User talk:Nasa-verve/Archive 1

TDRSS Merge suggestion
Hi - check out my comments on Talk:Tracking_and_Data_Relay_Satellite_System and post a comment if you would like to. Just curious, which project at GSFC do you work for? --  Geĸrίtzl (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoagland at Goddard
I'm one of the editors of the article on Richard C. Hoagland. Do you have any way of researching his claim that he was a NASA Goddard consultant at one time? More info, including a link to an image of his temporary ID badge, is here. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ill look around and see what I can find. That image of his badge looks pretty suspicious to me.  And if it is real, it does not mean much, just being a contractor at NASA does not mean that you speak for NASA.  The janitors have NASA contractor badges....  Nasa-verve (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Generation we
Hello Nasa-verve, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Generation we has been removed. It was removed by Bmswan with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Bmswan before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cold Y Generation
In the future, please consider letting the creator of the article (and substantial editors) know, when you nominate an article for deletion. See more here. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding image
Thanks for adding your image to Abort, Retry, Fail?. It gives character to the article. rCX (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Drug circle diagram
Re: File:Drug_circle.gif - "My diagram of different drugs / I (Nasa-verve) created this work entirely by myself."

I am a little surprised that this diagram that you created entirely by yourself is so strikingly similar to this chart: User_talk:Thoric. Perhaps more accurate is that your diagram is based upon mine? --Thoric (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ // I just added the recognition....   Nasa-verve (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank-you :) --Thoric (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thoric's diagram was removed from psychoactive drug per the discussion here. The same problems would, unfortunately, seem to apply to File:Drug circle.gif, and I don't think its inclusion in pharmacology, stimulant, sedative, depressant, drug, or psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants is justified. Also, it is a classification of psychoactive drugs only, not all drugs (as implied by its use in 'pharmacology' and 'drug'). Let me know what you think. – Acdx (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I knew nothing of this past history, so if a decision has already been reached I can respect that. It would be nice though if knowledgable people could propose fixes and create a path to a accurate diagram instead of just propping up deletionist tendencies. Nasa-verve (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it's removal wasn't so much based upon inaccuracies so much as it was considered to be original research as the diagram was not published elsewhere (in a peer-reviewed journal). --Thoric (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just read that discussion. The consensus would seem to be that not only does the diagram constitute original research (which, unfortunately, is enough reason to exclude it), it also has some inherent factual problems. Really, even the basic premise of this chart, that stimulant and depressant effects or psychedelic and antipsychotic effects are ultimately mutually exclusive is unsourced. Even if this is assumed, we can't expect to be able to plot all (or any) psychoactive drugs on a chart like this, since their effects will vary significantly depending on dose (many, many drugs behave like a stimulant at low doses and like a depressant at high doses, and vice versa), person (everyone's brain chemisty is different and this is often acknowledged and taken advantage of when prescribing drugs), and countless other factors. Personally I have a keen interest in pharmacology and would frankly love it if a classification like this could be produced, but we have to be realistic.. – Acdx (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The "factual problems" are not agreed upon. Some people have issues with some of the placements, and others do not.  Of course there are going to be differences of opinion, but substances are placed under their medically accepted groupings -- these are not to be contested (nobody is debating that cocaine is a stimulant or not) -- it is the overlaps of course that raise eyebrows, and perhaps a venn diagram is not the best representation.  If you're going to argue that no drug should be classified into any of these categories (stimulant, depressant, etc), then there is absolutely chance at discussing more complicated categorization.  --Thoric (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What's so effective about Wikipedia's 'no original research' policy is that these factual problems don't really need to be agreed upon at all. Until someone publishes definitions for what "various degrees of sedation" mean or where different psychoactive drugs rank on such scales, all guesses are equally pointless.


 * A personal note about the diagram itself: It's a fact that only a small fraction of drugs can be trivially assigned a position on a diagram like this. Cocaine, which you happened to mention, may be one of them. Most drugs might occupy some sort of region on this graph, with various conditions describing different areas (dose-dependent, tolerance or duration of treatment dependent, patient's brain chemistry or metabolism dependent, etc.) – Acdx (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

MTV Generation
Hi,

As you have shown an interest in the subject in the past, I was hoping you could comment on the current discussion at Talk:MTV Generation. I am hoping to finally settle the validity of the topic of the MTV Generation for Wikipedia. There have been two previous nominations for deletion, here, and here.

