User talk:Sdsds/Archive 2

American pioneer comment
good point. i replied at the article talk page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference for asteroid impact probability
OK, I found a very clear reference to why the probability goes up, then down, from Spaceguard UK. I've added it to the article. LouScheffer (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this reference is great! (sdsds - talk) 06:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Technology Barnstar

 * Wow, thank-you! (sdsds - talk) 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

TOC on your sandbox
Hey see on my edit to your sandbox how I put that " " in. Well that puts the Table of Contents to wherever you put the in the code. So if you have a page where the Table of Contents is somewhere unusual (like in the comments area on that template) then just use that word. —Zachary talk 07:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a great work-around for the problem! Ultimately a solution would somehow come from a change in the template, so that whenever a Comments subpage was modified to include section headings, the TOC of the Talk page continued to be in the correct place, without adding anything to the Talk page itself. But for now ... your suggestion works! Thanks again for suggesting it. (sdsds - talk) 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

STS-122 launch tag
Probably best if we use launching/STS, as this can be re-used more. Also, I forgot to send you a note about WikiProjects, so I've put that below. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 07:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Human Spaceflight WikiProject
Hi, I noticed that you are a member of the Human Spaceflight WikiProject. A couple of weeks ago, I proposed that the Space missions and Space travellers projects, which both appear to be inactive be merged into the Human Spaceflight project. Whilst this is being done, the capitalisation of the Human spaceflight project's title would also be corrected (ie. Human Spaceflight → Human spaceflight). The projects are all doing the same/very similar things, and in my opinion, a single, larger, project would be more effective than three smaller, and somewhat inactive projects.. In light of very little response to messages on the project talk pages, I am now sending this message to all members of all three projects, inviting them to discuss the proposal on the Human Spaceflight project's talk page. I would appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 07:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Plan for Category:Space exploration articles by quality

 * Yes. We'll need to check at WP:SPACE. We'll also have to drag it through CFD as well, because we are moving categories. It would probably be a good idea to leave notes on the project talk page, and Version 1.0 Editorial Team as well.
 * In reply to your comment at the CFD for the member category, I think the best way to minimise self-references would be to merge the members into the main project category, and Category:WikiProject Spaceflight seems the best place for this to go. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an option, but it could be seen as WP:CPM. I suppose we could try requesting a speedy move, or if we have any administrators in the project, asking for their help. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 08:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits to WPSpace template
Hey SD, I saw you've made some edits to the WPSpace template, and I was wondering if you'd fancy adding an entry on it for WP Human Spaceflight? We could start doing some assessment within the project then - the banner that I made is a bit useless, as it doesn't go in the main template and won't allow for assessment of the articles. What do you reckon? All the best, Colds7ream (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi! As it happens I was just thinking about that! But then I realized I didn't even understand the assessment process for WikiProject Spaceflight. What does it really mean to e.g. have Talk:Vostok 1 tagged "Importance to Spaceflight: High"? Are there any objective, written-down criteria for that? What does any "importance" rating (much less specifically the Spaceflight one) signify? I have looked at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria and at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects but I'm still not sure I understand (or maybe agree with) the intent. (It sure seems like there's work to be done on WikiProject Spaceflight article assessment! See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight.) Short term, for work on human spaceflight, I'm wondering if all the articles related to the subject at least have the Category:Human spaceflight tag, or the tag of one of its sub-categories...? (sdsds - talk) 16:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Categorisation like that sounds like a grand idea, and I'll work on some draft importance criteria to put forward for everyone's dissection. Colds7ream (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - have a see what you think! WikiProject Human Spaceflight/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance Colds7ream (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is a great start! I've started a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Spaceflight/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance. (sdsds - talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Space law
Per Talk:Space_law, it looks a little different than when you saw it last. Let me know what you think. Franamax (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Counter-insurgency
Many, many thanks for reading the article. As you may gather, it was something of a braindump when I needed to refer to FID in another article. Your point about improving the lead is well-taken, and your comment gives me encouragement to go back to work on the article. If you'd like to put it on your watchlist, you should see changes.

There is, incidentally, some related content I took out of the article and put in my userspace, although I'm embarrassed to say I have forgotten how to search in userspace and find the pages I've created. Hopefully, I'll remember in the next little while, or find it in the documentation. Anyway, there is an area that is clearly US-specific. It's entirely possible that it is too much OR for the mainspace, and can go into the Military History Project essay space. Essentially, it deals with several conflicts over the use of US special operations forces. The first article, which is not more developed than text yanked out of the FID article, deals with whether Special Operations forces, especially United States Army Special Forces, should principally be "door-kickers" doing special reconnaissance and direct action for counterterrorism, or whether the units that understand local language and training (primarily but not exclusively Army Special Forces) should have working with local countries, as in the FID mission, as their principal responsibility and other units, reinforced if necessary, should be door-kicking.

Thanks much for the interest.

Howard Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thanks for your quick response! Thank-you also for the work you have already done clarifying the lead of the foreign internal defense article. Also, I found User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-IntelOversight by using the Special:Prefixindex search function. Is that the page to which you refer above? (sdsds - talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Frustratingly, there's another page somewhere, I hope, in my userspace, which discusses the controversy in the US special operations community about misusing Special Forces people, qualified to teach in other cultures and languages, as "door-kickers" in direct action and special reconnaissance. Is there, perhaps, a text search that might come up with "kicker"? Perhaps if I go far enough back in the history on Foreign Internal Defense, I can find that text, which I removed as being to US-centric. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was able to find the missing section, and have incorporated some of your suggestions into the lead. I'm starting to wonder about the proper relationships between the main counterinsurgency article, which I haven't looked at recently, and the FID article. FID is one way of carrying out counterinsurgency, and I wonder if some of the counterinsurgency models I have in the FID article belong elsewhere. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded at Talk:Foreign internal defense, trying to get at the question of what makes sense to include in the article. Do we want it to help the reader understand the theory behind the doctrine, or merely to understand what kinds of activities the doctrine expounds? (sdsds - talk) 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Launching template
I have decided to remove the "launching" template from the NASA page. If have had doubts about this usage in the past, and have only seem them grown. I'll explain my reasons, and perhaps you can comment with your ideas.
 * 1) NASA launches stuff every week. This opens a precedent to having the template included year round
 * 2) I can see the point in having the template on payloads, sattelites, the general "Space Shuttle" article, the mission article, because those are all search terms that might lead people to wikipedia looking for that information. In my eyes anyone that looks for a "launchschedule" on the NASA page is just not using google correctly.
 * 3) It needs and invites constent updating troughout the week simply to fix the "countdown" which really shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. We say "something happens within the next" week, but we should not be "counting down".
 * 4) Combined I think this is starting to violate WP:NOT in that wikipedia is not a TV guide, and it isn't a launchschedule or countdown either.

