User talk:N2e/Archive 10

Your edit on List of Long March launches and a question about general citations
Hi. Just saw your newly added citation tags on that page, and I have a question. The list page currently has 4 "sources pages" that are used to cover any launches and their data that doesn't have any additional citation tags. These are "complete lists" where every single launch are listed - Jonathan McDowell's one being the most extensive one.

As far as I understand, as long as one can find any data that can be verified in any of the pages listed in the references, there's no need for additional citation tags. If not, can you please point out which specific places I should add them back? Or do you think that every one of them needs additional sources? This is quite difficult for older launches where specific articles may not be available.

Thanks for your attention. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have been very busy lately, and that's eating into Wikipedia time. Will try to look at this soon-ish.  N2e (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Sejong smart city) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Sejong smart city.

User:Rosguill while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed,Rosguill talk 17:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note, Rosguill. You were correct, it seemed not to have anything that supported that redirect at all; yet I had heard of it in that context.  I did some research tonight, and found substantive secondary sources for the reference to it by that name, including in both academic literature and world news magazines.


 * I have added prose, and two sources, now. So the redirect is quite appropriate now, even though it was questionable after the changes in redirects, as you noted.  Thank you for bringing it to my attention.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Unistellar
I've moved it back to mainspace. I'm not going to list for afd, but another reference might make it less likely that someone else would do so.  DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Starship


A tag has been placed on Starship requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the.  Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  13:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I contested the nomination, on the article Talk page. User Puzzledvegetable removed the nommination within 30 minutes after placing it in the first place.  All is well.  N2e (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Request
Could you please solve the 435 links to the disambiguation page Starship that you have caused with your article move and reworking the redirect to a disambiguation page? Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 09:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, User:The Banner. I gave it a shot, and tried to use those tools on the article banner currently on the Starship page:  "The Dab Fix List & Dab Solver "  The tools look powerful, but I couldn't get 'em to work super well in the 30 minutes I had just now.  Kept getting a repeating Python error msg when I tried to log in to DABsolver.  I assume sign-in would make things go faster for me and for fixes.  Is that correct?


 * Going around the manual, per-article "FIX" links, I was able to get a few changes in, but it seemed to add extra mundane unneccessary manual steps--perhaps cause I'm not "signed in" to DABsolver? I don't know.


 * Any advice would be helpful. Cheers.   N2e (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Best path forward is to make semi-automated replacements thanks to WP:AWB or WP:JWB. I can help with that, just not today. — JFG talk 13:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, JFG. I had starting on fixing these, when some other editor undid the entire move.  I don't have the energy to try to push back on it; but would register a view if someone else starts a discussion; otherwise, I'm just letting this one go.


 * What I can say is that nearly ten other uses of "Starship" get more daily/monthly hits than the theoretical interstellar spaceship usage, and all of those starship hits collectively (many in entertainment, but also the SpaceX-related ones) get 10-20x the number of daily hits that the interstellar spaceship "Starhip" gets. Seemed a pretty straightforward move, but it created a lot of work with 435 inbound links, etc.  So I thought the disambig page was a strong improvement.  But...   Well.  Wikipedia is emergent.  N2e (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not despair! Take some time to craft an appropriate move request, including the rationale for lack of a primary topic, and a proposed process to re-assign the incoming links. I'd support that. — JFG talk 21:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not despairing, JFG. Just decided that, after all the work I already did, I'd not ride point on such a move request.  Gonna just let it go.  Life is too short.  Opportunity cost is high. (but will participate if someone else does one).  Cheers.  N2e (talk  22:17, 12 August 2019

Starship "rocket"
An important distinction needs to be made in response to some of your recent edits to Starship (rocket and spacecraft). This spacecraft is not a launch vehicle as the term rocket usually implies. It is strictly a spacecraft. A similar comparison would be the Apollo spacecraft and the Saturn V rocket. I have found no evidence of plans to launch the Starship into space without being attached to a launch vehicle. Rather, it is strictly intended to operate as a 2nd stage. What they do to test it in the prototype stage is irrelevant. And, while it is true that this spacecraft obtains thrust from rocket engines, this is true of every spacecraft, and labeling it as both a rocket and spacecraft is redundant at best. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  18:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Also note that the reference used in the description section,, does not provide sufficient evidence that it is specifically a launch vehicle besides for just being a spacecraft that uses rocket engines. I have edited the sentence accordingly. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  18:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, Puzzledvegetable!


