User talk:N2e/Archive 3

Hi, I re-added a see also to the Bob Turner (politician) article that you removed. [1] with the explanatory edit summary: "rmv potentially non-NPOV see also link; if a source exists to support this link, it ought to be worked into the prose of the article, pre WP:BLP"

I hold the opposite view from the one you state. It seems pretty plain to me that See Also sections are by definition for links not discussed in the article. In fact, the MOS says See also contains "internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles... Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section".

The article is related as it explains the format or type of show Turner worked on in his most notable position - principally the Springer show. The Springer show is tabloid talk, and is linked to the wiki article on tabloid talk. Some of the other shows Turner was involved with can also be classed as tabloid talk such as the Sally Jesse Raphael Show. Putting the link in SA aids the reader who wants to know more about the type of show Turner was in charge of in his most notable position. To work the term into the article itself, is arguably undue emphasis that some would call a violation of BLP policy.

If you'd like to discuss this further, we probably should more the discussion over to the article page - I will check there and here for any response. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, the article Talk page would allow other interested editors to weigh in on the logic. I removed the link because the term Tabloid Talk is a pejorative and, in my view per WP policy, should not be associated with a person on a BLP without some reliable secondary source that would identify the person with the topic. Will engage the discussion on the Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In February 2011, you expressed interest in space debris, in a discussion now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Archive 3#The (outer) Space Environment. According to NASA: Satellite fell in south Pacific, not Canada - TribToday.com - News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - Tribune Chronicle - Warren, OH, Harvard University astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell tracks man-made space objects. You may be interested in Jonathan McDowell's Home Page. There is also Jonathan's Space Report.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wavelength. Yes, thanks for that. I just reread the previous discussion at the Wikiproject Environment project (in Archive #3, entitled The (outer) Space Environment. I'm still hoping that the mainstream environmentally-concerned Wikipedia editors will decide to better cover the near-Earth space environment and get that on to the "environmental radar screen." Looks like McDowell's stuff would definitely be a source, if an interested editor ever surfaces. Thanks again. N2e (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello my name is Afshin, I am the original creator of a page called: SANTUR

I own a website called www.santur.com

My father is considered the Grand Master of the Santur and was a professor at UCLA for over 25 years and still continues to lecture there. So that's where I'm getting most of my information from.

He never wrote a book for me to use as a citation. but if you look at his website bio, he is the authority on the subject. So how do I use him as a citation??

I've been babysitting this page for many years now. Unfortunately I'm not good at editing and writing on Wikipedia. I pulled it off many years ago with the help of Wiki editors who volunteered their help. The page has been attacked many times by various different people. First by Indian Santoor players and I helped Shivkumar Sharma a master of the Indian Santoor to have his own page and they did so. Recently I noticed the Arab invasion in this page. The Santur is a PERSIAN instrument. There is a big difference between Persians and Arabs. Although we use the same alphabet, we can't read each other's language. Our culture is similar in many ways but very different in art, music & overall culture.

Someone put a list of Iraqi Santur players. I copied the list and emailed it to Professor Ann Lucas at UCLA and she instructed me to remove it immediately. She said it was a joke and someone did that to make fun our page. There are a couple of names on there that are real (with links) that's fine. But the other names are NOT Real people. Many of them have the same last, middle or first names if you look closer.

I spent til 3am working with my father who is a scholar and master of the Santur. We edited the page and I am searching for someone to hire to verify and certify my edits. There's a picture of an Arabic Santur player and he's playing a PERSIAN 12 bridge Santur, not Iraqi Santur. The information on the Iraqi Music is INCORRECT. Iraq needs it's own page. It's pretty lame to mix the two. Ironically Iraq's Santur comes from Iran. Perhaps they can make their own page calling it: Santur in Iraq or Iraqi Santur. I don't understand why there needs to be an Arabic translation for Persian words on there. Chinese has a Yanqin and there's no Chinese translation for our Persian words, nor are there Greek, etc...

There are false facts about the origin and the meaning of the word Santur. There is NO proof of where the name came from. It does NOT mean "Mountain Sound, nor does it mean 100 Strings/Strains.

So it's really frustrating after doing so much work to get my work deleted like that. I'm not vandalizing the page. I created the page. originally I quoted my father's work on there and Wikipedia said I can't use text from my website. So I re-wrote it years ago. Now every time I don't check it for a while, someone comes on there and starts manipulating the facts and now making fun of our page by adding fake names to Iraqi section etc....

And then tonight I did minor edits: like using 3 fingers to hold the Mezrabs (mallets). I play Santur and every Santur player in the world uses THREE fingers: Thumb, Index & Middle.

I removed the UPSIDE down nasty picture of a Santur placed on a dirty carpet. With a picture of a Santur I own and uploaded.