I'm interested what your opinion on this is, and what we should do address these concerns --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for leaving me a note about this here. I understand much of what you have written, but I am a bit confused by "NASA launches stuff every week." What do you mean by that? Would you like to discuss this here, or someplace more central? (sdsds - talk) 02:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to launching
Hi, I have made two major changes to. Firstly, the launch information now uses the named variable "info" rather than the first unnamed variable. Secondly, the time to launch is not automatically calculated, using information entered in the format "DD|MM|YYYY|HH|MM" (separating each with a pipe (|) symbol) into the first five unnamed variables. This can be overridden using the named variable "time", but this should not be required. If you have any questions, please let me know. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 14:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Launching/GLONASS
A tag has been placed on Template:Launching/GLONASS requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I have removed that tag as it is a template subpage used to enable correct and effective usage at a later date. As a subpage, not a template itself, I doubt if it meets the criteria anyway. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 08:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, starting late this year, or early next, we are going to see GLONASS launches on Soyuz, and even a couple on a GSLV. There are four Proton pads, and Russian pad turnaround times are pretty fast, so it is not unusual to have two Protons going within the reccommended two week period for this template (Today's Proton launch, and the one on 28 January, for example). As for STS-400, I would advise not using a tag unless it is called up (by which time the main Launching/STS tag would have freed up. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 09:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, there are four Proton pads? So one re-used sub-template per launch system really won't work. I suppose we could get some re-use by standardizing on one sub-template per launch pad.... But I see your point: given that there will certainly be future GLONASS launches the GLONASS sub-template will potentially get re-used a number of times! And who knows what valuable reminders and hints can be stashed in the &lt;noinclude&gt; section of the sub-template between launches? (sdsds - talk) 15:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are four. Areas 81/23, 81/24, 200/39, and 200/40 at Baikonur. I think Soyuz has six or seven, two at Baikonur, one under construction at CSG, and the rest at Plesetsk. I think if we stick with the tags we've got for now, and create more when needed, that would be the best policy. I can't see any point in deleting used templates unless the rocket is retired, or in the case of satellite-specific tags like GLONASS, the last such satellite is launched.
 * On a different note, I was considering preloading some of the general information (timeline of spaceflight, spaceflight portal, etc) into the template, using a parser function to only display when in the template namespace. What do you think of that? --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 16:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Diagram
Done, with a slight contrast adjustment. Might I ask where you got the illustration? It would be better loaded as a .png, and I'm not sure that this is the original resolution; it looks upscaled. <font color="GREEN"> thegreen J    <font color="GREEN">Are you green?  01:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The original resolution was actually 298 by 222, so I've re-uploaded it as a .png at Image:Image-CONTOUR SRM configuration.png. <font color="GREEN"> thegreen J    <font color="GREEN">Are you green?  21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks great. Nicely done! (sdsds - talk) 21:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

NRO L-21
Hi. I've proposed that the article you started, NRO L-21, be merged into USA 193. Both articles are about the same satellite, and the USA-193 one is more established, so I think merging that way would be a good idea. Do you have any comments? --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the page; I believe USA 193 contains most of the same information. However, I'm seeking a good source for U.S. officials or NASA previously claiming that the satellite posed no danger. I'm sure this is the case but can't find a good source. Evercat (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both for fixing this. FWIW, I chose to create "NRO L-21" only because that was the (red) link in the launch table of 2006 in spaceflight. Are we now consistently using "USA" designations for articles on individual NRO launched satellites? (sdsds - talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no policy that I know of, I just started the article at USA 193 some time ago. But if it's felt NROL-21 is a better title I'd be perfectly happy with a move. Evercat (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * L-21 is the launch designation, 193 is the satellite designation. The L-21 designation is technically and officially obsolete, but is just still used by a few people who got used to it. 193 is the official designation, and is the only official designation for the satellite itself. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Launching/SM
Please could you take a look at Templates_for_deletion. You would probably be better at explaining the core purpouse of these templates than me. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain them. Sometimes it is difficult to explain why something is a "good thing." (sdsds - talk) 06:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 13:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I realized today with the Launching/Sea Launch delay that we need never remove these templates from the articles once they have been added, but can instead merely put all the content into &lt;noinclude&gt; sections when it shouldn't appear on the article pages (as you have already done a few times and did again with the Sea Launch delay). This is great because there's no hit on the article history at all for each subsequent launch. Possibly even better, to the casual observer the template never appear to be unused! (sdsds - talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Caesium v. Cesium
I totally agree that where, for example, the name of a Pop group is Cesium-137 then that remains as spelled. Similarly where publications are quoted in which the author spells the element Cesium then that too stands. However, when referring to Caesium clocks, it is indeed the element being referenced - what other sort of Caesium is there in this context? There is not a different Caesium for physics from that in Chemistry - just two properties of the same material - hence the appropriate change in spelling. Will you revert or shall I ? Velela (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Hi again! I am perfectly happy discussing this here rather than on your talk page, if that is your preference. But maybe there's a better place to build a community-wide concensus? It might seem like that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals, but my concern would be the inherently biased sample of editors who would become aware of the discussion. The specific article in question, Global Positioning System, is not even claimed to be within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals! (And as you'll note, that's pretty much my entire point about why the policy you quote is not the spelling policy that is relevant to the GPS article.) So perhaps the best place is Talk:Global Positioning System? Shall we continue the discussion there? (sdsds - talk) 01:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved the whole discussion there as suggested Velela (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewels
Thank you for beginning a list of companies that perform Jewels! Robert Greer (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandilism
Your page has been vandilised by 96.235.113.20 and reverted by <font face="Curlz MT" size="3"> Freshbakedpie <font face="Goudy Old Style" size="2">(Wanna talk?) \'_'/  22:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your input at WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive
Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Neutral dialect

