User talk:N2e/Archive 2

List of Aircraft-citations
Here is a thread i started in List of aircraft talk page:-

Ok who is putting citation tags in. Is it really necessary for a list where the only content is a link to an article which will have the references and citations alluded to!!! Discuss? On checking Citation needed it is not necessary to provide citations unless it would improve the article. In this form of list where there is no data other than the name a citation is superfluous.Petebutt (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the need for citaions, WHERE NEEDED, but a simple list is not improved by them. Citations and references will be found at the relevant article. No problem with them staying bu t please do not use it as evidence for removal of the entries. The List of aircraft is very tolerant of redlinks as it gives an excellent reference of articles that need to be written and / or re-directs that need to be raised.Petebutt (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy to discuss it Petebutt. I have addressed your question on the Talk:List of aircraft (B) Talk page. Moreover, there is a bit fuller discussion of this topic on Talk:List of aircraft (T-Z), where additional editors have been discussing the topic.  In any case, Wikipedia's policy of verifiability is not optional; it is a core policy.  It does not exclude "List of ..." articles; but even if it did, it would not exclude claims that are red-linked, for which no Wikipedia article exists at all.  In other words, each red-link in a "List of ..." aricle is an unsourced assertion.  They could possibly be a "true" assertion—but without a reliable, secondary-sourced inline citation, the claim does not belong in Wikipedia.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

AIV
The technical side of your report was fine, but we don't normally block for a single instance of vandalism. If it reoccurs after a series of graduated warnings then that's another matter - generally we expect to see vandalism past a level 4 warning. Hope this helps, EyeSerene talk 15:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I wasn't asking for a block.  I simply used the TW automated tool to report obvious vandalism from an IP editor.  I had never used that tool before and did not realize it would ask for administrator intervention; I thought it was just some sort of automated system for maintaining a list to watch for future vandalism from that IP.  I won't use that tool anymore.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

AIV
Hi N2e, You mentioned not being sure you'd reported User:83.178.145.231 to WP:AIV correctly, so I though I'd leave a brief note. We usually give editors a little breathing room to figure out how the place works before reporting them to AIV; there's vandalism, and then there's test edits, and a wide grey area in between. It's hard to know if they were going to continue messing around after a warning or two (in which case, we block), or would get the message and knock it off without blocking (always preferred, since quick blocks tend to reduce the chance of turning them from the dark side). The editor in question made only one edit, so another editor left a note on their talk page about it. This is spelled out in excruciating detail in the links in the AIV header, if you want to learn about the level-1 thru level-4 warnings, etc. I'd recommend it if you plan to whack vandalism with Twinkle frequently, not really necessary if this is a one off.

No big deal, but since you asked. Thanks for helping out. Cheers, --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh. As usual, someone types faster than me an makes me somewhat superfluous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, only because I already had it typed out and in my clipboard for insertion at AIV, but you removed the report before I got to it. I wasn't going to waste the text though :) EyeSerene talk 15:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for helping me out. I was slower than you both.  I was responding to the first note from EyeSerene, got an edit conflict, serveral business phone calls, etc.  I likely won't use Twinkle much for that, but who knows.  The Twinkle tool definitely did not inform me that I was notifying of a 4-time vandal, thought it would only make a record of the instance of vandalism I observed.  Thanks again.  N2e (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Unconstructive reversion
Regarding your reversion: I think your action was incorrect. The links to the articles are right there. You can click through and see - obviously different aircraft. If you think something needs a citation then the correct first action is not to revert a contribution unless you have good reason to think it is wrong. If you are in doubt there are numerous "citation required" tags for you to use. It is becoming increasingly difficult to contribute to the encyclopedia, and I have been doing so since the early days, as perhaps have you. It is not the case that every assertion requires a citation on pain of reversion. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You quote Jimmy Wales on your home page: "If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed." My emphasis. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem Paul. That was a mistake, my mistake.  I looked and thought that aircraft was a redlink, which would have meant it was an unsourced claim.  I have requested citations on many aircraft redlinks, where an aircraft is claimed to exist with no citation support whatsoever -- I don't think you will find any attempt on my part to tag live wikilinks that do not make additional assertions beyond the link.  Thanks for fixing this, and for bringing this to my attention.  N2e (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So I really have to source...?
That Avcoat was created by Avco?--Craigboy (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're doubting it was than here's sources.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2006/ps_3.html

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140636main_ESAS_05.pdf


 * Short answer. Yes.  See WP:BURDEN.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Hello, N2e. You have new messages at Talk:ISS ECLSS. Message added 08:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {Talkback} or {Tb} template.