Also: I moved the Indian & Greek Santur players UNDER the Iranian Santur players. Santur is a Persian/Iranian instrument. So do don't you think the Iranian Santur players should be listed first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santurman (talk • contribs) 09:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

AFTER DOING ALL MY EDITS I WENT TO THE HISTORY AND DIDN'T NOTICE THIS BEFORE DOING MY EDITS....THAT SOMEONE FROM WIKIPEDIA PUT A THREAT ON THERE THAT MY EDITS ARE CHILDISH AND THAT I COULD GET BANNED.

DAMM. I CAN'T BELIEVE I CAN GET BANNED FOR TRYING TO CORRECT THE INCORRECT DATA.

Do you have someone I can hire to help me for once fix this page and correct the facts?

I started reading the "How to Edit" pages you have on your site. I'm starting to understand it a little.

I won't make anymore changes until I learn or hire someone to do it the right way.

BELOW IS THE MAJOR EDIT I MADE WITH THE DIRECTION OF MY FATHER. AGAIN THIS IS THE CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF THE SANTUR. EXAMPLE: THE SANTUR HAS 24 UNIQUE NOTES NOT 23, IT IS PLAYED WITH 3 FINGERS NOT 2, THERE IS NO COMBINATION OF BRASS & COPPER STRINGS. IT'S EITHER BRASS OR COPPER. THE ORIGIN & DEFINITION OF THE NAME HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN. THE WORD SANTUR IS JUST A NAME THAT APPEARS IN ANCIENT PERSIAN POETRY *(AND THE DEFINITION IN THE INDIAN SANTOOR PAGE IS ALSO WRONG AND THEY JUST MADE UP THEIR OWN DEFINITION.

THERE IS A PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA ON DASTGAH'S & THE PERSIAN RADIF: SO THAT IS A FACT IN THIS WEBSITE & HUNDREDS OF BOOKS AND WEBSITES, SANTUR'S ARE MADE OF WALNUT OR MAHOGANY, NOT EXOTIC WOODS, THE PICTURES DEPICTED IN THIS PAGE ARE NOT ALL SANTURS, SOME OF THEM ARE ANCIENT HARPS, THE IRAQI SANTUR PLAYER IS PLAYING A PERSIAN 12 BRIDGE SANTUR, THE "DAMA" ARE ARABIC BRIDGES THAT SLIDE AND HAVE HANDLES AND ARE NOTHING LIKE THE PERSIAN KHARAK'S AND DAMA IS NOT A TRANSLATION FOR THE WORD KHARAK, AND THE IRAQI SANTUR IS NOT CHROMATIC. AND THE LIST GOES ON.... BELOW IS THE CORRECT DEFINITION OF THE SANTUR:

The santur (also santūr, santour, santoor ) (Persian: سنتور) is a Persian hammered dulcimer. It is a trapezoid-shaped box often made of walnut wood. The mallets (Mezrabs) are feather-weight and are held by the thumb, index and middle fingers. The 72 string Persian santur has two sets of bridges, providing a range of approximately three octaves. The right-hand strings are made of a copper or brass strings, while the left-hand strings are made of steel. Two rows of 9 bridges called "kharak" (total of 18 kharaks) divide the santur into three octaves. Over each bridge crosses four strings spanning horizontally across the right and left side of the instrument. There are three sections of nine pitches: each for the bass, middle and higher octave called Poshte Kharak (behind the left bridges) comprising 27 bridges all together. The top "F" note is repeated 3 times, creating a total of 24 separate tones in the Santur. The Persian santur is primarily tuned to a variety of different diatonic scales utilizing 1/4 tones (semi-tones) which are designated into 12 Dastgah's (modes) of Persian classical music. These 12 Dastgah's are the repertory of Persian classical music known as the Radif.

Similar forms of the santur have been present in neighboring cultures like India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Armenia, Turkey, Iraq and Greece. The Indian santoor is wider, more rectangular and has more strings. Its corresponding mallets are also held differently played with a different technique. The Chinese yangqin and the Greek santouri also derived from the santur. The eastern Europe version of the santur called the cimballum which is much larger and chromatic is used as an accompanying instrument in gypsy music.

please help.

thanks,

Afshin

Santurman (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Santurman. I will be happy to help you learn to be a better editor on Wikipedia. I see there is a lot of information about the Santur, and regional/national variations, in the information you just gave me. I think we will get back to that, which relates to the specific content on the Santur page, a bit later. I am confident that your knowledge of the santur, and willingness to help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia in its coverage of this topic, can help improve the Santur page over time.

First off however, it will be good for you to work to learn a few additional things about editing on Wikipedia. I placed a note on your Talk page that refers to the "five pillars of Wikipedia." You should definitely take a look at all of them, as each of the five are important. But I'd like to start with just emphasizing one of the five pillars.

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced impartial manner. We try to avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources for claims.