 * It is a similar issue to the Long March issue which we discussed last year (User_talk:GW_Simulations/Archive_2007). I have absolutely no problem with either dialect, but seeing as both are used, it sometimes looks a bit scrappy. It is always best to use a "neutral" dialect - ie. words which are spelled the same in both British and American dialect (your suggestion, I believe). I think that without realising it, I sometimes use words that are not in the American dialect, so if you notice any of those on the portal, feel free to change them to make them neutral. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 08:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Chinasat 9
Just to let you know, with regard to the launch date for Chinasat 9 (which you changed from 6 to 9 June in Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch), it is not clear whether this will occur on 6, 9, or 22 June. All three dates were mentioned at around the same time. --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Space photos
Hey, thanks for the note. I'm pretty busy right now for photos (got a 49 megapixel panorama in front of me at the moment), but I should be able to do something with it in the next day or two. Just some preliminary notes: Part of the exhaust plume is blown, i.e., there's digital clipping, so there's not much I can do about that, but I will try to do what I can to remove the washed out look and clean up some scanned dust and scratches while I'm at it. Also, do you have an idea as to what you want for the crop? It looks like the photographer was trying to avoid cutting off the exhaust, but any cropping is going to do that, which could make the image look a little awkward. I was thinking of ending the crop just left of the smaller water tower and below the launch pad; does that sound okay? Thegreenj 02:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:STS31 carries Hubble to orbit edit.jpg. Sorry about the halos around the fumes and shuttles; someone's got there before me about sharpening and did a rather poor job, leaving artifacts all over the place. And I'm afraid I'm just no Monet&mdash;but that's not to say it's not possible! Thegreenj 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

LOCAD Article
Hi there! I just saw your article on LOCAD. Were you part of the original group of researchers working on the PTS at MSFC? Dognap (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello -- I'm glad you found the article! I was very curious about the research topics the LOCAD work addresses, but don't have any affiliation with the people working on the project. All the content of the article came from the sources it references. If you know of any others, particularly anything more current, please don't hesitate to add them to the article! (sdsds - talk) 05:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Final frontier
Nothing new I'm aware of; I lifted the templates trying to find something appropriate. (I wish, again, there weren't about 800 diff ones...) If they need changing, I'll leave off adding new ones, but there's a bunch of redlinked Mars projects that could use it (if I haven't already hit most of them...). <font color="#1034A6"> TREKphiler 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Zenit
Oh my God. That is... not intentional. I have to access to the Chinese Wikipedia through an IPv6 proxy server ( "sixxs.org" ), so when I jumped to the English version the system added "sixxs.org" to the images' URLs automatically. I have added the Chinese entry's link again, by normal IPv4 this time. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 09:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Editlink interaction with show in Template:Launching

 * Fixed. What do you think of the new feature I added to disable transclusion? --<font color="#115566">GW_Simulations<font color="#000000">User Page 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Conversation continued at User talk:GW_Simulations. (sdsds - talk) 03:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

JDS Hyūga

 * My responses to these messages are on the other user's talk page. (sdsds - talk'') 21:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The posting in the "Proposed edit to protected page" section of Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer was directed specifically to you. The "too many words" were intended to encourage you to re-visit your opposition to the proposed one-word edit. Did those words fall on deaf ears because there were too many of them? -- Tenmei (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifically, please:
 * 1. Did this argument on this one point change your view on this one-word edit? If so, why? If not, why not?  What could I have said differently or more succinctly.  In my view, my thoughts were ordered in a well-constructed manner; and this newest gambit captures my full attention.
 * 2. I'm particularly interested in your take on the last segment -- the part about getting my "peers" simply to scan a few paragraphs in a linked source? In my view, this page requires a modest paradigm shift which has been strongly resisted by editors who admit knowing nothing about the Japanese context in which this ship is built.  The knee-jerk reactions have been so intense that I can't get beyond that odd blank wall. You offer the first real prospect for a fresh "take" on a modified strategy for moving beyond the status quo ante ... and therefore, your perspective is likely to be very helpful in evaluating what has gone wrong thus far AND figuring out how to move forward constructively in an effective and seemly manner.


 * Although you are correct in assessing this as non-urgent in a general sense, I suspect that it is probably not a good idea for me to continue to be slow-going, deliberate, patient. I would hope to solicit your impressions ...? --Tenmei (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many words?
Is it constructive to present this draft here? If so, are you willing to suggest a way to make the prospective posting more succinct, less wordy? Does this help you understand how Nick Dowling contributed to that scenario in which I alone have been cast in the role of enigmatic troublemaker? If so, good -- a step in the right direction at last. If not, that could still be a good thing if it helps you discern how you can help me figure out what I can do to move beyond today's impasse?


 * I hesitate to add this to the talk page at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer for fear that someone will complain that it has "too many words." In a context which arises before I posted my initial edit to that article's second paragraph, it becomes possible to begin to appreciate what's gone so very wrong as the result of an unthinking reliance on Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org without giving due weight to consequences which flow from the Japanese context.


 * Wikipedia's current treatment of JDS Hyūga implicates deep-rooted paradigms based on premises which effectively function to exclude or excise issues from the body of the text; and this includes significant content which remains otherwise inextricable in reality. Relying solely on English-language naval ship catalogs, the edit history for this article reveals how otherwise credible editors have thwarted, deleted or blocked a number of crucial contributions to this subject's development -- see Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer


 * Personally, of course, I don't care what the article about JDS Hyūga is named, nor do I care about the terminology used to describe this vessel -- but I'm persuaded that WP:NPOV expects us all to care very much about the "why" which informs whatever name or terminology is selected.


 * Although generally valued as highly credible resources, Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org promote systemic bias in at least this one instance because their congruent terminology derives from primary sources bearing the imprimatur of the Japanese government. As such, reliance on this "gold standard" for descriptive terminology relating to Japanese naval ships is defensible, as would be any reasoned consensus based on such standards; however, neither can be considered determinative.  There is an inherent problem with that imprimatur when its progeny produce deleterious effects in a Wikipedia venue giving more than lip-service to WP:V and WP:NPOV.


