User talk:Tuvas

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 21:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Mars Curse
You were right, that the phrasing was bad... I went back in and edited it to make it clear that 13 of 36 overall missions succeeded, and 5 of 11 landing tries succeeded. Good catch. That's the sort of stuff that someone who's been editing forever and knows the subject so well we don't have to read it all for comprehension usually miss. Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 05:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

LPL Logo
Hi Ben. I'm glad to see the start of a Lunar and Planetary Laboratory article. I might suggest that you crop the text out of the logo image. --BlueMoonlet 03:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Spamlink?
Regarding your reversion of my reversion, the web site in question has a Google PageRank of 2/10 and an Alexa Ranking of about 2,150,828. That means the web site isn't notable enough to be included as an external link on Wikipedia. There was someone who said that if a web site will benefit greatly from being included on Wikipedia, it's not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. That's what I believe, and that's why I removed the link (note that I still kept the name of the event when I removed the link). Now, I don't get into a habit of getting into a revert war, so that's why I'm bringing this up in your talk page, and I'd like you to reconsider. Thanks, --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No problems. Do you mind if I revert back to my version? --Deathphoenix ʕ 02:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

FAC
You may want to check your spelling in the FAC submission. Also, the Peer Review has toi be archived before FAC. I did this and posted a note to the submission. Jtmichcock 14:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

--Additional Peer Review== I have added this to Scientific peer review/Science to get some feedback from persons knowledgeable in the scientific field. Jtmichcock 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of the help! Tuvas 16:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Under the table
Hey, I just wanted to say that what you're doing with the MRO page is AWESOME - it's really come a long way since the first time I saw it. Also, I know you've been editing it a lot longer than I have and I didn't want to piss anyone off by jumping in too fast. But now I see that I'm doing it anyway. :) Anyway, I'm not easily offended and I take you to be one of the leads (if not THE lead) on the article (if there is such a thing).  Please revert my changes if they're too annoying (will/koeppen).  --will 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Guess we're on grammar duty now. Thanks for pushing this stuff at the FAC - I just read the comments and am trying to work through the article again with a more discerning eye.--will 06:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, so I didn't know if you had any particular desire to keep the sentence you just added to MRO science operations and extended mission section, but I think it says [almost exactly] the same thing as the sentence directly preceding it. I just didn't want to delete it if there was something specific you were going for.  In your edit summary you said something to the effect of "adding more than just HiRISE stuff", but I think the previous sentence is so general (studying geology, atmosphere, climate, weather, and ice) that it certainly applies to all the instruments.--Koeppen 22:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Astronomy Collaboration of the Week
Mars is the Astronomy Collaboration of the week for the week of June 13-19. --Volcanopele 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Viking
Hello, I was on the Lander engineering team for the Viking landers at the Martin Marietta plant in Colorado, worked on the lander simulation software and component level testing for three years. I was wondering if any of the softer anecdotes and might be useful in the articles. For example, I know details about the loss of communications that Lander 2 went through during descent, and I know a lot of engineering detail on the landers as well. SkoreKeep 12:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your unprotection request on WP:RFPP
Your unprotection request for Harry Potter book seven has been granted. Kimchi.sg 08:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Help in translation
Hey Tuvas, I've found you in the Babel categories and I'd like to know if you could give me a hand in translating an e-mail added on both these images: Image:Junior torino.jpg and Image:Junior92.jpg. Regards —Lesfer (talk/@) 23:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your time and your help, Tuvas! :D —Lesfer (talk/@) 22:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh it's no problem
Cheers Tuvas. --P-Chan 17:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Big shiny welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Firefly WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Firefly's coverage of topics.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our style guidelines outline some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every Firefly article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow Browncoat, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Keep flyin'plange 01:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple English
Oi. Por acaso você não teria vontade de contribuir também no Simple English Wikipedia em artigos relacionados ao Brasil? Obrigado. --Paulistanum 21:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

August 2006 Firefly Newsletter
The August 2006 issue of the Firefly WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 01:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

MRO
Do you know more info about the solar conjunction mentioned on the MRO page? Is it from October 7 to November 8, 2006 or is it an N day thing that will happen somewhere in that period? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That does help. I have clarified the article so it says "from". Also I noticed that the cubesat you worked on got blown to smithereens. That sucks, are more being built? -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for bringing your technical knowledge of the MRO and other space-related things to wikipedia - it is much appreciated :) Mlm42 10:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter
RHB(AWB) 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC), on behalf of WPHarry Potter

WikiProject_Space reorganisation
Hi, it has been suggested here that the project WikiProject Mars spacecraft is to be depreciated. It's proposed that its duties be split between WikiProject Mars, and WikiProject Space Exploration, in order to increase the critical mass. If you have an opinion concering this, could you leave on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space/Reorganisation page, thanks, sbandrews 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hallow
An editor has nominated Hallow, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

titles of DH
Why have you removed the quote for representatives for JKR saying they "often registered spares" etc...

