User talk:N2e/Archive 11

Animation of Mars 2020
You are right. I investigated the animation. I found the animation is showing that Perseverance landed on the Mars and is rotating synchronously with the Mars's rotation. So it should be "Mars-centered, Mars-fixed" frame for a general audience. Current program does not support the frame, so I will consider how to realize the scheme. Thank you.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Phoenix7777 for the note telling me you got that figured out. I definitely assumed your original edit was a good faith attempt to improve the article.  Your subsequent revert however was beginning to illustrate that perhaps I was wrong.  So I'm pleased you took the second note to heart, and we could both improve the encyclopedia and resolve this cordially.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

SN10 outcome
Just like with SN9, it has been difficult to reach a consensus on what to label SN10's outcome as. Talk:List of Starship flights. Your expertise in the subject area would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! N828335 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a comment to that section later on the day of your solicitation. N2e (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Attention! Dispute Resolution Request started!
There has been a dispute on the article List of Starship flights. A dispute resolution request has been sent to Wikipedia. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added my perspective on the dispute and a way out to the dispute resolution board at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. N2e (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rocket engines using gas-gas propellants


a tag has been placed on Rocket engines using gas-gas propellants requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gpkp  [ u • t • c ] 15:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, great idea User:Gpkp. You got to it before I did.  It should be speedily deleted, as there was a mistake in its creation, and it was not possible for me to fix it via an article WP:MOVE process.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Starship HLS for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Starship HLS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Starship HLS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Osunpokeh (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I commented over there. Your deletion request Osunpokeh was not well thought out according to wiki policy.  Which is why your nomination has had 13 "keeps" in response and no editor has yet supported your article deletion nomination.  N2e (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the Rivian page
Hello User:N2e. Thank you for your recent updates to the Rivian page. I was wondering if you might have time to review my requested edits to the facilities section that I posted earlier this month. It looks like another editor made a couple of changes, but not all.I’m an employee of Rivian, and abiding by the rules of Wikipedia, realize I cannot make these edits myself. If you have the time to assist me, I’d greatly appreciate it. Best, IanRivian (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll try to get over there and take a look. I appreciate you abiding by the the WP:COI policy.  But I'd also offer a thought:  the tone of "assist me" (your request here) comes off, on first blush, as "the company wants x, please help me make it say x".  I would suggest that, at least to my ears, a better approach for tone is more of a meta "I've added some bullet points that might improve the article and correct some incorrect information, along with already-formed secondary source citations written in good wiki citation syntax.  I'd invite you over there to take a look, and see if you might then find that improving the article would be a good use of your time."


 * It may come to the same thing, IanRivian, but I'm personally much less inclined to help companies get their article(s) the way they want it, with specific requested edits they've written; but almost always willing to help see articles improved at the margin, and very much appreciate company-conflict-of-interest folks to help provide really good sources on the Talk page and ideaz on what might improve the article. Maybe it's just me.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * N2e, I totally respect and agree with what you’ve said about companies trying to influence their own articles and using Wikipedia like a marketing tool. My only intention here is to have the Rivian article factual, up-to-date and supported with the best sources. So, I would be eager to follow the approach you laid out. Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Best, IanRivian (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches
Hi N2e.

First, forgive my bad english writing since I'm French (and by the way, I have a little more than 100k updates on French Wikipedia so only neebie on English Wikipedia )

I'm coming back to you following your revert on List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches.

I added the reference related to my change (https://www.spacex.com/launches/) directly in the summary of the changes and not in the article since the link is a page on SpaceX site, and this page is updated quite often and so it will not be online in few days (around May, 9th since it will be the next launch). Don't you read changes summary? If you thought the link I provided in the summary should be given as a reference in the article even if it will not contain the information one week after, I think you could have added it, no? Reverting instead of improving...it seems to me that it is a little bit too much, but perhaps rules and habits on English Wikipedia are not the same as on French Wikipedia. I will not add my change again, I let you decide what to do regarding the source (https://www.spacex.com/launches/).

Best regards, Patangel (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. : but thanks to have taken the time to inform me --Patangel (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Patangel for your kind response. It's always a bit challenging to provide solid citations from a source, like a company website, where the material can often change.  It is doable; but not always "worth it" for the editor who wants to add it.