 * As you may know, the Constitution of Japan prohibits "aircraft carriers"; and therefore the Japanese quite sensibly identify the JDS Hyūga with a unique, non-aircraft carrier name. In Japan, if ducks were prohibited by the Japanese Constitution, then something which waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and behaves like a duck would be sensibly given a unique non-duck name.  As it  relates to use of the term "aircraft carrier," this unique bias is informed by the constitution which was imposed during the post-war occupation by the Americans; and it, along with many other salutatory aspects of the Constitution, has been embraced by subsequent generations of Japanese.


 * Among the Japanese, the practical decision-making which sometimes calls for a prudent substitution of flexible notions of "fiction" for "fact" is recorded across the span of centuries. This aspect of Japanese history and culture need not intrude into this Wikipedia article about the Hyūga except when an otherwise useful fiction is proffered as sufficient rationale for devaluing, denying, and deleting edits and citations (consistent with WP:V) which state that JDS Hyūga is an aircraft carrier with another name.


 * Sdsds construes the phenomenon in terms of a familiar line from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet -- in that passage in which Juliet muses about "that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet". In my view, this specific quotation does capture the essence of a very important aspect of this somewhat complicated issue.


 * Perhaps a more apt illustrative exchange is to be found in Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew in that scene in which Petruccio looks at the sun and defies his new wife to disagree when he identifies it as the moon -- especially in that passage which begins, "I say it is the moon ...


 * In that Wikipedia article about the first of the Hyūga-class vessels, I would hope to make a constructive contribution by re-casting this controversy using medical terminolgy:


 * In oncology, the metastasis of cancer is conventionally described as insidious or "developing so gradually as to be well-established before becoming apparent." It is also well-known to be pernicious or "highly injurious or destructive."  It is unfortunate that criticism of Wikipedia has not yet encompassed the oncological model, but it is arguably true that the metastasis of systemic bias, like cultural bias elsewhere, is insidious, pernicious and sometimes invasive.


 * Prior to this, the non-NPOV problems in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have escaped a thorough examination. The thin record of postings in the initial section of the talk page suggests a nascent pattern of thwarting discussion and inquiry; and the subsequent record on that talk page confirms this unwanted hypothesis.


 * Across the arc of talk page exchanges amongst potential contributors  and others, intense, concerted resistance made it impossible even to reach a threshold from which to begin parsing aspects of this non-NPOV cancer. This resistance becomes a powerful element of proof -- a multi-faceted demonstration of an undetected, highly persistent, insidious and pernicious problem.


 * Initial examination of this suspect article included a complete review of the edit history, including scrutiny of relevant external links which were deleted without any efforts to incorporate plausibly useful data.


 * An ameliorative edit was initiated. This involved one sentence only, supported by an in-line citation with an external link to a credible source. The talk page record reveals that this precisely-targeted intervention was reverted twice without substantive discussion.  The edit encountered further resistance which blocked access to any threshold from which to begin to address the unacknowledged bias which remains the article's pervasive flaw. --Tenmei (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation
Sdsds -- I have filed a request for mediation at Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. I identified you amongst the relevant parties:

Involved parties Assent from the following need not be a factor in the decision to accept this dispute for mediation; but perhaps these contributors might consider themselves as parties because of their participation in creating the talk page record.
 * , filing party
 * , mediator
 * , mediator
 * , mediator
 * , mediator
 * , mediator
 * , mediator

The step-by-step instructions for filing a request for mediation did not explain that I needed to notify others; but Nick Dowling's notice here implies that I have a responsibility to remedy that oversight without further delay.

At this point, Nick Dowling, Buckshot06 and Parsecboy have already agreed to mediation. It's up to you to decide what, if anything, you want to do. Even if you don't decide to participate, I hope you will watchlist the page so that you are able to follow what unfolds. --Tenmei (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyūga notification
"Disagree" -- that single word from BillCJ's doomed my request for mediation, but it need not be the last word.

I have re-submitted the request as the somewhat modified Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2 -- seeWikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer2.

Changes include expressly incorporating Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer along with Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Also, the number of named parties is smaller. Another potentially helpful improvement -- first on the list of issues to be mediated is:
 * 1. As per WP:LEAD, the article's introduction needs to be brought in line with the article's text and reflect the paragraph which was included after being endorsed by a unanimous consensus on the article's talk page which describes the fact that different reliable sources call these ships aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers, helicopter destroyers and destroyers (Tenmai has stated that he chose to sit out this discussion, and instead restarted it after consensus was reached).
 * 1A. Issues of Framing -- identifying a problem and moving beyond it?

I'm much more concerned about getting this process started than I care about what or who comes first. I hope you join me in this concern.

I hope you will again assent to this request for mediation.

By sharing a copy of this notification with those who had not decided what to do about the first request for mediation, I am fulfilling my responsibilities as the filing party; and at the same time, I open a door to the possibility that one or more may yet decide to do more than watchlist this page. --Tenmei (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oncological metaphor
The following attempt to create a neutral restatement was unsuccessful at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Perhaps for you, the effort might possibly resonate? --Tenmei (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Framing using medical terminology?
 * Restatement alternative using plausibly useful medical terminology:
 * In oncology, the metastasis of cancer is conventionally described as insidious or "developing so gradually as to be well-established before becoming apparent." It is also well-known to be pernicious or "highly injurious or destructive."  It is unfortunate that criticism of Wikipedia has not yet encompassed the oncological model, but it is arguably true that the metastasis of systemic bias, like cultural bias elsewhere, is insidious, pernicious and sometimes invasive.


 * The non-NPOV problems in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have escaped even cursory examination thus far. An ameliorative edit was initiated, involving one sentence only, supported by an in-line citation with an external link to a credible source. The talk page record reveals that this precisely-targeted intervention was reverted twice without substantive discussion.  The edit provoked intense resistance which blocked access to any perceived threshold from which to begin to address the unacknowledged bias which remains the article's pervasive flaw.


 * Talk page sequelae revealed underlying toxic peripheral wiki-pathologies which are become corollary subjects of this request for wiki-diagnostic and wiki-therapeutic interventions. --Tenmei (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

March 2009 commissioning
As you may not know, the official commissioning of the JDS Hyūga on March 18, 2009 was widely reported:

A. RTTNews (link) noted interest in the event:
 * "Anticipating international concern over the launch of the mammoth destroyer, the Japanese government insisted the vessel would not carry fighter planes and that it was different from an aircraft carrier."