Those discussions chose to keep the article, with the caveat that the article would have to be "cleaned up" and purged of original research. Coming up to four years after the original request for deletion, I see little evidence that this has been accomplished. The article is still rife with unsourced claims and speculation. MTV Generation is a term in use around the internet, but it is "not clearly definable, and has different meanings to different people," wikipedia's own description of a neologism, which it clearly says are to be avoided.

Based on my search of available internet sources, I cannot find any single authoritative definition of the term. I believe that the article currently fails WP:NEO. To quote: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term&mdash;not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use&mdash;but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources&mdash;are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles."

I have no axe to grind against this term, but I think it is high time that we included some actual sources to support its claims. I have made an honest effort to find some, that talk about the term MTV Generation, rather than simply mentioning it, but have failed to do so. If you can find some I would really appreciate if you could present some, as I would like to settle this issue soon. Otherwise, if you could simply comment on the potential for this article I would be grateful. Thank you very much.

Peregrine981 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Moomin infobox
I see you put a standard infobox into Moomin in place of the non-standard one that was there, and I thought I would let you know why the non-standard box was there. There was some time ago a spate of repeatedly replacing correct references to Swedish by incorrect references to Finnish. At least some of the changes were made by an editor whose edit history elsewhere shows Finnish-nationalist and anti-Swedish tendencies. A suggestion was made that this disruptive editing might stop if the Finnish translation were given some prominence. The standard infobox does not, as far as I know, have any facility for listing translations into two different languages, so a custom-made box was used. I never liked the custom box, and I also never liked the idea of giving special attention to the Finnish translation, which is no more significant than translations into any other language. Nevertheless, since the custom box was put in place the disruption does not seem to have continued. I propose to leave the (much better) infobox you have substituted for the time being, but if the trouble starts again I shall restore the custom box. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:General Dynamics Logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:General Dynamics Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

NASA Headquarters
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of NASA Headquarters, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.education.com/partner/articles/nasa. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:5790 play.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:5790 play.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Rim957-messenger.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rim957-messenger.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nigerian Civil Service
You put a tag on this article shortly after it was started. I have added some content, but there is a lack of good sources. Perhaps you could put a note on the article's discussion page saying what you think should be done. Otherwise it is sort of like flagging the article with "I don't like it". Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It still needs a lot of work. I will probably keep tinkering with it off and on. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Usage of the time-context template
Hi Nasa-verve, you added the template time-context on the pages Provinces of Finland and Administrative divisions of Finland, but where do we need to specify the time period? As far as I can see, both articles should be more or less up to date after the changes that Pudeo made yesterday. --Silvonen (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I've responded at Strategy:Talk:Task_force/NASA_Collaboration/OpenNASA. Glad to see someone from NASA is interested=D.Smallman12q (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of numerical analysis software
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of numerical analysis software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Jwesley 78 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ibragimov crater
Hello, Nasa-verve. I'm from Azerbaijan and I hope that you can help me. I want to find photo of Ibragimov crater, which was made by NASA. I find photo of this crater in AZERBAIJANI ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL, but I don't know can we upload it to commons (photo possibly made in Shamakhi Astrophysical Observatory). Do U know is there any photo of this crater by NASA, and can we upload it to commons? --Interfase (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Page moves
Please use the move tab to move or rename pages, not cut & paste. This is easier (it creates the redirect for you), but more importantly it also preserves the edit history. That's a requirement of the GFDL that applies to Wiki content. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

NASA Collaboration
Could you comment on the status of the NASA collaboration proposal at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smallman12q#Been_a_while_6513. Thanks! Smallman12q (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

NASApedia follow-up
I just discovered the NASApedia conversation and would like to learn more and to help! I work at NASA Ames Research Center. Let's talk! Pmjones (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)pmjones