 * The noun "rocket" includes a LOT of rocket-engine-powered vehicles that have nothing to do with spaceflight. Also, it is indubitably the case that all 1st stages, 2nd stages, and higher stages for achieving orbital spaceflight, of the chemical-propulsion launch vehicles that are common today, are also rockets.  The vast majority of those rockets are not notable in their own right, and would not have a Wikipedia article about them; but some of them do:  e.g., the Russian government's Fregat or Briz upper stages, the American government's Centaur or Delta second stages, etc. Of course, none of those second stages ever flew, even in testing, independently of the launch vehicle mission combination they would one day become a part of when they did their "one job" to accelerate a payload to orbital velocity.  (there are technical, as well as economic reasons, for not doing this with the typical expendable 2nd-stage rocket designs that have been the only way used during the first six decades since humans came to possess spaceflight technology in 1957.)


 * So the new 9-meter SpaceX 2nd stage of their BFR two-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle, is truly an unusual beast. It is the 2nd stage of the launch vehicle, and will also be a long-duration spacecraft; both of those plans are in design and under development at present.  But because SpaceX is developing this rocket to be fully and rapidly reusable, they are developing it in an entirely new way (methodical flight envelope expansion process).  To avoid attempting to execute the "perfect" design, flying the rocket for the first time on an orbital launch and then throwing the vehicle away (as has been done by all manufacturers during the six early decades of spaceflight yada yada), they are working in an entirely new way for (eventual) orbital rockets.  They are flying the rocket, by itself, as a VTVL suborbital rocket today!  (just like a dozen or so other VTVL rockets of the (mostly) past 20 or so years; there is a decent list of examples here.  They will gradually expand the flight envelope of the test vehicles as they have engineering and economic reasons to do so.  But it is a rocket already, with first test flight just last month.


 * The Starship, really is a "rocket", and a "2nd stage" (and a 2nd stage rocket), and a spacecraft (carrying cargo: satellite payloads or propellant), and a spaceship (when carrying humans for long-duration spaceflight expeditions). It is a really odd and unusual vehicle, unlike what we've seen before.  The Space Shuttle was similarly an odd duck as was the Russian Buran and the current US X-37; but none of them are like Starship either.  All could only maneuver a little bit (no LARGE propellant tankage was any part of them) and none functioned as a ordinary second stage after separation of a first stage.  The Space Shuttle does not include its expendable tankage; that multi-million dollar structure ended up smashed by the atmosphere and in the ocean after each SS flight.  Starship is a strange and unusual new rocket, being used in spaceflight, flying suborbitally today, and being designed to be both a 2nd stage and spacecraft.  Really weird in these ways.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * While I acknowledge that the Starship is a unique vehicle, I believe still that the use of both "spacecraft" and "rocket", especially in the article's title and in short descriptions on the disambiguation page is redundant. According to rocket "A rocket is a missile, spacecraft, aircraft or other vehicle that obtains thrust from a rocket engine." Thus, a spacecraft of this type is by definition a rocket.


 * Besides the official denotation, the word "rocket" often connotes a launch vehicle and is used to differentiate between that and a spacecraft. For example, the Falcon 9 is a rocket, whereas the Dragon is a spacecraft despite the fact that it has rocket engines and has launched independently of a launch vehicle during the testing phase. This is because what is done during testing is irrelevant to the craft's designation. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  13:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ...and Starship is a very odd duck, and quite unusual in the entire history of spaceflight for six+ decades. It is both a rocket, and spacecraft.  There is no other 2nd stage rocket quite like it.


 * Notably, in all uses where it is ever "in practice, on a flight/mission" as aspacecraft, it will always have been a second-stage rocket for accelerating the payload to orbital velocity on the way there. The article prose is rather clear on this.
 * Moreover, today, as it is flying last month and this and for the foreseeable future, it is only a rocket: a suborbital rocket.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There may be "no other 2nd stage rocket quite like it", but there's a precedent to a "rocket and spacecraft" combo, and it was called the Space Shuttle. Even weirder, as it was a rocket whose tank was outside the vehicle body… If we add the Soviet Buran spaceplane, that's two more odd ducks, BUT Buran was placed on top of a traditional rocket, the Energia, it had no provisions for orbital-class rocket engines fueled by an external tank, so that Buran was correctly called a "spacecraft" only. We're only having this discussion because once again Elon Musk trolled the world with his "Starship" designation, that forces poor Wikipedians to settle on a "not so odd" disambiguation term. — JFG talk 23:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

