User talk:Fcrary

Welcome!
Hello, Fcrary, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Alexmar983 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Spaceflight
Welcome to WikiProject Spaceflight! I see you recently joined. If you would like help with anything, like what to work on or how to do something, let me know. Thanks!  Kees08  (Talk)   23:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Cassini–Huygens
Hi Fcrary, about your revert here, I was basing that off of the first sentence in this source (duplicate file description here ). According to it, the image is Cassini's highest resolution natural color depiction of the entire planet and its rings, all in one image. However if the image is not suitable for the article, so be it. Thanks and cheers. Bammesk (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"So-called"
Uhm, "so-called" was for want of better wording. I was trying to make it clear that EPI IS Energetic Particle Instrument. Before that, it only said EPI Hi and EPI Lo. I dug around to find out what EPI is. I fit that information into what was already there; sometimes, my mind sort of freezes when I try to do that (instead of just writing from scratch). Uporządnicki (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok. I see what you were saying. I read it differently because people in the field have very different ideas of what "energetic" means, and sometimes aren't exactly complementary about it. (E.g. ionospheric physicists who usually don't care about anything over 100 eV and get confused about instruments like the Voyager Low Energy Charged Particle instrument which only went down to about 20 keV, or cosmic ray people who sneer when anything under 10 MeV is called energetic.) Sorry about the confusion. Fcrary (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shrove Tuesday. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't me. I was trying to revert the vandalism by 92.237.82.248, whoever that was. See my comment on the Shrove Tuesday talk page. Fcrary (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, I think it's back to its previous version now. My mistake, I realised after posting that warning that you were trying to remove vandalism, and accidentally restored it. Robofish (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Gender neutral: "Maiden flight" to First Flight
Why was my edit reverted? There was in fact a discussion. I'm having trouble finding the link but I'll come back later and add it if I can. 5Ept5xW (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Just a note
'Nuclear fission is a product of modern technology', nothing in that statement says it is only a product of modern technology. In context, the reason that statement especially makes sense is it is a transition from the article that is about the common meaning of what a nuclear reactor is, a piece of modern technology. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

COIN
Please exercise more care when filing complaints at noticeboards. All the instructions are written and available; you need only take time and read them. I have issued the user talk notices you were obliged to finish. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Chris_Troutman, I'm sorry but I looked and could not find that information. I don't think it is reasonable to demand people take an excessive amount of time and effort to participate in Wikipedia. If the information isn't clearly and easily available, you need to be tolerant of people acting in good faith but making mistakes. Fcrary (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I point you to the big red box at the top of WP:COIN that says "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use ~ to do so." If you looked at the history tab for the article, it not only shows who made what edits, but it links to the user's talk page. Even if red, you can paste in the notice. I am being tolerant in that I did it for you and let you know that your complaint is not so important that you cannot slow down and do the job properly. This is a collaborative project, after all.  If you don't understand noticeboards, I encourage you to ask someone on their talk page for help.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Leet's step back. I did not know I could add a comment to a non-existent user page. Actually, I don't know if that might create a user page for them without their knowledge or consent. I am very sure that this level of knowledge about non-content related issues should not be required to participate in Wikipedia. You might like spending time on, and becoming an expert in, this sort of minutia. But that doesn't mean we all have to. Fcrary (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Geophysical planet definition
Just thought I'd suggest you might want to amalgamate your most recent comments in the Talk discussion and move them to the bottom so they get picked up. They might get lost where they are (or start multi-threading the discussion which could get rather messy). Physdragon (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Moon Treaty
Hello. I re-read your feedback and worked today on improvements and on additional references with closer attention to neutrality. I would be very grateful of your additional feedback, or simply edit the article directly. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ariane 5
Sorry. Thanks for correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.70.7.56 (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding simplifying the graphs. 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 thread is "List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Tercer (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC on booster landings graph
I don't understand your argument in the RfC page. You said that "we have discussed this and there was only one editor favoring a change". Indeed, that is true, but so what? The purpose of the RfC is precisely to invite outside editors to intervene when the consensus in the article is a bad one. Furthermore, I had the impression that you were in favour of simplifying the graph. Tercer (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Tercer, if only one editor disagrees with a consensus, it doesn't mean it's a "bad one." The RfC process is for cases where opinions are more-or-less evenly split. That's not the case here. As far as my opinion, I could live with simplifying the chart, but I don't think it's necessary. Fcrary (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think your statement about the RfC process is true. As the volunteer wrote in the closing of the DRN: "...or to pursue an RfC, with the latter being a good option if and only if they think that there is a significant chance that the broader Wikipedia community would oppose the current majority opinion on this issue. " Tercer (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Reversion in article Parker Solar Probe
Your edit summary when reverting a recent change to Parker Solar Probe could have been reconsidered in the light of WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL. In any case, I think the word you wanted was innumerate, not illiterate. Chris Thompson (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I suppose I could have been more polite about it, but that number has been mis-edited many times. Somehow, a number of IP editors aren't clear on what percent means, and feel compelled to add a couple of zeros. That gets annoying and I guess I was already in a bad mood yesterday. Fcrary (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight newsletter notification
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship - About Cold vs hot gas thrusters
Remove only what is necessary and always compare the changes before comitting, you had also removed other changes in the article. Chandraprakash (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Also thanks for the input.
 * It seems like, it's more about the weight of the 8 x COPV's holding the pressurized N2 gas than the weight of N2 gas itself. (Weighs just 1.25 g/L)
 * With the hot gas thruster, they can remove this entire COPV N2 gas container.
 * Both of these gasses can be harvested from pre-burner in a feedback loop to the tank
 * So apart from pressurization of the fuel/oxidizer tanks, these can also be used on RCS
 * Chandraprakash (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scott J. Bolton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassini. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

continuous to within a factor of a few
Hi – in this edit you added the sentence "The plumes of Enceladus were observed to be continuous to within a factor of a few", which is still in the article. I don’t understand which factor you’re referring to there. Joriki (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)