I think this one pillar alone will give you and I enough to work on initially. So the first idea to take from this is that while you may have expertise in the subject, and your father be a particularly helpful source to you in learning about the history of the santur, Wikipedia has specific policies that focus all editors toward utilizing verifiable sources for supporting the claims an editor wants to make, and specific policy against original research.

Take a look at those big ideas about editing Wikipedia, and then let's start by discussing how we might make a small, relatively simple change to the article that is backed up by a source. While you might want to make many many changes, and make them rapidly, I think your edits will have a much better chance of withstanding the test of time in Wikipedia if we start your learning process with a smaller/single change. That will let you begin to see the process by which you can best improve Wikipedia, while keeping other editors happy as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi N2e, this is an old, and low-priority edit, but one that's puzzled me a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orbital_inclination&diff=next&oldid=303404722 "In particular, for the Earth, the obliquity of the ecliptic is the angle between the plane of the ecliptic and the equator.^{[citation needed]}" As far as I can tell, the statement tagged as CN is simply a standard definition of the term. What would be the WP proper way to cite an expression understood to be a "common definition" within its field? Online dictionaries restate the term in a few different ways: http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/obliquity+of+the+ecliptic . Would it be better to cite a paper dictionary? Or Wiktionary? Or am I thinking about this in the wrong way? --Raduga (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raduga. Glad to help. You are correct that there is a way in which such a claim ought to be sourced in Wikipedia so that it is easily verifiable. The simple solution is to write a good inline citation to a secondary source. Dictionaries are considered tertiary sources, so they are not as good a source as a secondary source. I will be glad to help write a good citation; can you locate a good secondary source? (preferably, but not an absolute requirement, one with an online link that can take the Wikipedia reader to it to demonstrate the claim's verifiability.) Personally, I know little about orbital mechanics and astro-science; but as you point out, this may very well be common knowledge among those who are "in the know." It's just that, in Wikipedia, such a claim from someone's head and without a source is typically considered original research. So find a good source, perhaps in a textbook or from an online science site, and I'll be happy to help get a citation in there. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. It is entirely unclear why you added maintenance tags to Children of Men, so I have reverted your changes. Please use the talk page or explain here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Super. Glad to discuss, per WP:BRD. I have responded to your request in the comment summary on the Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's do the discussion on the article Talk page. (Moved Viriditas second comment on this Talk page to the article Talk page). N2e (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Even though it didn't require it, I have taken the liberty of rewriting the lead. I'll be adding more in the next few days. Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

==Tad Confused. Hey N2e, I'm just contacting you because I'm slightly confused. I just received a notification informing me that my edit on crime in Venezuela was 'nonconstructive'. However, I don't quite understand how editing out 'lol' and the likes in a sentence referring to the homicide rate of Caracas is nonconstructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.3.20 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It appears you were the editor who fixed the problem, and not the editor who did the vandalism. The caution has been removed from the anon IP address that did the edit. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, wouldn't ever want to be accused of such idiocy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.3.20 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The edit I made was a correction of the proper dash and year format when showing a span of years. However, I inadvertantly transposed "1692" to "1962" in my correction. Regarding your warning template added to my talk page, you should familiarize yourself with WP:DTTR. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You should also be careful about using rollback in an arcile when you're unsure the edit made was vandalism, since rollback should only be used when there is obvious vandalism (Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When to use rollback). Sottolacqua (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello N2e, last week I came online and found the Santur page destroyed by User: Iraqisantur so I kept reverting the page back to the original that I spent 2 weeks editing, citing and making historically correct. I submitted a complaint to Wikipedia for constant vandalizing. Finally someone stepped in and put a stop to the nonsense. I noticed she created a page called Iraqi Santur. Which you were on and you added -citation needed- to various parts of the page and so did other users. She just deleted everything you guys did and doesn't feel she needs to cite real references. I don't care about the Iraqi Santur page, I just want to make sure she doesn't come back onto the Santur page and start deleting what ever she doesn't like. There's a conference in Philadelphia next month on Ethnomusicology and my father and I are attending. So the professors of music I've been working with to update the Santur page are going to be there and my father is giving a lecture on the Santur, so I want to make sure that this page doesn't get vandalized again while we're there. Any way to lock it up so no one can do that??