It brings a bit of neutrality to all this "registered titles" thing, and without it, the reader has the impression that the 2 similar titles are indeed the ones, and we still don't know that.

We have to put things in a neutral way, in order not to impose the readers any opinion. Like "we can note a similarity with these titles, however it doesn't mean anything yet since WB have admitted they often registered spare titles, so these 2 titles could be spares, or not, we don't know". But just saying "there are 2 similar titles period" is a bit disturbing for the readers, either they don't understand what's going on whith "registered titles", or they are going to assume these titles are necessarily the ones, since they have no more info on the subject warning them about potential spare titles...Folken de Fanel 20:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

update: I've just seen you've just removed the mention of "registered titles". In my opinion it's the best solution, since it will avoid future fights concerning how the thing should be presented so as not to sound too OR, etc. Since in fact we don't know anything, we indeed should avoid unnecessary and obscure hypotheses barely sourced and which are likely to bring NPOV concerns...Folken de Fanel 20:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that on such a controversial subject, we should avoid, well...controversies ! After all, these are still attempts at guessing things we have no way to know for sure. We're still in the dark.
 * I'm not targetting anyone in particular, but it's true there are many who are indeed more interested in speculating than being stricly encyclopedical, and we should try to make these people understand this is just not the right focus for now. We should keep away from such controversial matters, where it's impossible to have more/better external sources which would make them less OR-ish...
 * I mean, the book is out on July 21st, only 3 months from now...It's just not worth all the troubles. We have more important things to care about, than to lose our time with controversial speculations and in disputes of the kind...There are matters, in my opinion, more pressing than speculations about a book that is out in 3 little months, and it would just bring too much wars for too little benefits.Folken de Fanel 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you believe that Folken, then I suggest you take your own advice. Sandpiper 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * update: well, the sad thing is that we're dealing with the 2 most mule-headed and self-centered users on Wikipedia. There have been conflicts with those 2 for months now. I think we should settle this issue once and for all, because obviously, if we don't do anything, we'll have the same fights over and over for the 3 next months. Folken de Fanel 21:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * well that one made me laugh, too. In two years I have never had a disagreement with anyone on HP to the extent that I disagree with Folken's edits and approach. The next most likely would be with Michael, but a long way behind. Sandpiper 21:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhm, can you please keep fighting, name calling, etc, to places other than my talk page? Thanks! Tuvas 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you voluntarily joined in with the argument? Sandpiper 19:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Help Needed with Cydonia article
Hello Tuvas ! I've just been defending myself on the Cydonia Mars talk page Cydonia_(Mars). At least I defended my honour, kinda thing. LOL! I think I'm right overall, but I'm NOT sure if I'm right in terms of Wikipedia editing. User:Mikker said "This is an article about a scientific topic, hence NPOV requires us to present the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is that there is nothing to see. If you disagree with this consensus, I suggest you do some research, publish it in a peer-reviewed science journal and try to convince the scientific community. THEN if you convince them, come back here". Is this right ? Look at my answer. I have included the example of an article on the paranormal not including the mention of psychics because it's "not Scientifically proven". Even so I'm on shaky ground. After a certain Richard C Hoalgland introduced his nuuttery to the field, it's been almost impossible to talk about Cydonia in any terms without getting guffawed at ! :( BUT there are published papers and research about Cydonia. There IS a five sided "Pyramid" at Cydonia that is CLEARLY visible on images. It is not a mirage or hallucination. In fact Cydonia is covered with strange looking geology. None of this is covered in the article! Don't you find this strange ? It COULD just be geology, and I guess Wikipedia is certainly not the place to put my own private speculations about them. But they ARE major features! I am uncertain how to proceed. At this rate I WILL put together a peer reviewed paper anyway! But Tuvas, what worries me is the "It must be Scientific" slant to any of these kind of articles. Is that really Encyclopedic in Wikipedia terms ? Is'nt Wikipedia supposed to be breaking away with the big establishment Scientific ideas ? I dont know, the whole spirit of the thing seems wrong! Like a re-run of stuffy paper encylopedia editing. When was Wikipedia ever some bastion of Scientific truth ? DJ Barney 01:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tuvas! I'm glad the tone of the discussion seemed to calm down. I won't put anything else there until I have considered this (on the Cydonia talk page). The current editors seem to have a point. The Wikipedia article they cite (NPOV) says that minority subjects don't have a place on Wikiepedia. I can see why. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes somebodies pet publicity trumpet for a subject. This is not my intention with the Cydonia article. I have seen some very valid research that is published out there that just happens to get missed because of the prevailing view. It would be nice to have it all referenced in one place ! After all this is the point of Wikipedia ! But I wonder if I should start a seperate "minority subject" article ? This would stop unecessary conflict on the main Cydonia article. I think I will just be constantly hounded and a proper article will never be completed ! A seperate article would be more sucessful and better maintained and would probably reflect the sociological state of the field. DJ Barney 18:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the star
Thank you for giving me a star on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. It was wholly unexpected and brightened my day. Thanks again for the kindness! Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows
Re: Please don't make edits again on the section Deathly Hallows until a complete consensus has been made. Right now AFAIK, you are the only one of the major editors to the article that is totally in favor of including more information. There are parts of me that are in favor of adding some of the information, but anything would be very limited, and I think I'm the only one who would even consider that much, again, AFAIK. I must warn you however, due to your long history of debate over such subjects, that if you continue to add in content in that section unless it has been agreed in a consensus, then I will have to pursue further action, possibly even to the level of talking outside of the page. I understand your enthusiasm, I've also been involved in some edit wars, at least two of them which made it to WP:LAME, both of which I lost to a degree, and given the chance, I'd bring the debates right back up. But this much I will state, that I am most in favor of finding a way to please all involved parties, and if that can't be done, then I will go with the flow of people. I should also add that I'm not afraid to take further action if needed, although I don't want to do so. You have made many valuable contributions to many articles, and I really don't want to have to do something that might stop that, but this much I will have to add. Sometimes, you just have to let it go. Tuvas 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Further to our continued debate on the talk page. I still do not consider that you answered my observation, that essentailly you were agreeing that the disputed content was admissable under wiki rules. I am therefore inclined to proceed on the assumption that you do agree this. Sandpiper 11:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Need Advice about "warzone" article
Hello Tuvas! I hope you can help me with this or pass me onto someone who can :) I want to edit the article Eli Lilly and Company, but am unsure. Apart from adding a nor-refs box and making some comments on the talk page I have deliberately not waded in as this article looks like a war zone to me! The page that did have references, although probably not NPOV, has been removed and put on the talk page. Should it even be quoted on the talk page ? It makes that whole page difficult to read. What is article, what is talk ? Ahhh! I'm not sure, but there seems to have been a lot of vandalism going on and the article has been forked as well (against guidelines). What do you think? Is there a way to approach this kind of thing. Wade in and edit anyway and cross my fingers ? Hmmm. A controversial article. Bush is mentioned. It's a Pharmaceutical company. There are some BIG problems in this industry at the moment, I know from personal experience. DJ Barney 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