 * Msg recd, and responded to. N2e (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Flight dynamics
Hi, now that Flight dynamics is a disambig, please don't forget to clean up the incoming links per WP:FIXDABLINKS. Navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true is a big help. Cheers, -- Ja Ga  talk 16:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How do I set the popupFixDabs flag to true? Can't seem to find that setting.  N2e (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Click your javascript config file and add this line (but without leading space)
 * popupFixDabs=true;
 * Check out mine User:JaGa/monobook.js as a reference. You don't need the Twinkle stuff. Thanks for the note! -- Ja Ga  talk 17:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, did it... on the User:N2e/vector.js page you provided in the link. Note that my page is named differently than yours.  We'll see if it works.  N2e (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so just how am I supposed to get "Navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true" to be a big help. What do I do now, with this new power tool, to quickly and efficiently fix DAB links?  Thanks.  N2e (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Start with this page. Choose an article, and find where it links to Flight dynamics. When you mouse over the link, a popup will show your options. Pick from the list of links in green at the bottom of the popup, and the rest will be straightforward. Usually you can find your link by searching the article page for "flight dynamics", but if it's piped, you have to click "Edit this page" and then search. (For instance, the first article in the list, Dualism has the link piped as Pitching . -- Ja Ga  talk  17:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, great. Two things.  1) Thanks for the clarification that the piped stuff won't work with the nav popup tool; editing the page and then searching is exactly what I had to do on the several pages I have manually fixed the DABs in.  2) However, I can't make the tool work at all the way you say.  When I rollover Dualism, I don't see the link piped as Pitching, the way you described.  Also, I see no links in green at the bottom of the popup.  Any guesses as to what I'm doing wrong?  N2e (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My fault, I didn't describe it well. Go to Dualism, search for Pitching, and mouse over the "Pitching" link. Then you'll see the popup. Flight dynamics is a tough one because almost every one I've checked has been piped! That's not the usual way. -- Ja Ga  talk 18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW I'm watching your talk page so you don't have to bother with the Talkback templates if you don't want to.


 * Okay, got it now. I understand why most won't work with the navpops tool.  Moreover, I just got one to work, for the first time, the Pitch article which I just fixed using the navpops tool.  Thanks for all your help on this!  Best, N2e (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, on a related topic, I just observed that someone has turned the Flight dynamics disambig page, into a regular article page. So I guess the article-by-article disambigs, although perhaps helpful, may not actually be required.  Hmmm...  N2e (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh. Well, that takes us off the hook. It would have been a tough one, so I'm a bit relieved. -- Ja Ga  talk 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks for your help on this. I did maybe ten or fifteen manually, and a few where the NavPopups worked.  The rest can just stay now.  N2e (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Giving references at List of Aircraft
Dear N2e, I am very glad you have taken your stand. Seems like everyone was for being able to leave a reference (for the red links especially). But I have a feeling they will kick this upstairs to the administrators, and you will be reversed. I troll a lot of the magazines and I will come across articles with photos of little known aircraft. I have to really jump some hoops to get the link posted so someone searching for info on the subject can have a clue what the aircraft is, etc. If you have a chance check out the "Curtiss-Bleeker" in the Cs to see the length you have to go to without having to write a stub page. It is ridiculous. Again, thanks. And I hope it stands. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC


 * Thanks for the feedback. Well, it pretty much has to stand.  After some serious time has passed to allow interested editors to source, WP verifiability policy is pretty clear that the unsourced stuff can be removed until it is cited.  I'm always quite patient to improve articles only very gradually, simply asking that the unsourced stuff become verifiable, or take a time out from Wikipedia until a source is found.  I will try to look at the "Curtiss-Bleeker" item some time when I have a lot of spare Wikipedia time.  Not tonight.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear N2e, Well we will see what happens. I have divided the references into two categories.  The first one titled "References (general)" and the second one "References (red links)".  The first list is for material like "The World's Aircraft", etc that deal with describing various aircraft.  It does not have the "Reflist" tag.  The second one is for red links.  Unlike green links which have pages with references, there are no references for red links.  They are little known aircraft.  The second reference category does have the "Reflist" tag.  That way there is some proof that red link aircraft have existed and with some small news article, etc.  I have changed two sections of the List of Aircraft.  The section that deals with the Ns (a little known tailless design by Neiuport in the 1930s) and the Js for the Junkers J.1000 a huge trans-Atlantic quasi-flying wing design of the 1920s-1930s that reached the mockup stage bug was never built.  Hope the change sticks.  But something has to be done about those red links till a page is written, if ever.  Jack Jackehammond (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at what you did on the List of aircraft (N-Q) article. I think that what you did for the redlink Nieuport-Delage NiD 120 aircraft, which was to add a bonafide citation, per WP:CS is just fine.  If that same sort of thing were to be done for the redlinked claims, as far as I'm concerned, everything would be fine.  The claim that the aircraft exists, or ever existed, is supported by whatever single citation anyone can find.  The redlink need not ever by removed if noone ever writes an article about the aircraft.  If no source is found however, I will start to (temporarily, pending a source) remove the redlinks from the List of aircraft ... articles after a couple of months have passed with the citation needed tag requesting a source.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 0