Santurman (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia doesn't "lock up" pages; one of the core principles of Wikipedia is that WP:anyone can edit. Wikipedia articles are improved, at the margins, and over time, by a succession of edits. If someone vandalizes a page, it is pretty easy to change it back. If another editor just has a different approach to editing, or thinks things ought to be said differently, or content included or not-included, then that is usually best handled on the Talk page, and by assuming good faith on the part of the other editor. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Lbkeane (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Lynn. I've thought over your invitation to help mentor your 31 students in the Training Systems course at the University of South Carolina throught the Wiki-USEP program. Unfortunately, while I greatly enjoyed the mentoring I did last spring, I'm a bit too slammed to try to take it on this fall, in addition to my other jobs. I am teaching a couple of Economics courses this fall as well and am involved in getting a technology start up off the ground. So my Wiki-time has been in very short supply. So good on you for your work on this wiki-course, but I am unable to take it on at this time. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

N2e, thank you for considering our request and being honest with your time availability. Lbkeane (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your bismuth cite request is a little odd, unless there's something you don't believe. The normal citation rate is somewhere between at least one per section, and usually more than one per paragraph is too much. Given that the entire section on bismuth reuse is sourced (twice) from that one 2000 report, I suspect that the two statements you cited in that one paragraph are, as well. No, I didn't put them in, but it's a pretty reasonable assumption. Is there something about these that you don't believe? The pearlescent look from bismuth oxides is those same odd opalescent oxides you see on the metal surface. I can imagine nothing else looks quite like it. SBHarris 02:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi SB. I imagine you are talking about these two:

Bismuth can also be available sustainably from greater efficiency of use or substitution, most likely stimulated by a rising price.{{cn}}

It would be more difficult to find an alternative to bismuth oxychloride in cosmetics to give the pearlescent effect.{{cn}}

I don't really care much about whether there is one cite per paragraph, or more. It's just that each of the claims asserted in a Wikipedia article ought to be verifiable. If a single source at the end of a paragraph sources multiple claims, that's great. In this case, the two claims seem to be unrelated, and thus perhaps shouldn't be in the same paragraph of the prose. But if a single source is found to support both claims, I would be cool with that. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

for your welcome, for the picture i think its a ula one , but i do not have more info, great contribution on the depot article ! --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey...I see some edits were made by you on the Iraqi santur mainly questioning and asking for further citations. How come, if i may, you have not done the same thing on the santur page? Is it too much of a source when it is a book that is being cited rather than a fake website calling itself an academy of persian music? since when do we take any website claim that is not based on a researched fact and backed by an ISBN'ed book? This is called favouritism and should not be allowed by wikipedia editors, both official and self-proclaimed. If others need to be involved, then I will make sure it happens for pages to be treated equally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraqisantur (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Iraqisantur. I have identified specific problems with the Iraqi Santur page, and those are what we need to talk about. Wikipedia has millions of pages, and if we had the view that no particular page could be improved because some related page is not similarly improved, we would have a very poor encyclopedia indeed.

However, I will note that the extra effort and attention I gave to the Iraqi Santur page over the weekend was due to the fact that an anon editor had recently removed, without comment, requests for citations that had been put on a few of the long list of historical folks who are asserted to have played the Iraqi Santur in the past. When that happens, I spend a LOT more time focusing on that particular article: where editors are removing polite requests to work to get a claims sourced rather than find a source to improve the article.

On this subject, I just looked at the Iraqi Santur article and note that, when you were editing over the weekend, you too have removed some of my requests for citations that were not supported by the 1964 source that was previously given. I will get back over to that article in the next few days to see if reliable sources with standard citations have been added to support the, previously unsupported, claims. If they have, cool. If not, I will of course politely suggest that soruces for the claims may be needed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  Done -- I finally found the time to get back to the Iraqi Santur page and fix the inadvertant removals of about five citation requests. N2e (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We've gone back and and forth a couple times on whether the statement that a catenary bridge follows a catenary curve should be included in the catenary article. It seems to be that there is insufficient reason to delete the statement since WP:V only specifies that statements which are "challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed". To me the statement is obvious and is not likely to challenged, and so should not be removed since it is encyclopedic and relevant to the subject. I have not removed the cite needed tag though since a reference would be nice to have to bring the article to GA standard. Do you have a reason to challenge the truth of the statement? If so then I should point out that it is repeated several times in Simple suspension bridge. In any case, without the statement the section is only about parabolas and bridges and has little to do with the catenary, so I've commented it out until the issue can be resolved.--RDBury (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I understood the statics in a mechanical design class I took once, these bridges only approximate a catenary shape, for a variety of practical reasons like differential unit mass, non-uniformity of attachment points to the cables, etc. But as usual in Wikipedia, we should not make such claims, either way, out of our heads and based on what we recall from former studies, we should make claims that are verifiable, or leave them out until someone can support the claim with a reliable source. I'll place a comment on the article Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I had already created a thread in the talk page, but I'll respond at your thread.--RDBury (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry I missed that. I'll follow over there. N2e (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

GW… 20:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Another one. --GW… 22:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you very much for your comments on International Space University article. The article is now updated with a lot of information. We welcome any comments/suggestions you may have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceUniversity (talk • contribs) 09:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You've done a LOT of good work on that article. Great! I have made a few comments on the article Talk page, and have left a few more tags in the article to illustrate what remains to be done. Also, be sure to consult the note I left on your Talk page about possible WP:COI issues. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey N2e, How are you? Hope you got stuffed lol :) like I did.