 * If I want it bad enough to do the work, I usually just write a complete citation (URL + title + publisher + date the site said stuff + access date) and then ask one of the bots to run a check for the references and that bot will then add " to the citation, which ensures it is backed up by the Wayback machine.  No worries; you can decide to add it or just wait a few days/weeks and we'll have a better reliable source that will include the info.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Information has since been added back by someone else...without any reference, as it is done for 24 of the 25 mentions of "60 satellites" in this article. Cheers. Patangel (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I removed the unsourced ones on the future launches.  Examining the others for where the number of sats launched is not in any of the listed sources is, apparently, a project for another day.  (maybe I'll do a few today, to set an example) N2e (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You make a good point Patangel. I took a deep look a ~3 rows of the 2021 actual launches.  Yeah, editors are being sloppy.  I've tagged a few for cleanup.  Perhaps more importantly, I started a discussion on the Talk page about the sloppy sourcing.  Too many editors want to slap a lot of broad content in that "List of..." article; but no one has been paying attention and doing a quality check after the fact of each launch to ensure the claims are all cited.  I make an appearance over there occasionally and look for long-term sourcing holes; but it would be good if one of the enthusiastic editors who want all that detail and breadth in the article would see to it that it is well sourced.  N2e (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Tertiary tags at Starship development history
On Starship development history,‎ you placed some tertiary tags. I have tried to add some other sources but not really sure how much you think is needed. Perhaps worth reviewing now? C-randles (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, C-randles, you've made several very helpful edits that better sources to replace sources like nextspaceflight.com or twitter user Brenden Lewis which are tertiary. Definitely improves the article.  The nasaspaceflight.com daily edited videos are somewhat better sources because nasaspaceflight seems to exercise some editorial control over those videos, and they are from their own reporting network, so is better than pure play tertiary sources.  Even better is, of course, articles written by those secondary source media sites, like the BBC citation you added.  But editors seems to want to keep quite a lot of arcane detail in that Starship development history, and much of that simply is not covered in such detail by the best secondary sources.  N2e (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ref List of Starship flights
In this ref is the access date twice defined (access-date=2021-05-05 and accessdate=7 May 2021), this is the reason, why there is a error. As you undid my edit pleas solve this problem. Barny22 (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Got it, Barny22. Sorry for the mistake on my part.  I'll get over there today and get that reversed.  An edit comment on your part would have also solved the problem, and added clarity as to what was going on.  N2e (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Excessive addition of cn tags
You seem to incessantly apply cn tags wherever you go when they are not needed because the information is already well cited or is evidently obvious to the point that no citation is needed. I suggest you read up on WP:OVERCITE. For example rockets falling from the sky will explode and no citation is needed for that in as much as you need a citation that a rock falls to the ground when you drop it. Ergzay (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Jump to conclusions much? You assert "...they are not needed because the information is already well cited or is evidently obvious to the point that no citation is needed." I have no intention of arguing with you if your mind is made up on your view of the world.
 * However, should you instead want to approach it with a question that avoids WP:PERSONALATTACK—say, ask me to help you understand what it is that one or two particular statements might require in the area of better sourcing, or ask me why I placed an xyz article maintenance tag in some specific situation—I'm sure that approach would get you better engagement, and the Wikipedia would likely be improved better, faster, and with much less drama. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Where did I personal attack you? Please don't make false accusations and actually address the issues. Ergzay (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Revised Rivian Improvements per Your Suggestions
Hi User:N2e: Last month, I went back to the Rivian talk page and restated my request for review of content updates, with formatted sources, that I feel would improve the page/update certain facility information. As you recommended, I listed the content in bullet points. I also have questions regarding the kind of detail to include. I was wondering if you might have time to review these potential improvements, and address my questions. I appreciate any further guidance you may have. Best IanRivian (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Battery electric cars currently in production


A tag has been placed on Category:Battery electric cars currently in production indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Battery electric concept cars


A tag has been placed on Category:Battery electric concept cars indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I contested it so it might become a full CFD discussion. N2e (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Battery electric cars in development


A tag has been placed on Category:Battery electric cars in development indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 17:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Battery electric cars that were formerly produced


A tag has been placed on Category:Battery electric cars that were formerly produced indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 17:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Chris Kemp
Hi N2e, I was hoping you could take a look at my edit request at Talk:Chris Kemp, since you have contributed to the article in the past and seem to be an avid editor in this field. Thanks for your time! Lauren at L Strategies (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Lauren at L Strategies. I'm not uninterested in having Kemp's article become a better one.  As I recall, it was as bit of a mess when I ran into it a few months ago.  Having said that, I'm up to my eyeballs in stuff just now, so won't be looking at it until I get some other issues worked first, including a bit of a mess (in my view) at SpaceX Starship I haven't even had the time to write about yet, since I discovered it a few days ago.