B. AvioNews (link) reports that Japan has commissioned the helicopter carrier Hyūga:
 * "The Ministry of Defense underlined that, even if it resembles a light aircraft carrier, the "Hyuga" is an helicopter carrier and respects the pacifist constitution imposed to Japan by the United States after World War II. The Country renounced to use force in international disputes, but anyway it has one of the best organized armies in the world."

C. The Straits Times (link) published an Agence France Presse (AFP) news story which explained that the Maritime Self Defense Force (MSDF) "stressed that the destroyer complies with the country's post-war pacifist constitution."
 * The Straits Times news story included a AFP photo.
 * China Daily published a smiliar Xinhua photo

D. iStockAnalyst.com (link) posted a Kyodo News report mentioning "concerns about its resemblance to a light aircraft carrier":
 * "Despite the Hyuga's look and feel of a light aircraft carrier, the MSDF says it is anything but."
 * "'An aircraft carrier, I believe, has a fair degree of offensive functions. Based on that definition, this Hyuga falls a little bit outside of the frame,' MSDF Chief of Staff Adm. Keiji Akahoshi told a news conference on Tuesday."
 * "The acquisition of a destroyer that could project the force far from Japan's coast, however, raises concerns in Asia. It may even spur rivalry with countries like China, which is rumored to build an aircraft carrier of its own."
 * "Japan denies itself offensive capabilities under its war-renouncing Constitution. But the government interprets the supreme law to mean that it can possess the minimum level of armed force necessary for its self-defense."
 * The Japan Times news story included a Kyodo photo.

I wonder if you might be willing to share some thoughts about how to go about incorporating this relevant information into an article -- Hyūga class helicopter destroyer -- which was the subject of controversy some months ago?

A constructive step might be to re-post what I've written here -- perhaps just after this now-timely diff or this diff which were contributed by Nick Dowling on the Hyūga talk page?--Tenmei (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Tenmei. You're correct:  I hadn't been following the Hyuga news.  Thanks for pointing it out to me!  (sdsds - talk) 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The implied question in the last paragraph of my post above? What if I were to re-post what I've written here after this talk page diff or this alternate talk page  diff?  My intention is to avoid controversy by beginning to move forward constructively on the talk page?


 * In preparation for this inquiry I created Takes two to tango (idiom). --Tenmei (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

ESRO
Hi, I just started a new article: ESRO. There's a tonne of stuf that needs to be done on it that I don't know exactly how to do (and what exactly to do). Could you take alook and help me out?

Thank you. U5K0 (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, this was great work -- thank-you! I wasn't familiar with the history of European space exploration organizations, so reading through your article was very helpful to me. After I read it again in more depth, I'll leave comments on the article's talk page. Thanks again for making such a great start on this article! (sdsds - talk) 23:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Somewhat urgently, please see Talk:ESRO. (sdsds - talk) 00:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Robotics July Newsletter
WikiProject Robotics/Outreach/Newsletter July 2008

date-autoformatting
Hi Sd

In response to your request at MOSNUM talk, one of the pages that may interest you is the two-and-a-half-year-old saga at Bugzilla. (You'll need to register and log in if you want to comment.) Despite the 88-person petition about halfway through, the discussion has gone around in circles and has shown that developers, particularly volunteers with little direction from atop, are generally unwilling to make major technical changes, particularly if the way to do it is unclear. You'll see that there are quite a few suggestions as to the syntax and programming method, despite my plea to keep it as simple as possible and to let the developers do it as they saw best. The whole thing wasn't helped by the fact that Brion Vibber has never really been onside, and that WP is only one of a huge number of sites that uses WikiMedia's system. How to avoid syntax, programming, that doesn't conflict with all of those environments?

We gave up some time ago. In the meantime, the community appears to have gradually evolved a more skeptical attitude to the blueing of dates and date fragements. The argument over 1989, 1960s, 19th century and other absurdities is largely over. The numerous disadvantages of DA, and the utter triviality of the differences it purports to iron out, are now the motivation to get rid of it, or at least to empower editors with the right not to use it.

I hope to convince you to support moves to see DA in a different light. Tony  (talk)  05:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony. Thanks for your response! The transcript for bug 4582 does indeed make good background reading for this topic.


 * Of course the "right" solution long-term will be a move to wiki software that supports an "autoformat" markup syntax that doesn't overload the syntax for wikilink markup. (That is, the < > suggested early in bug 4582, rather than the square brackets currently in use.) But moving in that direction, as you suggest, is almost impossibly difficult. The question we should ask for MOSNUM is, "What's the best suggestion we can give today to editors who are creating or modifying articles?"


 * The best solution available today is also mentioned in bug 4582 -- markup using the  mechanism, simplified for editors by wrapping it in template syntax like Date. The difficulty with this might be explaining it to editors who frankly "don't want to know" about the ugly details. Or is there some other difficulty I don't yet see?


 * The major trouble with your idea of allowing editors to do no markup of dates whatsoever, is that we will lose valuable meta-information when they unlink dates without using markup that allows that text to be later identified as dates that could be formatted according to per-user preferences (or per-article settings, or whatever).