So I noticed that you want me to Verify my dad's "Notable Performances" on the page: Manoochehr Sadeghi

I have a press book that I turned into a PDF file. I could put it on my Santur.com website. and then can I reference that as a citation?

The Press book has a copy of the original brochures that were given to the audience at each one of those performances.

My dad saved them. Some of his performances are very old and not even referenced online.

So that's the only verifiable proof that I have that he did perform those concerts.

let me know the best way to verify so I do it right.

thanks,

Max

Santurman (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Santurman. I appreciate that you are trying to cite the claims in the Manoochehr Sadeghi article. I will try to help. But you should note the Wikipedia policy on conflicts of interest and be sure that anything you do is compliant with that policy guideline.

If you have a book, in pdf form, that supports a claim in the Wikipedia article, and if that book can be made available on a website about Santurs, I would guess that would meet the WP:V criteria. If the book is not in English, you will probably need to obtain a English translation of the key grafs that support the claims you want, so that (English) quotation can be used to source the article on the English Wikipedia. If you get all of that (a URL, book title, book publisher, date of publication, etc., and an English translation of any key quotation (if needed), let me know and I will be happy to write a {{cite book}} citation for you to show you how to do it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I know you are trying to be constructive, but I found some of your edits is the last few minutes not helpful. If an archived url doesn't work, click on the original which also highlighted in the citation. I reverted your last edit simply because it was causing and edit conflict with my corrections. Anyway, I'll communicate with you in a few more minutes and see if I can correct some of the points that you are making, and hopefully we are all satisfied.--Abebenjoe (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Abebenjoe, I know that you intended your edits to be helpful as well. But you restored an entire large section of speculative material that had been removed, some of which had a made up source title in the citation that did not even agree with the source. So restoring that entire section, without you validating the individual claims, was also not helpful. I have started a discussion on the article Talk page to discuss the issue, and will see you over there. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

After some time to think about the Falcon 5 article, I came the conclusion that it was not necessary, and think it should be merged, the real question in my mind is where to merge it? I just realized that the Falcon (rocket family) is a rather clumsy article and just wasted some time fixing part of it. Considering every current and in development booster is a Falcon 9 derivative — with the exception of Grasshopper and Falcon 1 — should we not merge most of the "rocket family" into that article, as that seems to be where the Falcon 5, the Heavy, and the Stratolaunch (for lack of a better name), belong? I think both the Falcon 5 and Falcon (rocket family) articles should be deleted and merged into the Falcon 9 article, what do you think?--Abebenjoe (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there folks, just a quick enquiry as to whether or not anyone's actually using Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Space stations working group? If we're still planning on running it as intended, can I suggest people pay a bit more attention to it, or, if not, it be merged back into the main project? Cheers, SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  Done N2e (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Barents Sea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian (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) 09:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  Done N2e (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I popped a few refs into the CSS article, let me know if they are ok, or if you'd like any changes, feel free to do it yourself too. Penyulap _talk 21:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings - would you be interested in serving as an ambassador for my Industrial Psychology class at Ball State University this semester? I am planning to put the students into groups of 3 or 4 to collaborate on editing an existing but relatively weak article relevant to the course content. I'll be happy to provide any more information, discuss specifics, etc. I'll watch your talk page for a reply. Thanks! Mjtagler (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Mjtagler, but no, not for an entire class. I teach at a university too, and find that helping an entire class of (sadly) mostly uninterested students who are playing the 'game' only for the credential is not worth the effort. HOWEVER, if you have particular student or two, say who may be members of one or two of your class groups, who seems to really want to learn and get over the hump-of-ignorance about Wikipedia, and would be willing to work "early and often" on their Wikipedia-related class project, have them write me a short essay making the argument for why I should mentor them, and how my mentor time will be effectively used with diligence on their part, I will consider all invitations. Best of luck with your class. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have created Template:Convert/Mach, as you requested long, long ago, in a talk-page far, far away... Please discuss any related changes there, at Template_talk:Convert. Examples:

Thank you for taking time to explain the altitude and temperature issues for Mach number. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, Wikid77. I will definitely check it out and comment over there. Thanks for creating this much-needed conversion template! N2e (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Since this is a bit OT for the LSR page, but it seemed to need saying...
• I do agree, accuracy is desirable. I'd rather see reasonable claims than wholesale removal on somebody's whim. Have a look at this. Then imagine it with no pictures & no glossary. At one time, the glossary was mainly unsourced, even though none of the terms of art are remotely controversial. They're hard to cite, because they're commonly used, but almost never defined. Would it be better with neither?
• I've already had the caption on the Bantam challenged for claiming it's non-stock, even tho it's obviously not a stock roadster, & I shot the picture. What's going to need citing next? That the '41 Willys didn't have a stock one-piece windshield? That the 3-window is a Ford? That Nagumo commanded the Kido Butai at Pearl Harbor? That the sky is blue? Sheesh... (Don't laugh. Some of the stuff I've seen fact-tagged is by people who haven't got a clue.)
• I submit, if we're to assume good faith, leaving content in beats taking it out, unless it's pretty obviously wrong. I can live with occasional mistakes, with fact tagging, because I figure mistakes get corrected, & the tag is a reader warning "don't trust this". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on some of these automotive articles that seem to be edited more by vandals, than actual editors. I have put some work into that Cummins B series page obviously. Do expect me to keep in contact when I have issues with other pages that are hard to control. Automotive editors seem rare from what I see. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't get to a lot of automotive articles real consistently, but I try to keep an eye on a few, and help encourage the culture of a better encyclopedia, even in the automotive pages. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  An article that you have been involved in editing, COTS Demo Flight 3, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Abebenjoe (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear N2e: I am a professor at Cornell University, teaching in Fall 2012 a course on Online Communities. I would like to involve the students in a project in which they write or improve Wikipedia articles. I did it in Fall 2011 but success was limited, possibly because I did not use Online Ambassadors and my own knowledge in editing Wikipedia articles is limited. Your interests might align well with the concepts of my class. Please let me know if this might work for you to help my students. Thanks! LeshedInstructor (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi LeshedInstructor. Sorry for the long delay in responding. I've been submerged with non-Wiki work this month. As for your request, I don't know the more detailed aspects of your course, so don't know if it might align in any particularly strong way with my interests in self-organizing social behavior.

I do know that, as a Wikipedia online ambassador, I've generally found that trying to serve as such for a class group, or for an entire class, is unrewarding for both sides. I teach at the college level myself, and am quite familiar with students who are motivated only inasmuch as the grade/credential is important to them. As a Wiki ambassador, I have similarly found that the motivation to both learn and work diligently is generally lacking at the group or class-wide level, which sadly, makes my work in the project not worth it. However, if you should happen to have a particularly motivated student or set of students, I would consider an individual request from that person as it comes nearer the time of your course offering.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi N2e. The pictures on page 3, 4 & 14 in http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41958.pdf should be freely redistributable because the paper is government work. I think they would be suitable for Floating wind turbine. You can harvest them with PDF Image Extraction Wizard. TGCP (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi N2e. I had found the incorrect info about Merlin 1D rocket engine here. Please, see my comments in talks.

Shpankov (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

THanks. Will take a look over there. N2e (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

--Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 02:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, a documentary that may interest you Something Ventured.BTW i wonder if the Rahn curve have other names ?.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

--W. D. Graham 20:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Santur page needs love again. I came on tonight and someone posted a bunch of junk on there & left me a message not to revert & Occupy It's like an Arab-Persian war on here. Sad to say. Arabic people love eliminating Persian history & making Persian culture their own.

I was born in Los Angeles and don't look at music as a cultural war. It's supposed to be about art not arguing over who invented what and when.... Any ways, can you help me & send a message to User: 89.16.134.159 And let them know what the rules are? Look at the garbage edit they did. Claiming Encyclopedia Brittanica as a reverence. (Which doesn't exist) And then removed "Characteristics" and replaced it with Etymology: the study of the origin and history or words :) lol

I reverted back to the oringal, but I have a feeling this is gonna be another two weeks of going back and forth

Please help!!!!!

Thanks,

Santurman (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What was the article I didn't properly source? I'm usually good about providing references, but I've been known to space things. Tell me what article it was, and I'll fix it and properly source it. Thanks for the catch! - Nate - Nate Montes 00:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flybywire e2c (talk • contribs)

It was these edits, on the SpaceX article. No worries, though. 1) I'm sure it was just an oversight, and 2) the prose you wrote was really excellent, and another editor already found a source for it and restored your good writing, with a citation. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You're awesome! A made a minor edit to add in a Wikipedia link to the CCiCap program. - Nate Montes 03:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Server jammed. If you can copy-paste the new article please go ahead!!! BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Cyber-hell at my end. I'm neutralized pretty much for a while. Please go ahead with whatever you have to do. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Batt. I see what you've done on "Curiosity" rover. I have added tophats to both the old and the new articles; and have started a Talk page for the new article. N2e (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And someone has (helpfully) renamed the article already, and completed an article MOVE: now Curiosity rover, which is what I thought was the result of the consensus in the first place. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bailing me out yesterday. I don't know if it was my server or Wikipedia's, but I could hardly navigate it, never mind editing. I am actually glad it happened this way because I could not have done such a good job. You rock! Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Batt. It was a great effort by all of us who participated in the split discussion, and did the work to create the draft article in advance of the SUCCESSFUL landing. I'm very happy with where things are, nine hours on, after the landing. N2e (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