 * Moreover, for working with a WP:COI editor, I have a few general thoughts, most of which have been written out by me in the past month or two wrt to a COI editor on the Rivian Talk page, or on his user page, or on the Rivian R1T Talk page. Not sure of the order, but in short, if you'd read through a bit of that convo with IanRivian (the user) in date order, you'd save me a bunch of time, and help yourself figure out how this particular WP editor (me) can best be worked with to improve articles, which is something we both want.  I think you'll see that I very much respect and honor the COI reveal IanRivian did, and want to work to get articles improved, but I've also been quite transparent on sharing some of my thoughts to help that go better in his case.  I surmise you'll see a bit of overlap as to your approach in endeavoring to see the Chris Kemp article improved as well.


 * Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * N2e, thanks for your quick response! I appreciate you taking the time, and your advice. Will take a look at the discussions you mentioned. I look forward to continuing the conversation if/when you get around to looking at Talk:Chris Kemp. Know that I fully anticipate working alongside other non-COI editors to improve the article, and don't view my request as anything other than a (hopefully) well-sourced suggestion. Thanks again. Lauren at L Strategies (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi N2e, it's been a while and I thought I'd check in and see if you've got some time to look at what remains from my request at Talk:Chris Kemp. I've gotten some help from other editors as well, but they appear to have moved on to other projects. Thanks so much. Lauren at L Strategies (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Infrastructure policy of the Joe Biden administration


The article Infrastructure policy of the Joe Biden administration has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Entirety of contents are already included in Build Back Better Plan and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, while this article includes around a thousand views per month average against multiple thousand on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs act article and tens of thousands of views on Build Back Better Plan"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bill Williams 17:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That page should def be deleted, if a consensus forms around that. It seems to have been created as a puff piece during the election campaign of Biden during 2020; and was very badly out of date during nearly all of 2021 as the actual substantive legislation proposed by the Biden Administration with a rather massive cost (>US$1 trillion) as no editors seemed to want to edit it any longer.  So, yeah, AfD it into the dustbin of Wikipedia article history.  N2e (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Your deletion of my input on private spaceflight
Hi there, I've seen you deleted all my edits to the private spaceflight pace. What a pity, it took me hours to solve all the issues in the introduction and to move the outdated information into the history chapter of the article. The article contains a lot of biased, wrong and misleading information and was marked as problematic already several times by various users. The talk page you referred to was used by myself and others to discuss the issues but nobody took all. Leaving the page as is to preserve all the historical information that is outdated, and often even uncited, is damaging to this emerging industry and everyone working in it. The article lacks scope, clarity, objectivity, up to date information and it is a history lesson more than anything else, from the perspective of someone who wrote this in 2013. If you can do it better than me please go ahead but leaving the page as is is really not the way to go and I fundamentally disagree with your attitude here. Ld4795 (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no "attitude" here. That article needs improvement.  But since Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper, I don't think we should be deleting so much (sourced and cited) information about the historical arc of the whole "private spaceflight" thing, just 'cause certain info is "outdated."  Rather, the historical info should stay, but perhaps be copyedited to reflect the (now, historical) time context.  But we cannot simply delete old info 'cause it is old; that is not the Wikipedia encyclopedia.  That's what newspapers do.
 * I would be happy to collaborate with you Ld4795 to improve the article, but deleting the historical bits is not the way to go. N2e (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

If you took time to actually read my changes carefully you would see that the parts that I deleted were either moved to and summarized adequately in the historical chapter, which is where they belong, or were deleted because the information was mentioned repeatedly at several times throughout the article thereby not adding any additional value. Go have a look. I'm happy to explain it to you line by line in a commented word document if necessary. Ld4795 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

For example here,

"In the early decades of the Space Age, the government space agencies of the Soviet Union and United States pioneered space technology in collaboration with affiliated design bureaus in the USSR and private companies in the US, entirely funding both the development of new spaceflight technologies and the operational costs of spaceflight. The European Space Agency was formed in 1975, largely following the same model of space technology development.",

This entire passage is sourced with a 10-line long article about cislunar missions which has nothing to do with anything that was said in the paragraph at all. The first sentence is a high school level introduction to spaceflight in general terms with is much better explained in the article on the history of spaceflight, and has also nothing to do with private spaceflight. Contracting regular companies to deliver hardware to the government is not private spaceflight especially not by the definition that the author provided in the first sentence of the article. The fact that esa was founded in 1975 is also not relevant at all and covered on the esa page. Nothing in this paragraph is new to Wikipedia, relevant to the topic, or cited adequately, it adds no value to the page. I replaced this section with a paragraph that explains that most of what we call spaceflight is still government funded today, and therefore actually cannot be considered private spaceflight, and I provided adequate sources for this to reflect recent discourse.