ANASIS-II Ref
Re your edit. The date ref gives some details of the launch and that it is a follow on from ANASIS but the name ANASIS-II isn't given nor does this article say it will be a F9 launch. Hence the SpaceX launch manifest ref in the name section to support the launch payload being called ANASIS-II and it being on a F9. Both references seem needed to give the information. SpaceX launch manifest isn't dated so I can't add that to the ref detail. A date accessed could be added, but I think that can be confusing if date not also given. So not really sure what can be improved or why you added full tag. Perhaps you could explain? crandles (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, crandles. The SpaceX webpage changes frequently.  That citation to it merely has a URL, and does not have a date the page data was used to source whatever is being sourced, nor a date from the page (if the webpage has one).  A  citation should have all that, in addition to URL, page title, publisher, etc. (some of which is already there).  This is especially important for a "Featured list" article, as incomplete citations in the article would get the article taken off of "Featured... " status in not too long. N2e (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, Ludovicnac. I found that company an interesting startup with a number of sources in media that supported notability, so decided to create an article for the company.  It will be interesting to see if that company can succeed in bringing their product successfully to market.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Revert
I was misled by your choice of which 'update needed' tag you chose to remove as the one at section level applies to the subsections as well as the section lead. All need updating. (Per the talk page, the primary reason for all these tags is so that readers understand the Wikipedia does not report accurately on the position on the ground. I haven't reverted but have removed the (other) redundant tag. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Operation Moonwatch
Thanks for your recent edits to Operation Moonwatch. I like that article but have not been able to improve it much. It is so blatantly plagiarized from some other source, it really needs a lot of help. StarHOG (Talk) 14:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, StarHOG. And yeah, I want to get back to it and see what might be done to improve it.  I read the section on the Talk page, and it seems like perhaps the potential COPYVIO evidence is not so strong anymore.  ?  But I'm not very familiar with the WP:COPYVIO tools, so not sure how to best clean it up.  Viz, in order to just copyedit and tell the story, one would need to know which specific sections are the questionable copyvio text.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Starship funding
Thanks for adding the Funding section. As I understand it, Musk wants to use Starlink and other SpaceX services as a money-maker to finance the Starship and the Mars base. I mean, the profit is being redirected to achieve this ultimate goal, so it should be mentioned in the Funding section. Have you come across references stating so? Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

good afternoon
Hi. A topic about internet censorship in iran needs to become update on Wikipedia. Please add "How Iranian people access to block websites and use social medias". You can give more information if you Google it. Wikipedia needs your attention to become better place. Thank you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Iran Omid6578 (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Shackleton Energy Company
Hi N2e. I just took a look at the article you started in 2011. In brief, it’s in pretty bad shape, with a number of the references now nonfunctional, and in my view the notability is questionable. I commented on the article’s Talk page over five years ago that the article was of dubious value, and now it’s my view that it’s even more so. Could you take a look and give me your thoughts? It’s my view that the article should either be fixed, or deleted. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, Jusdafax. Just took a very quick look, and found ~9 archive URLs for old sources, plus I know that some sort of legal regime was setup in circa 2015 that would make for some requisite updates in that section.  You are correct that it is a very weak article on a company with an audactious goal, and some press, but apparently quite little to show for it.  Will try to get back there and give it a go at a bit more cleanup/updating and see what we have then. N2e (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please revert your NAC of the merge proposal
I disagree vehemently with your closure and closing remarks of the merge proposal. The oppose !votes concentrated that the merge subject had survived a months-old AfD. This is not a valid policy driven position. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback.  I provided my rationale on the closure per policy, and said all I have to say there.  N2e (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Cybertruck
Hi N2e. As you requested, I clarified the terms used in the article and widely explained in the Talk section of the page, which I report here for you convenience:

In response to the request to clarify the following point: Tesla Networks[clarification needed] 1. there is a typo, Tesla Network is singular. 2. Tesla Network is a component of the Elon Musk'Master Plan Part Deux, 2016, quoted in the rest of the sentence in the article 3. Tesla Network is the possibility of vehicles to be rented for money, which is used by Musk to justify that there will be no cheap versions of the vehicles, since the lower-middle class wanting a Tesla would make money out of it and pay for the price differential from what else it would have been purchased. 5. This feature, which hinges on a bundle of hardware and software capabilities, will be available worldwide.