WOW!!!! It took me a while to figure what happened there because I do not remember doing those edits. I was brousing a total of 6 revisions done by an AP which cought my attention because that editor did 6 sequential "undo" of your edits. When i saw the 'spinning keeps the forward momentum' portion I blew a fuse and I don't remember what buttons I pressed. I think it was simply "undo", thing is I forgot I was looking at intermediate revisions and messed up the corrections that you and other editors had already done to that AP user. Later I broused the history again and saw other incongruencies that I did not understand and tried to fix them, and now I know is because of the "undo" I did of an old revision. I apologize to you and will to everyone else. Yes, we are in the same "page" as to the the difference between MSL and Curiosity content. I was tired and I did not pay attention to what I did. I had a good night sleep and I hope I will be a useful editor again. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries, man. That's why I asked. N2e (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey. I created a stub-article on the rover's CheMin, but the Wikisearch for "chemin" directs to a French locality. Could you please help me with the redirect and necessary disambiguation? I don't know how to begin to address that. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  Done—check it out. Chemin is now a diambig page, and I moved the old Chemin page to Chemin (France), and CheMin works too. N2e (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

First, let me state that I agree with you completely that Wikipedia should be solidly referenced.

However, I disagree on the best action when a dubious statement is found. Clearly there are many possible responses - take the factoid out, add a ^{[citation needed]} tag, try to find the reference, and so on. Each takes a different amount of work, and provides a different experience for the reader. Adding ^{[citation needed]} is clearly very fast for the editor, but it may induce doubt in the reader who may think this means "I'm not sure that's true". This is especially true for a casual reader who may not think or know about the difference between "citation needed" and "dubious" or other flags. On the other hand, adding a reference is clearly the best result from the reader's perspective, but from the editor's view it sometimes take longer - possible much longer if the reference is hard to track down.

I think a reasonable compromise is to do exactly one google search for the claim made in the article. If the right reference pops up, add it, otherwise add the ^{[citation needed]}. For example, in the case of the Deep Space 1, the very first google search I tried, "Deep Space 1 mission objectives" found many references, almost all of them backing the claim made in the article. I added what I felt was the best of them.

Since most articles are read many times for each time they are edited, I think this provides a better balance between verifiability and a good experience for the reader. You mileage, or course, may vary... LouScheffer (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi N2e! Are you interested in being the Online Ambassador for any classes this term? We've got a few classes that are looking for ambassador right now (Canada, US), so if you're up for helping any, please do! Let me know if you have any questions, or if you'd like me to pick a course for you.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sage. Thanks for asking. In my former work as a Wikipedia online ambassador, I've generally found that trying to serve as such for a class group, or for an entire class, is unrewarding for both sides. I teach at the college level myself, and am quite familiar with students who are motivated only inasmuch as the grade/credential is important to them. As a Wiki ambassador, I have similarly found that the motivation to both learn and work diligently is generally lacking at the group or class-wide level, which sadly, makes my work in the project simply not worth the effort.

However, if you should happen to have a particularly motivated student or set of students, one who seems to really want to learn and get over the hump-of-ignorance about Wikipedia, and one who would be willing to work "early and often" on their Wikipedia-related class project, have them write me a short essay making the argument for why I should mentor them, and how my mentor time will be effectively used with diligence on their part. I will consider all such invitations. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for explaining! If I find the kind of student or small group of students you're looking for, I'll sent them your way.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have updated my entry on the Wikipedia Ambassadors page to make this more clear. I think the column heading changed from "number of persons" to "no. of classes" at some time in the past, without the underlying cell entries changing. N2e (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

hi

Since the fixing of the changes bot, I have been trudging through the changes and trying to sort them out.

On 6 August you made an edit ([2]) removing the Robotics project banner from the talk page. I read the edit summary you left, which led me to think that you felt that the whole was not robotic and only the rover was within the project scope?

I have replaced the banner on the MSL page, though you may notice I have reduced the importance from high to mid, as it not current. Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid. Good question. That was done following a discussion and consensus on the MSL article Talk page to split the article, and keep the scope of the MSL article restricted to the spacecraft and spaceflight mission, and to take the robotic surface science mission content over to an article named Curiosity rover, knowing it would grow rapidly immediately after the successful landing, which it has done, I believe being one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia for a day or two after the landing.

So from a consistency point of view, it may not make sense to have the WProbotics tag on the MSL article unless all spaceflight/spacecraft articles (most of which are "robots" of some kind, and certainly are "robotically" controlled, also get WProbotics tags. YMMV. But that is why the tag was removed.

