'apparently' 3 editors. Although, I have a pending sockpuppet cleanup yet to complete. Penyulap  ☏  08:52, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about?--Craigboy (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not important at all right now, I want you to go about your work without being distracted by another editor, my recent contributions would explain if you are too curious. I just don't want to see someone winding you up is all. (That's my job after all :) Penyulap  ☏  09:50, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * I still don't know what you mean by "I am apparently the only one", can you clarify that statement?--Craigboy (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't make any reference to you Craigboy, I was solely speaking with someone else. But you could always ask him what he meant when he said it first. Penyulap  ☏  10:28, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you respond to the original comment?--Craigboy (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand.. original comment where ? Penyulap  ☏  12:09, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * The one posted at "00:11, 21 July 2012". Instead of indenting from the post you were responding to, you instead indented from a later post. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation --Craigboy (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Chronological ordering overrides it in this case, it's the whole 'monument to the failure' and 'dum****'. It's still going on, I have compared it to a bank robbery, where everyone was rather upset 3 years ago about the stolen status quo, and even today, there is the same ill-feeling between the other editors (hence the recent monument/dum**** comments) as well as the inappropriate claims of a consensus using templates. WDGraham seems to claim robbing a bank, (tying up a poll back to front) is acceptable once you get a certain distance from the scene, or rather, the authorities will allow them to keep the cash instead of negotiate with the other editors who are still upset, once a certain time limit passes. Ckatz seems to have realised that difficult questions mean it's better he has no further part in the misbehaviour, and that I welcome any comment from him, but won't chase him if he is not continuing to have a part of all this.


 * But recently, a single editor has come up with the bright idea that sockpuppets are a good way to try to slip past me. Thing is, it's an epic failure, as nothing he does or why, or where, or how, escapes my attention. So where he used to centre his attention around me, until I put a stop to it because of the violations across bright lines, he figures to take up the time your time and attention. I don't think it's a good thing for me to allow to continue. I did want to use the SPI as an illustration on the Village pump (policy) but I guess anytime I see his antics annoying editors like before with the inane questions at the teahouse, I want to intervene to prevent that, as your time is precious in my opinion, for what it's worth. Penyulap  ☏  12:54, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, interesting that this page would be the catalyst. See here, indef block by ANI. Just thought you'd like to know. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  00:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dragon landing on Mars.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. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Manned and cargo Dragon spacecraft.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Manned and cargo Dragon spacecraft.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy
Regarding your excellent graphics here,, I just learned something that might suggest a slight change to the graphic may be in order. Brian Mosdell, the head launch guy at the Cape for SpaceX, indicated a several-feet length difference between the central core and the two strap-on cores of the Falcon Heavy: the strap-ons are longer. The podcast may be downloaded here:. I had not heard any SpaceX-released specs, nor media coverage, of that length difference before now. This is around 12:20 minutes into the one-hour interview (Falcon Heavy discussion starts at 9:50). At any rate, thought you might like to know about it. (and Grasshopper is discussed at c. 9:00 minutes.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've actually already listened to that interview but I appreciate you trying to keep me updated. On drawings based on designs that aren't finalized I usually try to avoid editing them that often because sometimes people misspeak and certain edits can be very time consuming (although not this one). In this case I think I might wait until SpaceX publishes an image showing the elongated boosters before modifying it.--Craigboy (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TaurusII Wallops.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:TaurusII Wallops.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

NASA has took a picture of today's rollout. It being PD, I have replaced the fair use image with this new one in the article per the fair use rationale of using it until there is a free replacement. If you think the fair use image adds significantly to the article, please re-add it and remove the di-orphaned notice from the file page. Thanks, WingtipvorteX   PTT   ∅  18:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  14:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent Musk lecture
Hi Craigboy. I see you've listened to the lecture, from your notes on Grasshopper rocket Talk page.