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Renewable energy task force
Please see Portal talk:Renewable energy... Johnfos (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Comment added.  N2e (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello N2e
Welldone for your work on Jos,today.But you removed the civilian governors section,dont you think it is needfull.Thanks Earlymen (talk) 04:02,28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it would help the article; but as it stood, it all appeared to be made up out of whole cloth. It was not verifiable.  I am hoping that someone who can locate sources will add it back to the article, with sources.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 1

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia reference style for EndNote
Did you ever find or make a reference style for wikipedia for EndNote? - Thanks Pengortm (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good question Pengortm. No, I never did find a way to do that.
 * When I already have a source, and source notes from my reading of that source, extensively described in EndNote, it sure would be a useful feature to be able to pump out a Wikipedia citation in " " format that I could just cut and paste into a Wikipedia article.  Should you locate anything, I'll appreciate it if you let me know about it.  Good luck.  N2e (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Template
Hey N2e, I apologise, things have been very busy for me lately. After this weekend, I'll be done with classes for this semester, so time should be more accommodating. I promise I'll get it done, just be patient with me :) — Huntster (t @ c) 03:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey. No problem.  You do lot of good wiki-work.  I just think your work on the template will be much better than mine, and with the Dragon C1 launch this week, it will be a great time to get a template in place that explicitly allows for crewed/uncrewed(cargo) and return to earth vs. burn up in the atmosphere, etc.  I'm plenty patient.  N2e (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, if you'll check User:Huntster/Sandbox/2 and its talk page, I've put down an initial list of parameters for the mission template. I'm now working up a list of parameters for a class template. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

launch vehicles tagging/deleting: potential AN/I?
N2e, I don't know if you follow this, but it was suggested there that I should complain about the issue we have at WP:AN/I. I understand that you follow the letter of WP:V/WP:BURDEN/etc. and technically don't violate the policies; and I assume good faith; but you refused to do anything (or even to comment) about the two examples of tagged/deleted data pieces backed by external sources at the wikilinked articles, you refuse to change your editing process and involve a step "check at wikilinked article for sources before tagging/deleting" - and there is high probability that continuing this will eventually result in deleting all data pieces in these articles. Are you OK for me to open a WP:AN/I? Alinor (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. I am always happy to have my work reviewed.  You are welcome to invite an Administrator to do so.
 * Here is the article Talk page with a four-month-long discussion between us. If you look through the entire conversation—here—I think you will see good faith on my part from the beginning, and a repeated desire to keep the conversation about "the contribution and not the contributor" and "improving the article, not about the editor."
 * Here is a discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, initiated by Alinor, where s/he attempted to get a determination that WP:V policy does not apply to list articles, or other comparison articles:  Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_87  Alinor was not successful, and had several editors state explicitly that claims on such articles should be sourced, per standard Wikipedia policy, and long-held interpretations of that policy on other similar articles.
 * Failing that, Alinor then made a proposal on the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability page that Wikipedia Verifiabilty policy be changed, with a carve-out exception that "sources at appropriately wikilinked articles do not need to have these sources copied into the summarizing article itself" if the source is cited in another Wikipedia article. The proposal, and the response from many editors, is here: entitled Sourcing for summarizing articles.  This proposal seems—to understate it just a bit—to not be achieving a consensus for a change to Wikipedia Verifiability policy.
 * So now, if a review is to occur (a "step 4" it would appear), it seems sensible to set out the three key (and extensive discussions that have preceeded the (potential) request by Alinor for Administrator review of my editing. As always, happy to discuss improving Wikipedia, N2e (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Alinor, I have endeavored to correctly summarize the three previous conversations. If you think I may not have accurately characterized the main points in the three numbered sections above, please let me know your suggested changes and I will go in and edit those sections as appropriate.  I don't want to mischaracterize your position in any way.  However, I would like to keep the thread intact so ask that you not insert text in the middle of my summary above.  N2e (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Alinor, I have deleted your recent set of comments to my Talk page, and moved them, complete and intact, to the Talk:Comparison of heavy lift launch systems where we've been discussing those topics for four months now. As I've told you before, I will no longer discuss my editing process with you, nor what I choose to spend my time on when I volunteer time to Wikipedia.  The comments removed from my Talk page are, of course, fully visible via the history of the page database, as well as on the Talk:Comparison of heavy lift launch systems page.