 * Without any major change to wikimedia software, enwiki could impose arbitrary date formatting for readers who don't set a preference, including all anon-IP readers. (Note that if anon readers dislike the arbitrarily imposed format we can tell them, "One advantage of creating and logging into an account is that you can select your own preference for this.") This proposal could be implemented in days (minutes really, eh?) and would immediately alleviate one of the major concerns driving this, i.e. the anon-IP readers seeing inconsistently formatted wikilinked dates. But by encouraging unwikilinked dates this immediately avaliable solution is being made less valuable! (sdsds - talk) 06:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sd—Sorry, I didn't watch your page (got a bloated watchlist already, as I'm sure you do too). Can you buzz if you reply here further? To take your points para by para:
 * Well, my overriding reaction is: do you really think it's worth bothering with? The order of month and day seems as trivial as the or/our spelling, or the traveling/travellling couplet. All very recognisable by all anglophones. My own daily newspaper uses [month day, year], when the prevailing format in my country is the international: I suspect that few readers have consciously notice it, and indeed I didn't myself until I had to grapple with the fuss at WP! The US military sector uses international, and many Canadians do. Doesn't seem to be an issue to me. I suppose if I were a computer programmer I might be motivated by the technical challenge of "fixing up" the function, but it would be such a tangled business to make it flexible (date ranges too, please) as well as devising the right syntax to render it plain black. Someone will always have a better way at Bugzilla pages, you've noticed too. That makes developers wary and turns them off, typically. A "right" solution needs a "right" problem, which is missing.
 * "Some other difficulty?"—removing the ungainly square brackets and avoiding them when first writing an article is simple in concept: everyone can understand it, including newbies. Yes, it's harder to get people to substitute another syntax (although, to argue your case, a script could easily be written to change them over and/or add them). Apart from getting people to agree on a new syntax—no easy thing—remember that WikiMedia software is used by a huge number of sites worldwide. Any new syntax proposal has to avoid interfering with locally registered syntaxes and local usage. We'd need to be sure that no one was using with functional meaning in their text. Someone objected early on to, didn't they?
 * Losing valuable meta-information. I'm not even a script-writer, let alone a programmer, but I can see how dates can easily be identified in a text by a simple script, if required in the future (in fact, a script that picked up faulty and inconsistent date formats would be easy to write, too, I suspect—that could be done at the same time. The loss of square brackets appears to be inconsequential in that respect.
 * Arbitrary formatting imposed on IP users: I think many users and readers would object, just as they would to a dictum that only British spelling is to be used on WP. The binary spelling and date-formatting arrangement does two good things: it's the minimum that will calm ruffled feathers across the Atlantic; and (2) it's simple enough to manage.

I still think simple wins out: remove it, since it's a solution chasing a non-problem. Let me know of any further thoughts you have. Tony  (talk)  00:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shavit 2
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Shavit 2, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooops!
I think I overlooked this :/ Did you get any answer to this from anyone else? I'll have a look if you like, but it's totally not my area of expertise ... - A l is o n  ❤ 06:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries! I know there are mechanisms (email, irc, bug databases, etc.) to which some members of the community have access off-wiki where they can request server software configuration changes. I wish a similar mechanism existed within the wiki, but if it doesn't, I won't champion the crusade to create one. (That is, I wish the English language Wikipedia were a democracy, yet recognize it is instead controlled by a fearsome cabal. ;-) (sdsds - talk) 06:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My edit here expresses my sentiment about this. (sdsds - talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI
I'm unsure why you're going to ANI. You did put your case, but people generally didn't agree with it. Given that there is overwhelming support for the deprecation of DA, what do you hope to achieve by posting a note there? I can't really see how I can participate there at the moment—nothing substantive to defend or comment on. Tony  (talk)  10:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, you as an active participant in the debate attempted to close the debate and assert there was consensus. This is not in keeping with Wikipedia convention for closing debates. (sdsds - talk) 11:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You make it seem like a one-person campaign. Yet the most substantial changes came today and were not my doing. Aren't you flogging a dead horse? The consensus was overwhelming and you don't agree with it, that's all. It's not as though people didn't engage with your point of view; look at my effort on your talk page. And please do not post negative comments—any comments—within someone else's post, as you've done at GA talk. I've relocated it to where it belongs chronologically, with a note in square brackets. Tony   (talk)  11:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sd, for you note on my talk page; however, in the spirit of collaboration and consensus, I'm still keen to know whether you feel differently after a few months or so. Do keep in touch. Tony   (talk)  04:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My note at AN/I was directed at anybody who could explain exactly what the thread was intended to achieve. I still don't understand why this discussion of a minor disagreement over date formatting has been posted on a noticeboard used for requests for urgent admin intervention. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Craters and spaceflight

 * Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight. (sdsds - talk'') 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

SIM PlanetQuest
I wanted to alert you to my comments here. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes
You had participated back in February in this CfD regarding the Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes, which ended in no consensus. A new proposal has been made to eliminate this category and merge its contents to Category:War documentaries which is now going on at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 24. You are encouraged to reconsider the original CfD, revisit your opinion in that discussion and participate again in this latest CfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Feitian spacesuit
Hey, just a heads-up, I moved your new article Feitian space suit over to Feitian spacesuit, as that is a more common spelling. So you might want to add the new one to your watchlist as well. &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 02:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh...whoops. I didn't think to look at those.  I guess they are pretty interchangeable, and if "Space suit" is the de facto standard for WP articles, I can see why it would be better to keep things that way for consistency.  If you want, you can move the new article back to its original location; personally, I don't really have a preference.  &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just moved it back. As far as I know, moving over a redirect page works the same as moving to any other pages.  Let me know if you see anything in the article that's gotten messed up through the moving back & forth.  &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 03:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! Sorry I jumped the gun with the first move.  &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 03:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Gerard K. O'Neill
Thanks for assessing Gerard K. O'Neill. It help me to improve the article if you could let me know which of the B-class criteria the article did not meet. Wronkiew (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for spending the time to reassess the article. Wronkiew (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Range
Hi - the article starts out with: "The Eastern Range (ER) is a rocket range that supports missile and rocket launches from the two major launch heads..." -- The term "launch head" is not used anywhere else in the article, and is not defined. Could we Wiki link to a (new) article, simply defining what a launch head is, or perhaps even listing some? 63.75.83.149 (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wasn't logged in when I posted the above comment -- MithrasPriest (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:International Space Station/Comments
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Colds7ream (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Marriage Privatization DRV
In view of your edits at Marriage, please consider commenting at Marriage Privatization DRV. If you know where in Wikipedia that the idea of marriage privatization is covered, please post that in the DRV as well. Thanks. -- Suntag  <font color="#FF8C00">☼  17:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:HSF Taskforces Proposal
Hey Sdsds, just a quick request - I've put up a proposal at WikiProject Human spaceflight/Taskforce proposal as to as possible structure for some taskforces for WP:HSF. If you could take a look and see what you think, I'd very much appreciate some feedback! :-) Thanks in advance! Colds7ream (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
<div style="padding: 5px; background: #F0F8FF; border-style: ridge; border-width: 8px; width: 60%; border-color: #03C03C; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; "> <div style="margin-top: 1px; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 3px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 80%; float:center;"> A special message, just for you! → → → → <font family: Verdana; color=#000000> Happy holidays, Sdsds! May your holidays be filled with family, friends, and fun, and may the new year bring you much joy. <font color="8B00FF">Ariel <font color="F64A8A">♥ <font color="007FFF">Gold 21:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC) As with many designs on Wikipedia, this one was of course, inspired by the wonderfully talented <font color=#9966CC>Phaedriel , the "design Obi Wan".

