User talk:Dir70

Conflict of interest policy
Hello, Dir70. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Relax, Ronz's accusations above are baseless. He's trying to intimidate you (and I say he deserves some scorn for that). The real problem is having blasted so many changes all at once. Many of them unnotable, dubious, and uncited. 66.31.54.242 (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I tried to review it, but it was too difficult to find the good stuff to keep. I ended up reverting it all. If you want to get your changes in, try a little bit at a time. Build trust. 66.31.54.242 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * More specifically, per WP:BRD discuss on the Talk:Space Elevator page before restoring any of the changes. I was considering intervening a couple of days ago, but being in the middle of finals season, didn't have time. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 23:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm dir70 and might not be using the Talk page correctly as I haven't used it before! I have been actively involved with the space elevator since 2002. Much on the space elevator wiki page is very out of date and there have been major developments and research studies over the past few years. I was merely trying to bring the page up to date with some of the more recent and relevant material (such as the IAA study in 2013 (I edited that work), proving a chronology of the SE (my work), adding in a terminology guide etc etc. The only thing I deleted from the site was the note somewhere in the middle in the cable section which said that this was original research or work. Maybe so, but it dates from 2012 and thus that message itself is out of date - the actual research (the mathematics?) was not changed in any way. I don't think there is any conflict of interest - I am retired for seven years from the European Space Agency but have no other affiliations (although I am a member of ISEC and on the ISEC History Committee) - and I am co-chair of the IAA study group due to publish the latest advances in SE research next year. If someone who has been involved in the SE for many years cannot make any additions to improve the site, then who will?

Dir70 (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Dir70, you're trying to sell space elevators and sell ISEC. That's POV (see WP:NPOV) and it's forbidden. Additionally, you and ISEC are nibbling around the edges, you're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  From what you've written, it seems like ISEC is wasting its time categorising things and officially naming things like "Earth Port".  That's totally unnotable (and crazy!). Based on what I've seen from you, ISEC has become a fan club of wishful thinkers concerned more with feeling like they're doing something, but without attacking the only thing that matters at all -- producible high specific strength materials.  Going on and on about all those wonderful (but quite unnotable) ISEC publications (ISEC's self-distractions!) only degrades the ISEC prestige you're trying to bank on. I'm beginning to agree with Ronz that you're too close to the subject to know how to make an encyclopedia article instead of a promotional brochure.  That, or maybe you're too new to yet know how to edit a subject you're close to.  Maybe you should try editing subjects you're not so close to while you get your legs, then come back (just a thought).    66.31.54.242 (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Space Elevator
I reverted your most recent change, take a look at the diffs. Whatever you were trying to do, this didn't do it. Please be more careful about your edits, and I strongly suggest you discuss what you intend to do on Talk:Space_elevator. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 20:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

That was a nice small change that our tiny little brains can deal with. Good! The changes might have been okay, but you broke the refs in the process. I say try again, but use the "preview" button a lot to see how the changes will look before you commit them with "Save/Publish". Also, try to avoid adding too much about ISEC. It's a matter of undue weight. The subject of the article is Space Elevators. Too many column inches on ISEC is off topic. 66.31.54.242 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

OK - sorry about that - I just cut and pasted the entire lot. I will go back and leave the original text there and just add the two new studies (in which I was not involved at all!) as I did in my very first edit of that section!

I don't quite understand, though, why a reference to a complete history of the space elevator was rejected, even if it was edited by me. The book gives a lot of new material. Do I have to get a third party to add the reference??

Dir70 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:SOAP and WP:COI. Generally, adding anything to Wikipedia that you had a hand in creating, is going to raise eyebrows and set a much higher bar for notability. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 22:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm worried less than Tarl N. is about closeness to the subject. For me, it's about notability, weight, etc. and suitability for an encyclopedia article (the Space Elev. article in particular). In my humble opinion, someone close can edit, as long as (he) edits as if he wasn't, even when everyone knows he's close. That's pretty difficult though for a new editor who doesn't yet know the ropes. There are lot's of pitfalls, and falling into one or two is no big deal at all. Like I said, try making small edits in other articles (in addition to Space Elevator) and you'll get your legs soon enough. The edit where you flubbed the refs was a good example of WP:BRD, this conversation is the "D" part! Awesome! Regarding "a reference to a complete history of the space elevator", it's deletion might have been because it just got swept up in the deletion of something else (the broken inline citations). I see you boldly corrected the citation malformation and replaced the refs. WP:BRD! It works! :-)   66.31.54.242 (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)