For anyone who's interested in the "early decades of the space age", there's the page for https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_spaceflight which explains this in great detail. Ld4795 (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This section,

"Later on, large defense contractors began to develop and operate space launch systems, derived from government rockets. Private spaceflight in Earth orbit includes communications satellites, satellite television, satellite radio, astronaut transport and sub-orbital and orbital space tourism. In the United States, the FAA has created a new certification called Commercial Astronaut, a new occupation.[1]"

has similar issues. Companies were contracted by space agencies to build rockets, which again is not private spaceflight by the definition provided, and the use cases mentioned here come without any references, or concrete examples, or links to relevant Wikipedia pages at all. It's also falling short of actual private spaceflight examples such as commercial lunar missions. I've taken the bit of information here that can be considered relevant and provided an easy to understand list of examples, adding missing pieces to it as well as links, and proper sources. I really cannot believe you removed all of that.

The fact that NASA has a definition for commercial astronauts is not put in the context to this topic and simply links to the Wikipedia page on commercial astronauts. If you want that random piece of information to stay in the introduction we can leave it there but it's useless in my opinion; it makes much more sense to mention space tourism in general as use case and then link to the page for more information. Ld4795 (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This part, .In the 2000s, entrepreneurs began designing—and by the 2010s, deploying—space systems competitive to the governmental systems[2][3] of the early decades of the space age.[4][5]:7 These new offerings have brought about significant market competition in space launch services after 2010 that had not been present previously, principally through the reduction of the cost of space launch and the availability of more space launch capacity.[6],

is simply wrong. First of all, what is a "space system competitive to government systems of early decades of spaceflight"? What is meant here? What's a space system, what's a government system, what changed, where are the examples. The references lead to articles about space x which are not put in context of what is said here, and which also do not support the statement. SpaceX in fact received massive funding from NASA and is not in competition with the "government system" which is an undefined and vague term. Space X has so far mostly earned revenue from contracts with NASA, which again, looking at the definition provided here, is not private spaceflight. The author is messing up private companies in the space industry with private spaceflight which is not the same thing! If anything, one could discuss if they are replacing the "government system", but if so, this should be understood to happen at the explicit wish of the government which issued commercial policies to make this happen, and not in competition. Then the author drifts into competitiveness of the launcher industry, and connects it to the reduced cost launches and increased deliver capacity, thereby suggesting the wrong chain of events and flipping causality. It is not lower prices that led to competition, it's competition that led to lower prices which is standard economic theory. The article cited also doesn't confirm any of this, it says that a revolution is needed in space transport and that prices need to go down to enable new business cases which is correct but wasn't written here in this article. In fact there's not even any reference or evidence next to the claim that costs were reduced and capacity increased. NASA wanted their space shuttle back and not buy seats for Soyuz from the Russians anymore which is why they've contracted spx and Boeing to develop new crew vehicles. There is no evidence that these are cheaper or provide more capacity. And since all of this is government funded it doesn't even account as private spaceflight and isn't a discussion that should happen on this page. It needs to be on the "commercialisation page" which is also a mess by the way. Ld4795 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Ld4795. I really want to engage with you on improving that article, and getting many of your changes in.  I was hoping I would have time to find an hour today, but that did not occur.  I'm headed out on a trip for a few days, and won't be back until mid next week.  I think we can hash out our differences, which as you note, in some cases could be a misunderstanding of how much some other part of the article may, or may not, cover the rather large sourced bits of history that were removed.  But there is a lot of detail to go through, and will probably be best if we just take it a bit at a time.  I do know that a number of your changes were fine ... I was just unable to get the larger historical parts dealt with without reverting a larger set of your edits.
 * Want to try to connect for a bit of discussion and editing next week, perhaps some US evening time? (although I could also probably do other times as well) I'm on a Western US time zone in the later part of next week, so might be able to find a time to have the discussion in a bit more real time way.  N2e (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi N2e, I would appreciate if you would read all my inputs in detail and review my changes again, in which case you would find out that I didn't remove anything, I moved it to the history chapter. I would also like to understand what gives you the right to decide that the old edit is of more value than my changes given the amount of major issues that are present in the current article - from wrong information to opinionated interpretations, this article should at least be taken OFFLINE entirely until it is revised. Ld4795 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