 * Thank you, Logico1950! That edit makes the prose much more grokable by the typical global reader of Wikipedia.  N2e (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SpaceX BFR 2ndStage-Spaceship at 2017 unveiling.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:SpaceX BFR 2ndStage-Spaceship at 2017 unveiling.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SpaceX BFR launch vehicle.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SpaceX BFR launch vehicle.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"SpaceX Mars base" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SpaceX Mars base. Since you had some involvement with the SpaceX Mars base redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:StarlinkPhase1-1stOrbitalShell,~1600 sats @ 550 km altitude.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:StarlinkPhase1-1stOrbitalShell,~1600 sats @ 550 km altitude.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Launch mount landing pad" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Launch mount landing pad. Since you had some involvement with the Launch mount landing pad redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The redirect should stay. I commented over there.  N2e (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"Starship orbital prototype" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Starship orbital prototype. Since you had some involvement with the Starship orbital prototype redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

template on Citizenship Amendment Act protests
This page is currently on the main page in WP:ITN section. May I request you to remove the template and elaborate your specific concerns on the talk page so that it can be fixed amicably ? The current version is a consensus version agreed upon by multiple article contributors. -- Happy New Year! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  19:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed it since the article is on the main page and there aren't egregious problem with the lead. Please feel free to start the thread on the talk to suggest improvements. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Launch mount landing pad" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Launch mount landing pad. Since you had some involvement with the Launch mount landing pad redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"Autogenous pressurization" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Autogenous pressurization. Since you had some involvement with the Autogenous pressurization redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Kuwait Space Rocket
Hello N2E I need help with this draft I made

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kuwait_Space_Rocket

I'm new to Wikipedia I don't know how to publish it, any review or edits would be helpful 🙏 Naserology (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

embedded comment in Whitfield Diffie BLP
Hey there, back in 2011, you added some hidden text to the bio for Whitfield Diffie. It would appear that either nobody ever read it, or it wasn't considered important. Here's the text, which was in the 'Career and Research' section: "something about this bio as of 2011-01-28 looks odd: It is missing any name in a field (where "Whitfield Diffie" ought to be) that would normally be populated by a database) so it MAY not reflect that Diffie has a CURRENT position at Sun/Oracle. So is Diffie currently working for Oracle/Sun? or ICANN as the Wikipedia article now asserts?" I don't know if you have this concern any more, however I removed the embedded text from the article, and if you like I can post the inquiry to the article's talk page (or of course you can do it yourself). Just wanted to alert you to the change. cheers, Anastrophe (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Anastrophe. I'll take a look.  N2e (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Boeing spacecraft and space launch systems has been nominated for renaming
Category:Boeing spacecraft and space launch systems, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Soumya. I commented over there. N2e (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:SpaceX suborbital prototype rockets has been nominated for renaming
Category:SpaceX suborbital prototype rockets, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 09:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy Earth day!
 Happy Earth Day!   Hello! Wishing you a Happy Earth day on the behalf of WikiProject Environment and ''WikiProject Ecology.

What is this?
 * Earth Day is an annual event celebrated around the world on April 22 to demonstrate support for environmental protection. First celebrated in 1970, it now includes events coordinated globally by the Earth Day Network in more than 193 countries.

What you can do!!
 * Actively participate in our Wikiprojects.
 * Promote an awareness of the natural environment and world.
 * Tag and assess articles under the scope of these projects.
 * Patrol articles related to environmental protection.
 * Maintain articles listed at List of controversial issues, WikiProject Environment/Popular pages, WikiProject Ecology, etc.
 * Participate in the delsort. and so on...

Newly nominated content
 * Energy in Turkey
 * Energy policy of Turkey
 * Electricity sector in Turkey

Similar events
 * Earth Hour
 * International Day of Forests
 * International Mother Earth Day
 * World Environment Day
 * World Soil Day
 * World Water Day



-- -- --- Discuss this newsletter

Unsubscribe (Ecology)

Unsubscribe (Environment) --- Sent by (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Environment and its related projects. © Copyleft 2020 Wikiproject Holidays

WikiProject Ecology

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, N2e

Thank you for creating Origin Space.