 * Please do not make any more comments on my Talk page. I will discuss article improvement (on article CONTENT, not on my editing process) with you on any article page in the mainspace, but you are no longer welcome on my Talk page, because of incessant badgering about something we've already fully discussed in item no. 1 above.


 * Please do bring on the ANI you suggested if you are so inclined; I'm happy to have this four-month long discussion reviewed by a third party, but do not continue to badger me with questions about why I won't do editing work that you are interested in having done but apparently will not do yourself. N2e (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bills are not automatically reintroduced
If a bill does not pass in Congress, it dies. It can be reintroduced in the next Congress (2 year term), but that is not automatic. Your "when" comment is very appropriate, though. Note that Fair Tax has never been voted on, even at the committee level. Oldtaxguy (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info on that point. Then I was correct in thinking that the claims in the article were rather out of date.  N2e (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

journals
Hello, N2e. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the note. N2e (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A particularly concise and cogent explanation of specific impulse
The following is a comment left in October 2010 on the Talk:Rocket propellant Talk page. I thought it particularly good, and will leave it here in the comments for others to see. Clear, concise, cogent and very helpful to the lay person in getting over the "why is ISP measured in units of seconds" question. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC) "Specific impulse is the average exhaust velocity divided by the acceleration of gravity, taken to be 9.80665 meters/sec/sec (approximately 32.174 ft/sec/sec). From Newton's Second Law, the thrust of a rocket engine equals the mass flow rate times the average exhaust velocity. Hence, average exhaust velocity is a measure of rocket engine performance. Typical average exhaust velocities range from about 800 m/sec for black powder rockets to 4565 m/sec for the highest performing oxygen/hydrogen rocket engines. (Electric thrusters have much higher exhaust velocities.) In English speaking countries it is customary to describe flow rates in pounds/second, but pounds are units of force, not of mass. The unit of mass is the slug, which actually weighs 32.174 pounds. To convert pounds/second to slugs/second, one must divide by the acceleration of gravity, 32.174 ft/sec/sec. That is how the custom arose of describing rocket engine performance in terms of 'specific impulse' which is the average exhaust velocity divided by 'g' (9.80665 m/s/s or 32.174 ft/s/s). To convert specific impulse back to average exhaust velocity, simply multiply by the acceleration of gravity. Magneticlifeform (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)"


 * It's not even interesting as history (dividing by g to get convert imperial unit to mass). It's worse than wrong. First, I don't see anything "cogent" in introducing arcane stuff like slugs in the lede, when you're right in the middle of explaining something else. Moreover, I think the explanation above is physically wrong, inasmuch as it tries to "explain" the need to divide by g to get units of force (thrust) from "mass flow" * "exhaust velocity". The latter is m/t * v = mv/t, but that does indeed give units of thrust = force. HOWEVER, specific impulse is not thrust and it never has force units. So, all this is more complicated, and bad physics AS WELL. Dimensionally, specific impulse (Isp) is presented in two different basic dimensional forms: as momentum/mass = velocity, AND as momentum/weight = mv/mg = v/g = time. This is independent of whether SI or Imperial units are used. The "explanation" of needing to divide by a weight, works to explain the "time unit" specific impulse (Isp in sec), but not for the "velocity unit" specific impulse (Isp in ft/sec or m/sec or whatever velocity units you like). S  B Harris 18:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin X-33
Hi N2e; I noticed you recently added a citation needed tag for a statement about the origins of the X-33. This statement was easily found in one of the external links; even easier if you use google. As a regular to spaceflight articles, I assume you know NASA provides pretty much all of its documents online, so my question is, why didn't you simply add the reference yourself? Mlm42 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fairly simple, really: Wikipedia needs articles to be improved with verifiable, reliable source citations in myriad uncountable ways.  I add many citations to Wikipedia every day.  In other cases, when I have other priorities, I flag the claim and will simply have to leave it to the editors who care most about an article, or have the most facility with the literature on that topic to cite it in the future in the great spontaneous order that is Wikipedia.