NEW MESSAGES
You Have New Messages Waiting For You Over Here. --S1312 (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This Image Was NOT Taken in 1994 (it was really taken in 2000) Because It says on the bottom of the image that the page was last edited in 6 November 2000. I Also See That This Sayes PHP WIKI in the Top of the image, However, WikiWikiWeb Is A Perl-Based Wiki (NOT A PHP-Based Wiki). This Interface Was Never On WikiWikiWeb. this page Is The WelcomeVisitors Page In WikiWikiWeb On 4 February 1998 & here Is The WelcomeVisitors Page In WikiWikiWeb On 4 June 2002. The Interface is The Same On Bolth (& All Points in the middle.) (also note WikiWikiWeb Was Not Lanched until 1995)--S1312 (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Wikiwikiweb1994.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wikiwikiweb1994.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk  01:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for listing the image at Files for deletion. Good Work. --S1312 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Usairmailstamp-C68.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Usairmailstamp-C68.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Lemonadestand-Page24 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lemonadestand-Page24 1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Fcnuts.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fcnuts.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Laser-mic-diagram.gif


A tag has been placed on File:Laser-mic-diagram.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Tl-nav
So the template was created only a week ago? Wow. How did I, we & WP survive without it... :-) -DePiep (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So here it is: ,,  .

Explorer 14
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Explorer 14, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/explorer_epe.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. When copying content from public domain sources, please be sure to acknowledge that duplication in a manner consistent with Plagiarism. While citing your source certainly shows no intention to deceive, the community consensus is that full disclosure to our readers requires acknowledging explicitly when content was authored elsewhere. There are a number of attribution templates that can help with this. When copying content from NASA, Include-NASA serves. It can be expanded to include additional information or used by itself, so long as a more complete reference is offered with the text. I've added this template to the article above; you can see where and how it is placed by looking there.


 * With respect to that article, I'm afraid that I have not been able to confirm that all of the text is public domain, and some of it has been removed pending more specific identification. Please see that article's talk page. If we can verify PD status, the content can be restored with the proper attribution.


 * As a general note, it is helpful, where possible, to link references to the specific page on which information can be found rather than to a compendium page. I have not removed the link you originally provided, but I have added a link to a specific page from which most of the text seems to have been taken (or at least on which it appears). This can help readers quickly verify the accuracy of information for themselves and can also help clear up later copyright confusion in case, as in this case, the original reviewer cannot locate the precise text on a PD source.


 * I'll be watching the article and your talk page for a time, in case there is further conversation on the matter. Please feel free also to come by my talk page. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:59, 8 February 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).

List of United States airmail stamps
You, and your alter-ego, Jonverve appear to have done most of the editing on the List of United States airmail stamps. We recently had some discussion here on the use of stamp catalog numbers, such as Scott or Stanley Gibbons numbers and the possible overuse that could be construed as copyright violations. This article was specifically mentioned and I had a look at it with the view of removing all the Scott numbers but due to the complex table formatting, and additional information under each Scott number, I though I would ask you to remove them instead of my messing up the tables or removing too much text. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I read through some of the discussion. If the decision is reached to remove the scott numbers, all you have to do is edit the template which is used as the header for each table -- and just remove that column. There are two table headers, one which includes a column for number of stamps issued and one without...just make sure to update both. I'd help but I don't have much time to help on wikipedia for the next few months.
 * Here are the two: List of United States airmail stamps/header, List of United States airmail stamps/headersm


 * Nasa-verve (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't watch every talk page, so missed your reply, though I usually drop a talkback notice to the postee. Anyway, if I were to remove the column as you suggest then all the plate number header info would be lost, so, as I did not know that was your suggestion, I have remove individual numbers from each table as well as the entry in the header templates. BTW, just removing the header entry does not remove the actual catalog number. If you get time check it out and fix as necessary. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lincoln Lab Logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Lincoln Lab Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:29, 18 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 09:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Tl-nav
I liked the template Tl-nav you created. I made a small edit to it. Will you add Tlp and Tlps also? And why do you have Lts and Tlxb below as see also's? And what about Tlb, which is the "father" of Tlxb? Debresser (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Warchivenav
Imho, the comments you added back are awkward and unnecessary, and also distracting (navigation templates are meant to allow for quick overview and links, which purpose is defeated when we start to add comments). Just my two cents. --87.78.137.133 (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. Do remember though, that these are meta-nav templates, so they are for power users, by definition, so the purpose is slightly different than nav templates for general WP users. Nasa-verve (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely. I just wanted to voice my own opinion. No biggie either way. --87.78.53.8 (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lincoln Lab Logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Lincoln Lab Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombination
Template:Letter-NumberCombination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lincoln Lab Logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Lincoln Lab Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