Just an FYI. I've made a ton of edits to the various SpaceX rocket engine pages today, especially Merlin and Raptor, and have also created a new article SpaceX rocket engine family as it was becoming very hard to find an article on which to make non-Merlin and non-Falcon substantive edits on the new LOX/methane engines. Would appreciate your review and improvement of any of them. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really know much about SpaceX hardware with the exception of the Dragon and this next month I'm going to be swamped with work so I really won't have time to make any major edits. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help.--Craigboy (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries. Just wanted to let you know as you had been doing some work on various related pages.  N2e (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Kathleen Rubins
Hi Craigboy, can you deliver a source for the nomination of Kathleen Rubins to be part of Expedition 36/37 aboard the International Space Station? I'm wondering about that. Is Kathleen Rubins a replacement for Karen L. Nyberg? There are no hints to find in the Web. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like I confused the two, I'm reverting my edits.--Craigboy (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem with ISS secret Christmas section code.
Hi Craigboy, I just posted on the the ISS talk page about a strange problem. It seems to involve something Penyulap worked on a year ago, but I don't understand it. Can you take a look? It needs attention. Thanks! Wwheaton (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Manned and cargo Dragon spacecraft.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Manned and cargo Dragon spacecraft.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 W.  D.   Graham  23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Grasshopper rocket comparative graphic
Hey Craigboy.

Would you be willing to consider developing a comparison graphic of the Grasshopper v1 rocket to the other Falcon family rockets? I'm thinking something like your File:Falcon 9 v1.0 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Falcon Heavy.svg image but with the Grasshopper v1 shown in the progression after Falcon 9.

Now, after that, and since SpaceX has publicly announced that they are developing a longer Grasshopper v2 vehicle, assuming you can find the length in a source somewhere, it would be really cool to have the Grasshopper v2 shown as well. But maybe not, maybe better to wait on part 2 (Gv2) until the first photos of the v2 Grasshopper emerge.

However the Gv2 question is answered right now, I would really appreciate you taking a cut on a good Grasshopper comparative graphic for us with the Grasshopper v1. Then I would intend to use that graphic in the Grasshopper (rocket) article right away. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't I think I have enough free time to draw it.--Craigboy (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for considering it. Cheers.   N2e (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

First? photo of the 9-engine circular-configuration on Falcon 9 v 1.1
Hi Craig.

I think you'll find a particular photo interesting. Look at the source on the "restartable ignition system" statement in the SpaceX reusable rocket launching system article. Musk just posted that yesterday. Looks like there is a LOT of room between the outer engine bells and the center engine bell, just like your drawings. My guess: allows for a lot of gimbaling which will be needed for the controlled descent and landing phase of bringing the boosters back. Enjoy. N2e (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As a side note to this, I'd like to point this out . As you can see, the corner fairings still remain in that rendition, and it shows the new octal configuration so it's not an out of date concept. So until we get something official from SpaceX, I still stand by my opinion that the graphics that assume the new stage to have no skirt/fairing are not verifiable. TMV943 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That drawing is inaccurate and was created by an artist with no association with SpaceX. The only renderings released by NASA and SpaceX show no engine fairings.Falcon 9 v1.0 and v1.1 engine.svg The Falcon 9 v1.0 has four engine fairings because engines upper-left, upper-right, lower-left and lower-right are further from the center than engines upper-middle, middle-left, middle-right and lower-middle. The reason why the same four fairing configuration would not make sense for Falcon 9 v1.1 is because all eight exterior engines are equidistant from the center.--[[User:Craigboy|Craigboy]] (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Where is the rendering from NASA and/or SpaceX? To my knowledge there hasn't been any TMV943 (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The first one can be found here (page 13) and here (page 20). The second one can be found here.--Craigboy (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the sources provided in the previous comment, it now appears it would be incorrect for purposes of this encyclopedia to show the Falcon 9 v1.1 with the corner engine farings, or with engine skirts that extend over the nozzles at all. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)