 * There is a much fuller summary of my thoughts on this topic here, in a discussion that you have personally weighed in on. See "the end of the matter" subsection for the summary.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think everyone agrees we need more references (see Category:Wikipedia backlog). But ask yourself, are you adding the citation needed tags for the readers or for other editors? When readers see a "citation needed" tag, it makes them think that somebody, somewhere genuinely has a reason to doubt this statement. Indeed, the guideline WP:NOCITE suggests we tag statements which are "doubtful". If there are generally problems regarding lack of inline citations, then just add More footnotes to the section, or article, and add the citation needed tags to particularly doubtful statements. If I understand your position correctly, your motivation for adding the citation needed tags is to get other editors to act, rather than to bring doubt into the reader's mind. Is that right?


 * No, that is not my position. Other editors might cite it, or they might not.  I'm agnostic on whether that happens or doesn't.  And I don't force other editors to work on any particular thing with the time they donate to Wikipedia.  See the "end of the matter" I previously referred you to and search for "In my view, Wikipedia is improved in one of two ways"  I don't really have any motivation to discuss it much more deeply than that right now. N2e (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose an editor would be within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia if they added cn to every single unsourced sentence, regardless of whether the editor genuinely doubted the sentence.. but this doesn't seem very helpful to readers or other editors. I think it would be better to use More footnotes, or bring up issues on the talk page. Mlm42 (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I hear your preference. But it has been my experience that most editors, on most articles in Wikipedia, will not support part two of the "two ways" forward without the more specific citation needed tags on specific claims.  N2e (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, so you're adding the tag for the editors, not for the readers. I'm just saying it's better to add tags like this to article space only if you think the reader should see them. One of the reasons editors react, is because they don't want the reader to be faced with a citation needed tag unnecessarily; in other words, you're kicking (knowingly or not) other editors into action. Which is fine, you're within your rights to do it if you want, I'm just saying that one reason people are objecting to these actions sometimes, is because they seem unfriendly. Mlm42 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it would be best if folks assumed good faith, but humans are humans and will take things that are article-improvement related as "unfriendly" to some or the other particular editor. I guess if the authors who first added the claims just ensured they were sourced, there would be a lot less need for identifying the unsourced assertions and then patiently allowing a lot of time to pass to see if anyone wants to source the claims.  But do note however, if there is some article you are working on, and you would prefer that I remove some of the individual requested cite tags that I added and replace them with a more general section-level or article-level tag, and then you would go forward citing the most important claims that in your view, as one of the authors, would most make the article better, just ask on my Talk page.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them
This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

groups of students in need of mentors
Hey there. One of the classes working with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, Jonathan Obar's Media and Telecommunication Policy, is working in small groups and would like us to assign a mentor to each group (rather than having students request the mentors they'd like, as other classes are doing).

I invite you to sign on as the mentor for one or more groups, especially if any of the topics catch your interest. To sign up, go to the course page and add yourself as "Mentor: you" in the section for that group. They students and/or professor or campus ambassadors should be cleaning things up soon to list all the usernames for each group and add a few more groups. Once you know who the students are in the group, you can leave them each a quick introduction to let them know you'll be mentoring their group.

Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I looked over the list and have signed on to mentor three students, on the topic of Spectrum auction.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talkback
See here].  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 03:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

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

Check Your Area of Study
Hello, I have updated the Project Page you are mentoring on with usernames for all the students in your Area of Study. Please send them a message introducing yourself and let them know you are there to help.

As always, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 10:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Just saw your pat-on-the-back about the [|Van Allen radiation belt] problem, which I somehow missed until just now. Much appreciated! Wwheaton (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are quite welcome. That was a great piece of work to help out Wikipedia!  Any kudos you receive are well deserved.  N2e (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mentor Request
N2e, I am looking for a mentor. I am a student in Approaches to Development and a member of the WikiProjects U.S. Public Policy Initiative.

As part of this course, I had hoped to work on an article related to technology and development. Specifically, I hoped to include information related to the concepts behind the Design for the Other 90% exhibit at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum. I was thinking of either editing the Appropriate Technology article (specifically the [|Appropriate technology in developing areas] section) to include more information on design, appropriate technology, and development or creating a new article for this information.