NASA Tweetup
Just a note to let you know that the claim of 1500+ participants in NASA Tweetup has been removed. If there is a reliable source that can be cited, please readd it.--RadioFan (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dynamism (company)


A tag has been placed on Dynamism (company) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Spacecraft object
Category:Spacecraft object, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.  W.  D.   Graham  22:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

File:NASADryden.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NASADryden.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:JWST
Template:JWST has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 09:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

'Abandoned' template documentation subpage
Hi, could you please delete or otherwise cleanup User:Nasa-verve/Template:HD 128311/doc/doc? It appears to be unused, and is cluttering up Category:Documentation subpages without corresponding pages. Thanks. Revent (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Nasa-verve (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding Scott numbers
Back in April 2011 I removed all the Scott numbers that you had added to List of United States airmail stamps‎ following the consensus reached at the discussion about the extensive use of copyright numbering system as a copyright violation, but with this edit a few months ago, described in your edit summary as general cleanup, you added them all back appears to ignore the consensus on the matter. I removed them again today, so please do not readd them. You are of course welcome to improve the list in other ways like cleaning up the other details that are still in the column you used for the Scott numbers. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 8. We don not accept copyright violations and the opinion of Moonriddengirl, who is one of Wikipedia's most experienced copyright experts should be enough for you. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Honest mistake! Sorry, I totally forgot about the Scott numbers being in violation. But I went back and read through our discussions from 2 years ago. Thanks for fixing it. Won't happen again! Nasa-verve (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. An occasional catalogue number may be ok as fair use, especially in individual stamp articles, but extensive use is not good. Some of the details in List of United States airmail stamps‎ may need tidying after I removed the numbers from the article. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited V. Trygve Jordahl, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Luther College and Evangelical Lutheran Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Two's complement
no and no. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) A reader coming to the two's complement title wants to read about two's complement. Not about something else.
 * 2) The negative zero link is perfectly valid. Don’t tamper with it unless you understand what are you doing.

Having been in the situation of needing to know the context of binary encoding methods, I think its pretty relevant to have an About Template to clarify. I agree with your use of WP:NOTBROKEN. Cheers! Nasa-verve (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mrs. Incnis,
 * WP:Hatnote certainly does not encourage your approach, but you may discuss it at talk: Two's complement. Any support from a third person, or just no negative feedback in 72 hours, and I’ll drop my opposition. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Tower of London infobox
Hi Nasa-verve, thanks for taking an interest in the article on the Tower of London. I wondered if you might reconsider using an infobox. They can be useful, but for a building of this type with such a complex history I'm not sure it can be condensed into a handful of infobox fields. The Tower's history goes back 950 years, with regular additions, renovations, and remodelling from its foundation until the modern period, so saying it was built in the Middle Ages doesn't tell the full story. Similarly, there are many architectural styles involved and to describe a structure built in the Middle Ages as an example of the Gothic revival is conflicting as it was only developed in the 18th century.

Then we have information on the Tower as a World Heritage Site. The field for criteria aren't particularly helpful as there is no explanation what they relate to. The fact it's a cultural site isn't particularly informative to someone coming to the article for the first time. Arguably it's worth including the year it was designated, but when writing the article that information was not considered important enough for the lead (though is in the main body of the article) so I'm not sure highlighting it in the infobox is worth the trouble. While the articles on the Palace of Westminster and St Margret's Westminster carry the same infobox, I would argue that they are similarly uninformative.