MRO
Want to make another run at getting MRO to featured status? -Ravedave 05:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Phoenix_Spacecraft_MARDI.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix_Spacecraft_MARDI.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Phoenix_Spacecraft_Meca.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix_Spacecraft_Meca.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Phoenix_Spacecraft_ra_cam.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix_Spacecraft_ra_cam.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Phoenix_Spacecraft_ssi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix_Spacecraft_ssi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter roll-call
Hi there. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Harry Potter participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. Your name has therefore been moved to a "potentially inactive" list. If you still consider yourself an active WikiProject Harry Potter editor, please move your name from the Potentially inactive list to the Active Contributors list. You may also wish to add  to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. Conversely, if you do not wish to be considered a member of the WikiProject, leave your name where it is and it will be moved to the Inactive Contributors section. If you wish to make a clean break with the Project you may move your name to the Known to have left section. Many thanks.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Roran.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Roran.jpg. 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 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Phoenix_Spacecraft_RA.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Phoenix_Spacecraft_RA.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 02:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lpl logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lpl logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Tech arm.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tech arm.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 21:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Phoenix Spacecraft Met.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Phoenix Spacecraft Met.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MRO CTX camera.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MRO CTX camera.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mars spacecraft
Category:Mars spacecraft, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Falcon Heavy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Dragon. 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) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)