User:Sam-2727, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Sam-2727 (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There are limited English-language media/news stories on the Chinese private space industry; we kinda have to go with the reliable sources we can find. Nevertheless, I just did another search, and found one more English language source I had not seen the first time around.  Wikipedia should be explicating this important and growing sector of the space industry, as soon as we have sufficient sources to meet the general notability criteria for articles, which Origin Space had by the time I created the article a few weeks ago.  Cheers.   N2e (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Unistellar
Good day,

This is Ludovic, from Unistellar. As a citizen science startup focusing on crowdsourcing, we are obviously curious about what is written about us.

I saw that you are talking about a product availability in april-may. Indeed, Unistellar eVscopes have been massively delivered (almost a thousand) since the beginning of the year. The best way to make sure of that would be to check our twitter account https://twitter.com/Unistellar where we regularly retweet observations from our users, with the observation time directly published into the observation.

Note too that big telescope vendors, such as Astroshop, are now offering it: https://www.astroshop.de/teleskope/unistellar-teleskop-n-114-450-evscope/p,63955 (with some delay to get it as we are currently delivering those who backed us initially).

Last but not least, and I thought that could be of interest to you, we very recently published our first crowdsourced image, of the Comet ATLAs, in partnership with the SETI Institute https://www.seti.org/press-release/fragmentation-comet-atlas-observed-first-crowd-sourced-pictures-citizen-astronomers This crowdsourced image has been made possible by multiple observations from users in Europe and North America.

Feel free to contact me if anything is unclear here.

best, Ludovic (comment signed subsequently, per page History): User:Ludovicnac, comment left at 2020-05-25T12:53:38UTC


 * Hi Ludovic. Good to have your input.


 * I haven't looked at the article recently, but the problem as I last recall was that statements were added to the article that were not supported by any reliable source citations; and I believe I may have removed some of that, and challenged some of the statements asking for citations. I'll take a look over there soon.  But in the meantime, you could help Wikipedia editors improve the article on the company Unistellar by a) adding links, or even full wiki-format citations, to reliable source articles about Unistellar or the eVscope in media, astronomy or general, while b) identifying yourself on the article Talk page as a Unistellar employee or principle.  You probably already know that neither you, nor anyone from the company, should attempt to write that article, as that would violate Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy.


 * Best wishes with your endeavors to improve the ability of citizen scientists to make astronomical observations. N2e (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Elon Musk: Engineer or not?
This RfC discussion might interest you based on your past discussion on this subject: Talk:Elon_Musk --David Tornheim (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I registered a comment, with rationale, on the Musk Talk page where this is being discussed.  N2e (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

SLS launch cost
Hi, I would like to solicit your input on a debate around the launch cost of the SLS rocket.

Jadebenn made an edit here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=929316586&oldid=929241314

And since no one challenged his edit at the time he now considers it a consensus and refuses to revert back to old (and most importantely real) figures.

He refuses to debate my argument therefore I solicit your input into this.