I would appreciate any advice related to this plan, in particular your thoughts on editing the existing article to expand the section on appropriate technology in developing areas or beginning a new article. I find the appropriate technology article to be a little overwhelming, probably due to the poor organization and the almost "dump" of information.

Thank you for your time. EstellaGr8 (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, I would be glad to be your mentor on your project. I am uncertain how much help I will be with the content of your work, but will definitely agree to assist you in your project if you want me to be your mentor, majoring on the Wikipedia side of things, and perhaps offering you a useful "big picture" perspective on how any good Wikipedia article emerges.  Having said that, I do have some personal background with understanding, and implementing, appropriate technology (for a U.S. "developed nation" situation -- more about that later if you are interested) and have read a bit on AT more broadly (although that was quite some time ago), so I would imagine I might provide some assistance on the content as well.  I will look more carefully at your specific early requests, and read the pages about your WikiProject, course, and the existing Appropriate Technology article tomorrow morning.  Take a look at my User page to learn a bit more about me, and let me know explicitly if you want to go ahead with me as your mentor.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for agreeing to act as my mentor I appreciate your assistance. --EstellaGr8 (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay then, we are good to go. I've added you to my [|mentee list] and am now full.  I will comment on your specific early questions later this morning.  N2e (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking articles students are working on
Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:


 * 1) Add  to the articles' talk pages.  (The other parameters of the WAP assignment template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
 * 2) If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: WikiProject United States Public Policy
 * 3) Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself.  The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well.  The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them The WikiPen if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have done no. 1 and no. 3 for one of the two projects (one of the four editors I am currently mentoring). Will wait for the other students to get active on their article before doing nos. 1-3 for that article.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice of edit of page that is of interest to you
I've edited the Great Pacific Garbage Patch to include a mass media reference, as well as to remove gross misrepresentation of a certain academic paper, which, ironically enough, is publicly available. The mass media reference, incidentally, quotes the primary author of the paper in question, seven years after the publication of the paper in question, to the effect that the plastic density is one thousand times greater than that extrapolated from his paper by a dishonest wikipedia author, who shall probably remain anonymous, or at least not be exposed due to my efforts. The paper considers plastic particulates in the neuston, and the wikipedia article in the original form falsely implied that the paper was calculating the total platic mass in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. I deliver this notice so as to avoid editing wars, as I'd like either an accurately cited paper to the effect of the original claim (I'll notice in passing that the claim made also constituted original research), or that the undocumented claim not be returned. I realise that you might not be the author of that claim. Boeremoer (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added a comment to the Talk page. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Professor Obar Concerns
Got a message about an hour ago from Professor Obar of the Media and Telecommunication Policy project and I think it is viewed best in full:

"Can you please communicate to the online mentors that I DO NOT want them moving student material into the main space for them. This is a big problem. I have noticed that this has happened with a number of the projects already, for example, in the broadband.gov article and the media cross-ownership article. We need the students to be doing this on their own, of course so they can learn how to do it, and also so that I can grade what they've done. How am I supposed to follow student submissions if the data is associated with online mentors? A BIG PROBLEM ALREADY... please help me with this. None of you responded to my post about this on the discussion page. This is about to get out of hand. Jaobar (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)"

With that, of course, please only give instructions on how to move, don't do it for them. Please only let them know what to do and let them do it themselves. If they run into problems, provide further instructions. Do not it for them. This seems to be making a mess of Prof. Obar's grading system and I would like to avoid that. Thanks. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 06:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem here. I am "coaching" only, and not "doing".  Seems like that is what mentoring ought to be:  you know, teaching them to fish not handing them a fish.  N2e (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Advice On Undoing an Edit
N2e, I was hoping you could advise me on undoing an edit someone recently made to the Appropriate technology page. They changed the spelling of industrialized to British version: industrialised. As this is the only British-English spelling I can find on the page (utilizing is used in the same paragraph and not utilising, practice is also used throughout the article and not pratise), I was going to change it back to the American-English version. Is that an acceptable thing to do? Thanks for the help. EstellaGr8 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, I think your intuitive sense of things is about right. I have not looked at the page to consider which type of English spelling, but your intuition is what I usually see:  if one type of English spelling is used on a page, it probably should not be changed.  However, I do think you should familiarize yourself with the WP manual of style on the topic, it is here.


 * If the change back is liable to be contentious (and I have no idea at all if it is), then it can be good practice to mention your logic for it, proposal, etc. on the Talk page first. That gives you a chance to build a consensus with other editors.