Flagged Revs
Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009
It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Userbox and other stuff
Hope you don't mind, but I borrowed one of your userboxes.

On another note, about your comment on spacewalks lists with templates, have you tried making these templates? And can references be linked through the templates to a reference list at the bottom of an article? Thanks,WVhybrid (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you find the userbox is useful! As regards the spacewalk lists -- I pretty much agree with the opinion you expressed on the article talk page, i.e. other efforts (like getting to featured-list quality) are probably better uses of time/energy. Indeed, using the template mechanism to generate sub-lists based on selectors may always be "too complex" for any real uses. (sdsds - talk) 09:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

==== Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Launch Windows
Sdsds, I've made a schedules of launch windows of Hohmann orbits from various departure planets to various destination planets. They may be found at http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/sched.html. Also on the page is the spreadsheet (downloadable) that calculates the schedules, delta vee, trip times and more. Would this resource be a good link for your Launch Windows article? Thanks for your time, Hop David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.34.250 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

-MBK004 21:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page. Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyuga
Thanks for thinking of me. I'm extremely intrigued about these vessels and will certainly have a look and do some investigating on my own, but in the mean time I've placed a notice for extra comment from WP:SHIPS here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships. Hopefully some good ideas will come from this. -MBK004 17:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:SRST Figure1.jpg
File:SRST Figure1.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:TacSat-1.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently in space category
Thanks for you comments at my page—I had overlooked my reference to WP:USELESS, as I was just focusing on my initial nominating statement. I hope it's alright with you, but I've quoted you at the nomination—the part about the category not being neglected by any lack of updates. The obvious enthusiasm for the category that you've pointed out has somewhat dampened my conviction that deletion is the correct choice with this category. For now I'll keep the nomination open and see what others think. I'm sorry if you've felt the space categories are under assault lately—pretty much coincidence of an ongoing interest at CfD, I suppose, but nothing coordinated between editors. At least not with me .... Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tenmei
User:Tenmei has filed an ArbCom case against me and I have done a little research on Tenmei and noted you have interacted with this user. Can you help provide an opinion about him? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty/Evidence

Talkback
<font color="#115566">G <font color="#496636">W … 07:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I funny?
Do you think im funny? 99.29.236.85 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC).

Talkback
<font color="#115566">G <font color="#496636">W … 06:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Launch Windows
I notice one of the articles you've worked on is Launch Windows. My page lists various Hohmann Launch Windows. From this page you can also download a spreadsheet where you can type in departure and destination planets. You can also type in periapsis and apoapsis altitudes for the orbit you're departing from/arriving at.

The sheet returns launch windows, trip times, arrival dates, and delta vees.

The schedule and spreadsheet may be found at: http://www.clowder.net/hop/railroad/sched.html

Thank you,

Hop David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.34.250 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hydyne article appreciated
Thanks for doing the Hydyne article. I noticed you're also an economics literate contributor: if by chance you have a hankering to assist in the prevention of environmental degradation, kindly contribute to Environmental tariff. There's a fair amount of literature readily available, and what's been created on the article so far doesn't do the concept justice. Tnx --HarryZilber (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * from SDSDS: ....These stages get dropped, still containing residual fuel, somewhere in the middle of Kazakstan! In regards you other comment, I wonder if an environmental tariff approach would hasten Russian conversion to less toxic propellants?

I've heard/read about the problem with unspent propellants still residing in components that survived reentry -there are probably relatively easy engineering solutions to it, perhaps for example, by including destruct charges that automatically fire during reentry, attached to each toxic fuel tank. As general threats to humankind go, however, that problem is way, way down near the very bottom i.m.h.o. (famous last words -watch a fuel tank crash into the downtown core of a metropolis next week).

The most severe threats to human societies can be divided into two general categories: those of human origin (nuclear Armageddon + nuclear winter, global warming, etc....), and those of non-human origin (mega-tsunamis, asteroidal impacts, etc...).

Nuclear armageddon has been left off because the causes/countermeasures are self-evident and are already being addressed at almost all levels on an on-going basis. For the other major human-origin item shown above, the response and countermeasures to global warming and environmental degradation can likely be dealt with fairly quick.

Positioning cometary movers and the like in deep space will likely take decades to achieve for an unknown, but real risk (and which needs to be done). However global warming, despite all the winter-related humor from the pundits, is here and its here now. Removing harmful types of manufacturing, energy production, and fuels from use world-wide will take significant efforts at very high costs, but those large scale efforts need to be started immediately. Even simpler: helping the politicos by encouraging them to use good tools such as environmental tariffs is a quick way to introduce positive changes, which is why a polished, detailed expansion of that article, plus translations, needs to be implemented. Your help in putting this suggestion forward to the WikiProject Economics group would be appreciated. --HarryZilber (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

TMM
Thank you. It's been rewarding working on the article. Lionelt (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

NASA GAR
hi Sdsds, I just wanted to let you know that the main NASA article is undergoing a Good Article Review. Most of the gruntwork is done now, and the article could use a fresh set of eyes to copy edit it, add more materiel, and offer suggestions and feedback. If you have a chance, I would appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks! — V = I * R  (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

NEW CATEGORY PAGE
Hello Washington-user!! What do you think of this category? Either on a scale of 1-10 or with commentary. Let me know through the "Special:EmailUser/" section. #TTiT# 13:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Traveller-in-Tacoma (talk • contribs)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  05:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