Thanks - Moamem (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Moamem. Thanks.  I'll get over there and take a look soon.  In the meantime, do be sure that your argument for your sense of what is best for the article stay based on reliable secondary source that can be cited, and focus on improvement of the article for the encyclopedia, rather than the behavior of any other editor.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey man, you resurrected the SLS cost conversation after I had to abandon it since no one seemed to care! I hope this time you'll give a little bit more of your time at least to get rid of the "utter fiction" as you call it that is the $500m launch cost! ThanksMoamem (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Otto Celera 500L specifications
I appreciate your help in filling in the Otto Celera 500L page, but I'm concerned about posting specifications based on the company's Technology page, which uses a lot of weasel wording; for instance, it says that the engine is "capable of 550+ takeoff horsepower," but stops short of actually stating that the engine delivers this horsepower as installed in the aircraft. As a longtime aviation enthusiast, I'm accustomed to upstart aircraft companies posting spectacular claims about a "revolutionary" aircraft under development, and then having to walk those claims back. Actual "hard" specifications of the Celera 500 are notable in their absence from the Otto website, probably because aircraft almost invariably grow heavier during development; this is many a manufacturer's timeworn excuse for failure to live up to pre-production performance claims. Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, I suggest that we clearly label these figures as manufacturer's claims only. Carguychris (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I concur with you. Def should not say more in the article than what the verifiable source says; and if it is from a mfg, it should be clearly described as such.  I'll take a look through, then you do it to and see if you want to add any more clarity.  Carguychris  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I reconsidered and posted the standard Specifications section, with aircraft specs template, using a disclaimer clarifying that the data is derived from manufacturer pre-production claims. Carguychris (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Space transport has been nominated for merging
Category:Space transport has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"Retropropulsive landing" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Retropropulsive landing. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Content deleted from Swedish Intercontinental Airlines
Wondering if you can explain the rationale for deleting a wide array of content that appears to have been factual, just because it was not referenced? Is it preferred practice to find sources, or to delete? - AppleBsTime (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. That was a large amount of claims that seem to have been unreferenced, and specifically challenged, for over ten years.  Wikipedia is fundamentally an encyclopedia of verifiable information.  Looks like no editor had been successful at locating sources and providing citations for this info over that long period of time, so best if we temporarily remove it until sources can be located.  The full history is available in the History page, so it can easily be added back in if and when sources can be located.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just feel lucky to have checked the History before your deletion, because I would have not likely otherwise discovered any time soon the connection between the Wallenberg family and the airline's creation. Had I not done that, there would have been no impulse for me to work on that article to that extent. All came out well in the end, though, I think. - AppleBsTime (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Spaceflight technologies has been nominated for renaming
Category:Spaceflight technologies has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Blockchain people has been nominated for merging
Category:Blockchain people has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ysangkok (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Category:Space program of the United States stubs has been nominated for renaming
Category:Space program of the United States stubs has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD
Hi there. You asked me to take a look at an AfD, which I am happy to do, but please read WP:ASSIST - "If you're here to look for a specific person to ask for help, please make a request to only one person from the list below by posting on their talk page." I see you made a request for help from many editors which isn't really in the spirit of WP:ASSIST. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Willbb234. I did not know that. I saw the ASSIST page and the section with ppl willing to assist and selected a half dozen at random, thinking I was in the spirit of the page to request more eyes on a topic. I did not see those words about pinging only one. Happy to oblige as much as possible, however, now that I know it; I will endeavor to remove my comments on the others. N2e (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just ask for one or two to help. Best, Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 23:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Redundant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SuperDraco&diff=prev&oldid=612464233

Hi As redundant means "no longer needed or useful; superfluous", could you clarify what you meant as it's clearly not that. It's still in the current page.--Dave F63 (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That diff you supplied is from an edit I made in 2014; and I don't seem to have said anything about "redundant" in that edit; nor would it be relevant what the page currently says to what might or might not have been redundant in 2014. So I'm confused by your comment.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Help understanding WP:CRYSTALBALL
Greetings N2e. I'm the guy who removed what I called a "prediction" from the SpaceX Starship page recently. I saw that you reverted it and I'd like to better understand the differences between our interpretations of WP:CRYSTALBALL

First, an introduction: I am a Wikipedia fan and a space fan. I am team space and appreciate the vehicles and engineering of all the active launch providers. SpaceX is particularly exciting to watch. I hope to contribute positively to the Starship article in a genuine good faith effort. I am also a new editor and am learning. I would not say that I have mastered any Wikipedia policies yet but I am boldly practicing. I'd like to explain how I interpret crystalball, maybe even try to convince you that I'm right, and then listen to your argument and perhaps be convinced of something new.

Here is where I agree to the statement's inclusion:
 * The statement is not an editor's own opinion or analysis.
 * It is stated by reliable, expert source.
 * It is of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit inclusion if the event had already occurred.

Here is where I disagree and why I removed the statement:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2024 U.S. presidential election...

Finally, you are correct that it is not speculation by an editor, but it is speculation by SpaceX. To my knowledge, there is no well documented payload launch schedule for Starship. Someday there will be — and when there is, I will completely agree with inclusion. Even though the speculation comes from an expert, it is still just speculation. The first payload to orbit in 2021 is not certain like the 2024 presidential election. I don't believe it meet the requirements of encyclopedic information at this point. JaredHW<b style="color:#00297a">ood</b>💬 17:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Starship launching payloads will be notable, but it is not certain to take place by the end of this year.
 * Preparation for the the first payload is not currently taking place. General preparation yes, but not specific payload preparation.
 * The date of 2021 is not definite and very likely to change (just my opinion).


 * Great to have you helping with the articles on spaceflight, Jared!