 * Having said that, Wikipedia encourages editors to be WP:BOLD, but then offers WP:BRD as a useful process for making it all work out if there is contention on an issue. Some editor is Bold and makes a change to an article (say, use of British English in a word); then some other editor, if they don't think that is quite right, can Revert; then there can/should be a Discussion on the Talk page.  Using this logic, it is quite acceptable to just revert it, and invite discussion on the talk page.


 * At the end of the day, use either approach you think feels right for this circumstance. I will join in on the Talk page (and read the relevant background) at such time as the discussion makes it to that point.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Posting Photos
Hey, sorry I havent communicated with you about the Spectrum Auction project. Currently, we have an assignment where we have to do random edits on other wiki pages. I chose to update some things about the cast of The Cosby Show but I cant figure out how to add a picture to the biography section (the long box on the right hand side of the pages). I saw the code from the page on the actual show but I dont know how to get the photos to show up on the page Im doing. I would appreciate any help, thanks.

Letia Armstead — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartyParty (talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Letia. I will respond to this on your Talk page.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rough draft of Appropriate Technology edits in sandbox
N23, I have started working on my proposed edits to the Appropriate Technology article in my sandbox. What I have written so far is my proposed lede. I have set it up to mirror how I imagine the outline of the article would be best organized (definition/history, developing country applications, developed country applications, examples). I have included two questions related to citation. One is a technical question about using Wikipedia citation style and the other is a question about what to cite and when. I will also update my section on the talk page for the article with a link to my sandbox so the Wiki community can comment. I appreciate your help and advice. EstellaGr8 (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have answered the first of your two questions, on your sandbox talk page. Other answer to come later.  N2e (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Spectrum auction
Hey N2e, this is Letia from the Spectrum Auction group. I was just checking in to let you know what we are doing. We havent posted on wikipedia becuase we are putting all of our info in a google docs page for editing and revising. One of our group members isnt doing anything so me and the other guy have been putting in a lot of work. Tomorrow, im going to be posting up some background information in addition to what is already on the page. We have a lot of information to sort out so we are going to be doing a lot of stuff this weekend.

Im just letting you know whats up!

Talk to you soon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.164.88 (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the status! N2e (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I added a little snapshot of one section I am going to be adding to the page. I have a lot more, Im just finally getting everything down in a typed document. Most of what I have is just research. Our group is having a really hard time becuase one person hasnt done ANYTHING. I finally got a hold of my other group member and we had a lengthy talk about how important this project is. I am the only person who has been in contact with you and I have let them know that we are not about to be doing this at the last possible second. This weekend, you should see a lot of work being added. I told my group member that we need to get 900 words up in the next 4 days. And we have been making good progress towards that. I added some of my draft material for you to see on my sandbox. I actually posted it up on our topic page as well. I still have a lot of in text linking to due back to certain wiki pages, I will get to that in our final moments next week. I am really trying to focus on getting all this text out and onto our page. Expect to see more for us this weekend.

Thanks,

Letia Armstead — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartyParty (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Letia, I really appreciate you getting engaged on this project, and I have a strong desire to help/mentor you and your fellow team members in successfully becoming Wikipedia editors and in making some sort of substantive improvements to the Spectrum auction article.


 * Having said that, and contrary to the rather copious time I had to help you in the past two months, I have become slammed right now in my work and personal life, so I now have had MUCH less time for Wikipedia in the past few days, and will have a lot less going forward. But I am committed to helping with the mentoring as previously agreed.  It just won't be as much as it would have been had you and your fellow students engaged with me much earlier in the project.


 * I will endeavor to get online late this weekend and offer some reviewer eyes to any work you've done, and help with you learning your way around the Wikipedia. Best regards,  N2e (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have read the new section (Innovation) you recently added to Spectrum auction article. I have flagged several concepts and some prose for clarification; requested better sourcing of the claims you have made; and done some (very) minor copyediting.  I don't want to rewrite the material, or even edit heavily, as I think that is a vital and important part of what the student's should endeavor to do in the Public Policy wiki project.  Some of the requisite clarification could be added by finding appropriate Wikipedia articles and linking them within the prose you added.


 * If you need help with how to do certain tasks in Wikipedia, please ask, or see some of the links on your Talk page. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have MOVED this conversation over to the Spectrum auction Talk page. Please add additional comments there for detailed discussion about article improvement.


