User talk:Xession

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on New Horizons. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. emerson7 05:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You can throw this warning in my face all you want but you just performed your own third revert. Be advised that you will be held accountable for engaging in an edit war yourself, and in the latest revert, you have posted no discussion on the matter.  I have stated my case with a clear set of evidence and you refuse to collaborate with me on this matter.  I will take this to a higher order if necessary to resolve this. --Xession (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Viking program
I was surprised to see that paragraph too. Oh well, it's taken care of. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice job! --BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Happy editing! --Xession (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

 * }

Personal Research
Hi Xession. Please don't panic when you see that Xession/Personal Research has been deleted. I have moved it to User:Xession/Personal Research Proposal. That gets it out of the article space and into your personal space, which is where I suspect you intended to create it anyway. This should prevent it getting deleted for not being an encyclopaedic article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

NASA images
Thanks so much! You've been a great help. So, I can use those pictures of the ice which are credited only to NASA in the multimedia gallery. Looking in that gallery, though, there seems to be another class of images. Can I use pictures, like this one (unfortunately I can't link directly to the image...It's number 11 in the "slideshow" I'm talking about), credited both to NASA and an individual? The credit, dirrectly quoted from the NASA page is "Credit: NASA/Jane Peterson, NSERC". Image number one in the slideshow, for comparison, has a credit that reads "Credit: Michael Studinger, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory", with no mention of NASA. So, my question is, can I use images credited to NASA and someone else, or only images credited exclusively to NASA? Thanks again. --E♴ (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm limited to my phone at the moment, so I can't see the image in question (Flash or Java use). However, if there is a secondary credit next to "NASA", generally that indicates the scene was photographed with a hand-held camera by a person of official capacity and on-duty status--meaning the image belongs to NASA because it was taken while on official business and for a specific purpose related to that person's job. However, more often than not, NASA chooses to leave off the names of individuals if there is no copyright. As such, it would probably be best to send someone on the Land Bridge team, an email asking for clarification. Such an email can be very brief and to the point but I would recommend making it professional as well as stating your actual reason for the question.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Example email Hello --title. specific name of person--,

I am doing some research for a Wikipedia Land Bridge article

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:E2eamon/ice_bridge) and had a

question regarding the use of an image on your website. The image

in question (--link to image-see bullet point below--), is credited to

NASA and Jane Peterson. I am curious regarding the licensing

of the image; is it copyighted and owned by Jane Peterson, or

is it in the public domain? If it is copyrighted, could you possibly

offer a way to contact Jane Peterson?

Thank you,

--your actual name--
 * }
 * to get the direct link to an image, as I placed in the post on the WP:SF page, go to the selected image and click "full screen" which should bring you to an individual page.
 * Lastly, in regards to the second image you mentioned, it will certainly need to be cleared by emailing the photographer and receiving a response granting permission as required by the Commons OTRS.
 * Always happy to be of help. --Xession (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That makes sense. I'll try and get out an email tonight.  --E♴ (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Current spaceflight template
Just FYI, I did not remove the template from the articles because of the TfD, I was merely following the template's guidelines, assuming the purpose of the template is similar to Template:Current (hence why I support the merge). If the purpose is different, the template's documentation should clearly state that. --Conti|✉ 15:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And for your information, if you had looked at the history of the pages, you would have noticed that the pages had already been reverted after TedderBot removed the same content. It is poor practice to take it upon yourself to remove them if there is clearly a discussion on the matter, and one of which you are in the minority of the opinion. --Xession (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the fine print here. My actions were done regardless of the discussion, and I would have done the same if it were already closed. It's not a "I removed the template because it shouldn't exist"-issue, it was a "I removed the template because - according to its own guidelines - it shouldn't be here"-issue. Regardless of the outcome of the TfD, the template should not be on those articles. That, or the guidelines need to be changed. --Conti|✉ 15:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it still stands that prior history of those articles, the exact same content, previously removed by TedderBot, was reverted to be reincluded in the article. Such actions can be considered disruptive when a discussion on the matter is ongoing. --Xession (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no discussion on the matter (although I would support having one). There is a proposal to merge the template, there is no discussion about when the template should be used and when it should not. The guidelines are very, very clear, so I thought the revert was a simple mistake or misunderstanding of them. I surely won't revert again, though. I'm still confused about the guidelines, though. Are they wrong, or are they not? --Conti|✉ 15:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

MESSENGER
Sorry for the simultaneous edit conflict entries. The unit conversions have been removed...do you want to fix that or do I do it? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my apologies as well. I didn't mean to seem hasty if I came off that way; just a little panicked to see that much info removed.  Totally understandable though.  I won't be editing anything where there are conversion so please, yes, go ahead and get rid of those. :)  Cheers mate! --Xession (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I know you are a serious and dedicated science editor and I did not take it wrong. I have the habit of copying the page before I save it because I have previously lost obscene amounts of data and references after a glitch with the connection.  Just last week I was acussed of deleting someone else's comment when I did this. Anyway, I think the units are done. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Xession - I think our difference re aerobraking could be narrowed to the issue of describing it as having been used to slow spacecraft "to orbital speed" when in fact they're already "at" orbital speed, and it has been used to reduce their orbital speed still further. Aerocapture reduces velocity "to" orbital speed, and someday it might be done with a planetary mission. I'll try a narrower rewrite, and see what you think. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * After reading your changes this time, I can certainly see the added clarity in the statement. I made a few more changes to it to clear any confusion about the matter. Sorry for the confusion previously. --Xession (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks fine now. Thanks!  Brian A Schmidt (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, good work =)

 * My goal is of course always first and foremost to inform the interested audience but it is very encouraging to see that my work is appreciated :). Thank you very kindly! --Xession (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

data rates from new horizons
could you have a look at this? To me, both sides of the discussion seem to be possibly true, but I'm not sure how to verify either, and I'm quite curious. Thanks, '''... '''aa:talk 12:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, and again I don't have a source handy but, I believe it to still be accurate that fewer data will be returned from the Plutonium system than the Jovian. Even if New Horizons is traveling slower than at Jupiter (which it is), Jupiter is exponentially larger than the entire Plutonium system.  The simple fact is that New Horizons took a trip around Jupiter from a further distance than it will at Pluto, offering a longer window of observations and there were a fair number of targets that have great distance between them, allowing for a much more lengthy observation of the Jovian system than will be possible at Pluto.  The tradeoff will be that we will have (if I recall properly) 1km resolution of the surface of Pluto whereas we didn't exceed probably 200km resolution on any target past Jupiter and the satellites. -Xession (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * seemed to me the discussion was more about bitrate than datas available, no? ... aa:talk 01:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flint Hills Discovery Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bethel College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
RadioFan (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight: Retirement of project member WD Graham
You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject Spaceflight. &#x0020;WD Graham, formerly operating under the editor name of GW Simulations, has retired from Wikipedia. Please pop on over to offer a remembrance, or thanks, or ... (...maybe talk him in to giving it another go.) Thanks. N2e (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)