 * Two quick comments about your substantive question; and then would be happy to address anything more deeply that you ask.
 * WP:CRYSTALBALL policy is about creating articles about future and speculative events. It'd definitely be wrong to have a redlinked article about SpaceX Starship first commercial launch or (especially) SpaceX Starship first commercial launch in 2021.  You'll note, that particular policy we've developed says very little about how to handle a company, or company spokesperson, forecasting a date for when a particular product or service offering might be available.  d
 * One of the very great benefits of the articles on various spaceflight technology, and their typically years-long technology development efforts, is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia. Thus, WP is the one place that should neutrally explicate on projected dates that companies put forth publicly for there (otherwise notable) new product introductions, and then, also, relentlessly but neutrally explicate what happened after that.  I'll provide a few examples in an addenda below; but that's the main point.  As an encyclopedia WP can and should explicate a notable (and WP:V) event when it is new; but the relentless source of editing should reflect how they missed, or made, those dates as actual reality rolls out.


 * would be happy to help you in your efforts to become a more experienced editor anytime. Seems like you are starting with a great attitude about learning, and helping the project.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome. I am excited to join with the spaceflight editors to capture and safeguard this information. It is amazing to be alive, watching and appreciating spaceflight progress at this moment in history. You've inspired some 'yeah but' thoughts and some more questions for me, but I think I'll mull over your answers for a bit before voicing them. The examples you mentioned compiling would be appreciated as my questions are mostly about how to judge inclusion of forecasting when there is such a vast spectrum of reliability. I'll keep thinking about it and see if more clarity on the issue settles in with time. Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I'll definitely keep you in mind for future assistance. Feel free to watch out for and modify my future edits as needed. <b style="color:#256eff">Jare</b><b style="color:#0044cc">dHW</b><b style="color:#00297a">ood</b>💬 03:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking. The easiest "addenda" would be for you to look at the edit history of some real WP articles in the spaceflight topic area, articles that I am rather familiar with, cause I have been them editing for years.  Or even just look at the article prose in those articles today; where an effort has been made to not lose the historical claims of the program owners, many of which, in the event, end up being a scosh optimistic. ;)


 * Over the years I have many times had to put back relevant historical information (eg, "as of xyz date, company q was aiming to [launch/start flight testing/whatever fact they claimed] by [future date].") when another editor has dropped by to do the newspaper thing: delete the old info/plans and just show the current date. The companies typically prefer the latter approach as well, 'cause they don't look as bad.  If you look at the Talk page of the Vulcan one, you'll see the company is active in crafting their "look" on WP.  Just off the top of my head, some articles that come to mind are: Vulcan (rocket); New Glenn; SpaceShipTwo; Bigelow BA-330, and actually, most of anything from Bigelow Aerospace; XCOR Lynx.  But there are many many more examples.


 * The point is that these projected dates are a vital part (but only a part) of explicating a full story of the History of a space vehicle or launch vehicle development program in a well-written Wikipedia encyclopedia article. Does this make sense?  I could probably try to find a large number of edits that show this give and take process going on in any one of those articles, if you look at it over the proper time context.  Cheers.   N2e (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Preserving the the history totally makes sense. I will check out the articles you recommended and look for those types of entries. Cool, cool.  In the meantime, I wanted to request your input on the discussion I started on the SpaceX Starship talk page about reoganizing the prototype section.  Please take a look and help me avoid any pitfalls that you see in the proposal.  Thanks. <b style="color:#256eff">Jare</b><b style="color:#0044cc">dHW</b><b style="color:#00297a">ood</b>💬 01:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll take a look at that and offer a perspective, over on that article Talk page.


 * As far as the deeper talk about some of the Wikipedia process, or why various processes might make more sense at particular times, or in certain historical discussions, ... well, glad to help. But let's do that over on your Talk page.  since it is not longer about crystalball per se.  N2e (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

SN9 outcome
Hello. I tried to ping you but another editor told me it may not have worked, so I'll just leave a message here in case it did not. We are trying to reach a consensus on whether SN9 should be considered a failure, partial failure, etc and creating guidelines for future tests. Template Talk:Starship flights/suborbital If you are willing, I would like to hear your opinion on the subject matter. Thanks! N828335 (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Happy to weigh in on such important matters.  I'll go to that Talk page and leave a thought. N2e (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)