SMOS satellite
You are absoltely right. I fixed that. Thank you. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC4.
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Qian
It is a bit ambiguous - "After World War II he served under von Kármán as a consultant to the United States Army Air Force, and was given the temporary rank of colonel." I suppose that would make him temporarily personnel. Neutralitytalk 07:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your tone at AfD:Galaxy Express Corporation
Hi there. I'd like to take a second to point out that I think your tone at Articles_for_deletion/Galaxy_Express_Corporation was a bit uncalled-for. We are all here to benefit Wikipedia and there is no need to not assume good faith just because of proposed deletion of an article. I am naturally not an expert in that field, and what you have pointed out in that discussion is neither written anywhere in the article nor would I be able to find it in sources without knowing what I am looking for. This is why these discussions exist -- they are not something you should take personally. --Shirik (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Shirik (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shirik (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Shirik (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Galaxy Express Corporation
Just to let you know, I've withdrawn the nomination at WP:Articles for deletion/Galaxy Express Corporation. This should give it some time for us to cite more reliable sources regarding its notability and to find additional projects, as well as to identify if the cancellation of the project is in fact true. Hopefully there are no hard feelings about the deletion proposal. --Shirik (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dates in sortable tables
Just so you know, you can use dts to make dates sort properly without using ISO dates. --NE2 18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Very cool -- thanks! (sdsds - talk) 01:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative launch vehicles comment
Discussion transferred to Talk:Multi-Purpose_Logistics_Module. (sdsds - talk) 00:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Sdsds, why do you feel mention of other launchers should not be made here? Otherwise the impression will be that future use of MPLMs will be ruled out once the Shuttle is retired, which is simply not true. Moving these remarks elsewhere seems difficult, what other page would be more appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.177.81 (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your comment refers to this edit to the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module article. My edit summary was, "Removed discussion of non-shuttle vehicles transporting MPLMs. That material does not belong here."


 * My edit summary could have been a lot better; I apologize for any confusion it caused! There is nothing wrong with the MPLM article discussing transport of MPLMs using non-Shuttle vehicles.  Please find reliable sources for these proposals and add them back to the article.  I suggest, though, finding someplace other than the "Pressurized Multipurpose Module" section for this.  Maybe create a new section?  My understanding is that from the perspective of the ISS program there is to be one and only one PMM, and it is to be transported by Shuttle.  That's what I meant by my too-brief edit summary. (sdsds - talk) 00:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot
Thanks, this will take some checking! Rich Farmbrough, 09:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Seattle Children's Theatre


The article Seattle Children's Theatre has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Un-addressed advert tag from July 2009, unreferenced, no indication of notability, appears to fail WP:ORG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Seattle Children's Theatre
Jezhotwells (talk) has nominated Seattle Children's Theatre, an article that you created, for deletion. The editor does not believe that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and they have explained why at Articles for deletion/Seattle Children's Theatre. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics census
Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.
 * Firstly, thank you for signing the census, and an apology if you are one of those editors who dislike posts such as this one for messaging you again in this way. I've now got myself organised and you can opt-out of any future communication at WP:WikiProject Economics/Newsletter. Just remove your name and you won't be bothered again.


 * Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to invite your comments on the census talk page about the project as a whole. I've given my own personal opinion on a range of topics, but my babbling is essentially worthless without your thoughts - I can't believe for one moment that everyone agrees with me in the slightest! :)


 * All your comments are welcomed. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:International_Space_Station
Thought this discussion might be of interest to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalox (talk • contribs) 11:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
This is a (belated) followup to a discussion you participated in last year on Talk:Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite <font color="#115566">G <font color="#496636">W … 13:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Basically, it isn't the spacecraft you're talking about, but I think you should consider using the Russian name Kompas-2 rather than COMPASS-2, since I think it is slightly more common in English usage, and also it keeps the English name free for another satellite in case we have difficulty disambiguating one in the future. <font color="#115566">G <font color="#496636">W … 23:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Soyuz articles
Hello, there's a discussion regarding article naming (here) of Soyuz / Salyut articles, and we are having difficulty reaching a consensus.. maybe you could help out; thanks. Mlm42 (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. (sdsds - talk) 22:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Human spaceflight activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Timeline of Spaceflight activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight at 07:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Space reorganization
Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:


 * 1) Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
 * 2) Separate the Astronomy and Spaceflight "sides" of WikiProject, and remove WikiProject Space.

If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProjects Moon and Mars activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the space-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the lists of members of WikiProject Moon (here) and Mars (here). If you still consider yourself to be an active editor either of these projects, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Solar System at 17:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 18:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

Flight dynamics (satellites)
Hi. Back in 2008, you commented on the Talk page of an article that is currently named Flight dynamics (satellites). There are several discussions going on over there now and your input would be very much appreciated on each topic. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:33, 13 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 16:26, 16 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 14:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:45, 24 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 00:22, 2 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 09:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

WikiProject Rocketry activity check
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as being a member of WikiProject Rocketry. In order to establish how many members are still actively editing within the project, if you still consider yourself to be an active member of WikiProject rocketry, please go to WikiProject Rocketry/Members and move your name from the list of inactive members at the bottom of the page to the list of active members at the top of the page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Rocketry at 19:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of JPSS


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

If you think 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. 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

sample return
I don't know how you're supposed to do this "officially", but for the sample return article I'd say we should greatly expand the History section before I'd consider it B quality. I've read of dozens of proposals, but none of these are covered in any depth. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Next shuttle mission listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Next shuttle mission. Since you had some involvement with the Next shuttle mission redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearing out your sandbox
You have material sitting in User:Sdsds/Sandbox which has not been touched in years. Could you delete this? Some of this material is landing high on certain Wikipedia searches, which begins to raise WP:FAKEARTICLE concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was getting your sandbox as the second result for this search (your results may vary, as Google stacks results differently depending on the user who searches.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Elevator rocket vs. Sounding rocket
I was looking up Orion (rocket) today and found your comment on the article talk page. I've gone ahead and made the change with a link to sounding rocket. I've never heard the term elevator rocket before. Bob305 (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Typography request on File:1000px-Atmosphere layers-en.PNG
File:1000px-Atmosphere layers-en.PNG has been corrected, as per your request.... Done. And thank you! :) Kelvin Case (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Space_Shuttle_main_engine
As a significant contributor to that article, you are invited to participate in a discussion about its title. All input welcome. Thank you, <sup style="color:green;">walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 14:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Launching and Category:Current spaceflights
Hi; since you commented at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 23, you may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Launching concerning the categories emitted by. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Sdsds! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Human-rating certification
An article that you have been involved in editing, Human-rating certification, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Horizons Satellite


A tag has been placed on Horizons Satellite 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 a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. AusLondonder (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for RD-107
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;RD-107 &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Baldusi (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Based on your previous work with the spaceport template, you may be interested in the change of names mentioned here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Horizons Satellite


The article Horizons Satellite has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

re: Horizons Satellite
I am fine with merger, you are welcome to execute it and remove the prod. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Sdsds! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)