I'd like to remove the infobox because I think it ultimately oversimplifies things and promotes information which is not important enough to be at the top of the article, but I don't want to get into an edit war about this. There are some useful infoboxes out there, but the World Heritage Site one is amongst the least useful, and overall I don't think a building with as complex a history as the Tower can be satisfactorily reduced to the size of an infobox. What do you think? Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you message here. I took out the details about the WHS, because I agree they are marginally helpful, at best. But I would like to discuss keeping the infobox, but perhaps modifying what data it contains. Here is a proposed implementation. Please let me know what you think. Nasa-verve (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, excellent work on the article, it definitely deserves the FA status it has attained! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I could claim it was a labour of love, but with such a vivid history it was quite fun to read about.
 * Your proposed infobox is a great improvement on the WHS one, so if you want to add it I won't object. Thanks for coming up with something, I have very little experience of editing templates so wouldn't have known where to start. Nev1 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Done! Nasa-verve (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Future Crew Logo usage in Russian article about Second Reality demo
Hello, I'm making a translation of English article about Second Reality demo and ask you for permission to use this file in Russian article. Ренат Насыров (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, go for it. Nasa-verve (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Nasa-verve - I've added the rollback flag for you per your request. Happy editing. Pedro : Chat  10:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Second-reality-screen.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Second-reality-screen.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colleen Hartman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Frontiers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=608441304 your edit] to Line code may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, several long-distance communication channels have polarity ambiguity. {fact}

Orphaned non-free image File:Finder10.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Finder10.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC) - Looks like there were a few careless mistakes in edits where good images were removed along with deleted image comments. See this link. Please do not remove the following files, all of which you tagged with di-orphaned fair use which no longer applies. Thanks! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC) -
 * File:Finder.png
 * File talk:Mac OS 9 screenshot 2.png
 * File talk:Finder 7.0.png
 * File talk:Finder10.png

Your GA nomination of Alfred V. Verville
The article Alfred V. Verville you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Alfred V. Verville for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ThaddeusB -- ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you for the review. I will head over to the talk page. Nasa-verve (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

line code
Dear Nasa-verve,

Thank you for doing a bunch of work making the Wikipedia better.

I'm a little confused about one recent edit: I see you slapped a bunch of fact tags on the "line code" article.

Most Wikipedians use that particular tag when they find a statement so surprising that they suspect it is not true.


 * After line coding, the signal is put through a "physical channel", either a "transmission medium" or "data storage medium".


 * Most line codes eliminate the DC component – such codes are called DC-balanced, zero-DC, DC-free, zero-bias, DC equalized, etc.

It seems to me that those sentences simply summarize the definition of channel (communications) and DC-balanced from the corresponding articles.

Do you think the definition in those other articles also incorrect? Or do you think their definitions are correct, but the line code article doesn't correctly summarize them?

Or have I completely misinterpreted what you meant by those fact tags? --DavidCary (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi David. I inserted those fact tags on that article because I was trying to move forward the activity of providing Inline citations. That way someone could take the action of inserting inline citations where I placed the fact tags. They may not be in the right places, but I do have an EE background, so I put some thought into where I put them, but not a ton. Does that help? If you want to remove them, I have no heartache with that, but someone will eventually have to insert Inline citations in the article somewhere to help substantiate the claims made. Cheers! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Great work! I just looked through your edits. Here is one of my edits showing you how you can use templates, such as cite to help format and display the data. Nasa-verve (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That template makes it look much better.
 * p.s: After reading the "Line and paragraph breakage" section of Text editor support, I started always putting a carriage return immediately after each  tag and immediately before each   tag that I add to an article. I see that many people delete those carriage returns -- such as in the edit you pointed out.
 * Deleting those carriage returns makes no visible difference to people reading the article normally. So I am mystified. Why do those people go to the effort of deleting those carriage returns? --DavidCary (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Second Quantization
Is under a self-requested block until about June 18th. See User:Second Quantization Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Your recent editing history at Finder (software) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Werieth (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you quote building consensus. I certainly did not see a lot of that here. Please provide your comments here. Nasa-verve (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semnul Rabia
Hi, I saw that you recently tagged Semnul Rabia for speedy deletion under criteria G1. However, this criteria (Patent nonsense) does not apply to non-English content: This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. I have instead tagged the page for deletion under A10 as a duplicate of Rabia sign. Thank you. G S Palmer (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was confused by the quote "coherent non-English material" from your text above. Appreciate the clarification. Nasa-verve (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)