--

Well, I see a point about reverting Deep Blue Aerospace. They did not launch anything, and on the bottom of their website they link to the competition, which companies usually would strongly avoid to do. However, a revert with no explanation in the "edit summary" doesn't feel like you respect my work. In addition, your revert re-activates an inappropriate redirect, which also requires some explanation, doesn't it? So, maybe that page should be deleted entirely until that company actually launches its first device. Anyway, let's do good work, and in style. Elanduriar (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, after further checking, they may have launched their first test vehicles called "Nebula M1". So, they clearly do something. And then also, I see that the redirect goes to a sub-headline of "Expected maiden flights", so that also sounds o.k. Still, that redirect is not something that a reader of Wikipedia wants. Too complicated, takes hours, literally in my case, to understand what the editor actually wanted to hint by that redirect. And also still, I prefer to read some edit summary if somebody reverts my work. Thanks. Elanduriar (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

George C. Nield redirect
Hi, I nominated that redirect for deletion (or article creation, ideally). At the moment the redirect leads to an article not mentioning him: Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17. --mfb (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Article massive open online course title
Hi, You have done a great job in the article massive open online course. Would you come to discuss the title of the article? :)

Link to discussion: Talk:Massive_open_online_course --Avoinlähde (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Starship HLS
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Starship HLS&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Invite
Hey, I think you may be interested with the WP:Constellation program, where currently articles about private spaceflight gets improved. Happy editing, Starship SN20 (talk) 021:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC) @N2e

Stubs
About this edit: Please note that stub categories must never be added directly but only by using a stub template such as submarine-stub, which adds the category and also the stub notice displayed at the foot of the page. See WP:TAGSTUB. I've corrected this one. Thanks. Pam D  18:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pam. I did not know that.  Thanks for the correction.  N2e (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Eric Berger
I recently reverted your move of the Eric Berger article. The article had previously been moved and reverted in March 2022, which was the most recent activity on the article before you moved it. Please create a discusison at WP:RM if you intend to move it.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 15:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Talkback
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Selo vs village
I see that you replaced a link to selo with village in dozens of articles. On some occasions I reverted, but I see that you continue. As far as I am concerned, selo is a valid English term, and village in Ukraine is something else (different from selo). Thus, your edit in fact removes valid information from the articles. This is explained in selo (though poorly), which was the link you removed. Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. Selo is simply not an English word in most dictionaries, and would therefore be confusing to the vast majority of global readers of the English Wikipedia, which is why I translated the Ukrainian word into vernacular English in the several articles I did.


 * However, it is certainly true that the topic might be further discussed by editors. It could probably be done on the Talk page of one of those articles if you'd like to start it, or perhaps there is some more general place to discuss it that would get more editors looking into the discussion.  How would you like to proceed?  N2e (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine could be a good place to start a discussion, but it might be slanted towards Ukrainian users who do not see any issues with "selo" being used. Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Distant retrograde orbit
Hi there, would you mind taking a look at your recent changes at Distant retrograde orbit? You added the sentence "The analysis by TSR was based on statements by, according to Chinese government information and Chinese academics," which seems to be missing a word (statements by whom?). I'd complete it if I could, but I'm unsure what was intended. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks for the note, Jessicapierce. I have not just fixed my poor locution.  N2e (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Joe O'Dea: candidate for 2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Colorado
2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Colorado

Hi tried to create Joe O'Dea wikipedia page but its been blocked since June Artedm (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That's weird. Why would it be blocked?  What is the rationale given, Artedm?
 * I suspect that I could straightforwardly turn the Joe O'Dea redirect page into an article stub just as soon as O'Dea info develops into a well-written and well-sourced couple of paragraphs in some other article. And I would think it would not be "blocked" nor require an administrator.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * try to- you should be able to see my draft Artedm (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not being "blocked" Artedm, you are just
 * a) using a new article process that is heavily backed up (more requests than volunteer editors to work through the backlog); and
 * b) O'Dea was not yet (at the time) sufficiently notable to meet the notability criteria when the article was initially proposed.
 * O'Dea is clearly sufficiently notable now. I'll just create the article myself, very soon.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