 * Feel free to ask general questions about Wikipedia editing here on my Talk page, or there on the article Talk page, as you wish. N2e (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Instead of clicking on the link, I figured I could just say I forgot what that talkback was about. Don't worry about being busy, I totally understand. EstellaGr8 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's fine. I have erased the thought from my neural network.  N2e (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research
Hi ,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey
Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

launcher classification
I responded to your comment on my talk page. Please check also Talk:Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems. Jeffsapko (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

✅, and I have continued to participate in the various related discussions and consensus building on the items you have proposed. N2e (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
 * Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
 * Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
 * Watching out for the class as a whole
 * Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with&mdash;especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area&mdash;you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Some pod suggestion for you
Hi N2e! I'm in the process of trying to find Online Ambassadors to support each of the classes for this coming term, and there are a few I thought you'd be a good fit for: New Media and Development and New Media: Innovation, Community, and Dissidence". If you're up for supporting one or both of those classes, please check out the Memorandum of Understanding (linked above) which sketches the expectations for Online Ambassadors this term, and then you can sign on to class and get in touch with the professor(s).

There some other classes that you might be interested in, too, so feel free to browse and sign on with a different class if you find something more appealing.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking, Sage. I've been thinking very hard about your invitation.  While I greatly enjoyed the mentoring I did last spring, I'm a bit too slammed to try to take it on this fall, in addition to my other jobs.  So my Wiki-time has been in very short supply in the past few months, and will be even more scarce this fall term.  So good on ya' for your work on this wiki-mentoring project, but I will have to bow out for the fall term.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for what you did last term, and good luck with all you do!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Healthcare in the United States
I reverted your addition of a template inside of a template because it disrupted the entire appearance of the original template inside of articles (it was very messy looking). I also replied here. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I found what you were looking for under more information inside of Template:Health care reform in the United States. Jesanj (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy Launch Date
The 2013/2014 date you listed isn't for the first FH flight, that date is when the rocket would launch from the Cape (from a second launch pad).--Craigboy (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I saw the clear language about launch dates and missed the location, a second launch site.  N2e (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

CHON
Glad to look at that article; but would advise you that in discussing science fiction, especially scientifically-sound science fiction, you avoid the term "sci fi" or any derivative thereof. The term is traditionally considered a pejorative, fit only for the Syfy lis Channel and other venues where actual science fiction standards such as scientific accuracy, intelligent plots, plausible dialogue, etc. are not valued. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at the CHON article! And cool info.  I did not know that.  I'm sure I was just using it to type fewer letters in a standard, abbreviation sort of what.  But that is very good to know.  N2e (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

advice about questionable links
I was wondering if you have time to look at an issue which I have requested help from gracefool on. The topic is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gracefool#Anti-spyware_coalition I would like to become more aware of etiquette regarding such things. Sincerely, Teacherstudent27 (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know anything about this particular subject, but I'm happy to try to help you with your general question on etiquette, and removing links to unsourced material more generally.


 * First off, I think your approach to User:Gracefool is a good one. Polite, more asking than telling, showing a teachable spirit, etc.


 * I agree with his request to you on Wikilinks; but I suspect you just do not currently know how to do what he is asking. So learn away.  Instead of "The main page for them is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Spyware_Coalition  and their off-site website is: http://www.antispywarecoalition.org/", try using "The main page for them is: Anti-Spyware_Coalition  and their off-site website is: "; or maybe, "The main page for them is: Anti-Spyware_Coalition and this is the ASW off-wiki website", instead.  Just look at my text in an edit window and you'll see how to encode wikilink and external links in wiki markup.


 * On etiquette more generally, see Wikiquette, or for specific assistance, you might try Wikiquette assistance.


 * On removing dead links: while it may be appropriate to remove a no longer valid link right away, especially if the link is used in the "External links" section of a Wikipedia article, you might want to try a different and more friendly to other editors strategy.  Just add the 12 characters "" after the offending link, which will add a smallfont tag of deadlink to the article.  My view is that it is best to tag the deadlink, so editors who care, or know more on a subject, have an opportunity to remedy the problem.  If I happen on such an article, with the tagged deadlink more than a month or two old, I would generally just remove the link entirely.


 * BTW, when you add a cleanup tag, in simple form as I described above, a bot will automagically show up in a day or two to add the current date to the tag. This allows other editors to, later on, know how long the tag has been there.  Here is a list of cleanup tags:  Template messages/Cleanup  Go easy on using them until you are very experienced.  Some editors find these tags to be "unfriendly" and may fail to impute good faith to other editors who use too many of them in a single article.  Generally, the inline tags cause a bit less grief.


 * Hope all this is helpful to you. N2e (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)