✅—I went ahead and created a stub article out of the material that was in the draft article, and then worked on it for 30 or 40 minutes. Clearly needs more work. But the Wikipedia is not missing an article on this person any longer. N2e (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work Artedm (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you very much for your work on Zeitenwende speech. I consider this a hugely important article and was planning to further improve it for some time. The changes you made were roughly what I had in mind. I think I'll work into the body the content you added to the lead because it currently doesn't appear there. I hope you don't mind this modification. I'm planning to take this one to GA eventually; so feel free to propose more additions/changes if you want. Best and happy editing, Modussiccandi (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, Modussiccandi. No, of course I don't mind those further improvements you outline.  The lede should really summarize the body so that part you mention is critically important.


 * I really only just started on it. As soon as we find more and broader sources using and referring to Zeitenwende more broadly, and not merely the speech (Zeitenwende speech, as it was in the earliest days following Scholz' talk in February), it will probably be useful to WP:MOVE the article to the primary and let the speech article redirect to a section of the broader article. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for OneWeb satellite constellation
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;OneWeb satellite constellation&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Cyfal (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve the Tezos article
Hi N2e, I work for Tezos and am working to improve the page's accuracy, particularly to ensure that the content accurately reflects the sources. Given your interest in economics and dedication to ensuring the encyclopedic value of the articles, I thought you might be willing to weigh in on an ongoing discussion on the Tezos Talk page. I would appreciate your input and assistance, as I am not editing directly due to my COI. Thanks, Marko at Tezos (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * THanks for the invitation, and thanks for trying to play by the rule of WP:COI. I'm gonna decline, as plate is kinda full now, and everytime I help COI editors (which I've done extensively on some Rivian-related and United Launch Alliance pages), it always takes quite a bit more time than I plan for.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Joe O'Dea for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe O'Dea is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Joe O'Dea until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:27, 16 November 2022 (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) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Falcon 9 flight 29" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Falcon 9 flight 29 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"Ethereum Blockchain as a Service" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ethereum Blockchain as a Service and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

KVN

 * Thank you, Baffle☿gab, for your service to making Wikipedia better!  N2e (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2023 global banking crisis for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2023 global banking crisis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2023 global banking crisis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi - it got deleted so I'm inviting you to join the 'move' discussion at the March 2023 United States bank failures Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite, Thelisteninghand. Wikipedia articles are always fraught when they are on topics that become politicized, as this one seems to have become.  When I started, it was simple, bank problems and large interbank, regulator-approved/forced capital flows, with extralegal bank shutdown in Europe + several sources calling it a global banking crisis.  (which was out of scope for the US-specific article in any case.)
 * The regulators and political elite were, as could be expected, trying to tamp it down, and say all is well. But once political factions get involved, Wikipedia loses objectivity quickly and AfDs become plebescites, as this one did.  I tend to stay away from Wikipedia articles on political topics.  So will likely sit out the WP:MOVE discussion you mention on the US-based article about a few early bank failures.  N2e (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks..understood. I continue to edit the US page which still contains the line "By Sunday, March 19, the banking crisis became global". (!) Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Rocket engines using gas-gas propellants


A tag has been placed on Category:Rocket engines using gas-gas propellants indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well thank you, BoyTheKingCanDance. That is thoughtful of you.  I was surprised to find that a new vehicle of that import, with quite a number of reliable sources that show its importance and that a multi-billion dollar plant is already under construction to produce the vehicle, did not already have an article.  So I decided to create an initial stub article and let us grow it from there.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirecting village to dam destruction
Hello. I do not see the point of creating a redirect of a village to an article about the destruction of a dam. Such an article cannot cover villages, their scopes are completely different. Villages should have their own pages. Super  Ψ   Dro  13:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would advice against doing this in general. Saying this after seeing you created this other redirect . Red links promote article creation, there's lots of editors writing pages about Ukrainian villages that have had some notable events during the war. If they see the links are blue they will probably think it's created and ignore it. It's a net loss for the project. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, N2e. Thank you for your work on Commercial LEO Destinations program. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   04:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . Yes, it was apparent an article was needed, and I'm happy to see it developing now. N2e (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of LDEO (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on LDEO (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a 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 an orphaned 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. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like User:OwenX has already removed the SPEEDY_DEL, because the acronym is seen in academic work. I agree with this. N2e (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)