I believe I left a comment at the time in the WProbotics Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you've responded on the WikiprojectRobotics page. I'll move the conversation over there. N2e (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting this to you earlier :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The article Jordi Puig-Suari has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be notable, although his invention certainly is. A redirect to CubeSat would be more appropriate.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. PamD 07:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The co-inventor of the CubeSat is clearly notable, as evidenced by (now) four citations in that article to his accomplishments. Moreover, the (cited) article "Cubist Movement", in reliable source Space News on 13 August 2012, was a full-page article on Dr. Puig-Suari, not merely a piece about CubeSats. I de-proded the article, per policy guidelines. N2e (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

and another.

and another one.

02:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, me again. Yes I know there has been thorough discussion about citations, but instead of removing an entry could you somehow extend the life to give editors, (mostly just me) a chance to catch up. I was probably responsible for a lot of them and though verifiable, their origins are forgotten. It is extremely frustrating to look for an entry to find it has been deleted. Let us work together on this. instead of deletion refresh the tag or a hatnote at the top of each page explaining the rationale of the citation tags. When all is said and done the list is primarily a List of Aircraft,not articles, and is used as a tool to give better articles, so the less it is tampered with the better for Wikipedia. I know what the policies are, but they don't have to be strictly adhered to, particularly for unfinished articles.Petebutt (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Petebutt. Well, if there is no source supporting even the mere existence of the name of the aircraft, it really should not stay long-term in the Wikipedia main article space. It would be fine to collect those "to-be-done" sometime entries on the article Talk page, or perhaps in a sandbox space. I generally do not remove an unsourced claim unless it has been tagged requesting a citation ({{citation needed}}), and until that tag has been on for many weeks. And I would think that would be the standard practice for most experienced Wikipedia editors.

However, as a personal editor-to-editor arrangement, since I know you are personally working diligently to improve the List of aircraft articles, if you add a hidden comment on any {{cn}} tag indicating that you personally are working to find the missing source so you can add a citation, I would be happy to wait MUCH longer, say a year or so. That won't help you with other editors, but if I see you're working an issue, I'd be most happy to wait much longer. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually managed to find references or link them to relevant articles. I understand that you are trying to tidy up Wikipedia, but is it possible that you leave this corner alone for a couple of years till we get our act together. I have pondered the talk page or user space idea but it doesn't give the utility and ease of use than mainspace. All I am asking is to wait or extend the citation needed sell by dates (a lot). I shall endeavour to tag those being worked on but that might take as much resources as actually finding refs / citations.Petebutt (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith Petebutt. Hard to say what I will do with my Wiki-volunteer time. It was clearly unacceptable to have many mainspace articles, such as the numerous "List of Aircraft ..." articles were, with vast numbers of unsourced redlinks. Clearly, Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia exists first for the users/readers, not for the ultra-convenience of, even hard-working and dedicated editors, such as yourself. That leads to a general policy that says:

"If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.

"I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar."

--Jimbo Wales, July 19, 2006

The "List of Aircraft ..." articles are much better now. But there remains a culture of acceptance of totally unsourced redlinked claims by many (most?) of the editors who frequent those lists. My view is rather simple, if it doesn't have a source, a source that can be pointed to with a source citation, then it is best for that info not to remain in the encyclopedia, confusing our readers and lowering the quality of Wikipedia, at least temporarily. It can be added back when an editor wants to do the work to source the claim. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

As of 25 November 2012^[update], CRS SpX-3 is near the top of Wikipedia:Most wanted articles with 105 incomming links. Do you want to go ahead and start it? -Arb. (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

—Tom Morris (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Gibbo136 -- I have responded on the article Talk page, as well as provided you a Welcome to Wikipedia as a new editor on your Talk page. The edits you made had removed previously sourced material, and removed a number of valid requests for sources, while at the same time a small part of the material you added was sourced. I had thought it best to revert so you could start over and add only the sourced material; but I'm happy to go your way too, and just leave the sourced material while removing the unsourced material. N2e (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks N2e, i will try to keep futures editions to any articles short and backed up with citations Gibbo136 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gibbo, for the cooperative spirit. I have added additional comments on the article Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am currently cleaning up the backlog over at Editor Review and I found this in the backlog. As it is no longer posted on the main page at Editor Review, I was wondering if I should remove it from the backlogs and put it to rest or if I should repost it for community review. I will remove it from the backlogs three days from now if I am not given a response.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 22:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a very old item. I barely recall it, or the circumstances around it. I'm fine if you just let it pass into the backlog ether. N2e (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am removing it now.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 00:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see that at least someone woke up ! It was indeed an experimental probe. Besides, "normal" Zond moonprobes used filmcassettes which fell back to Earth to be recovered by the Sovjets. Zond 3 wasn't equipped with it, since it would just fly-by Mars. There was however, a delay during construction which caused the launchwindow to close before the probe was ready for its journey to the red planet (a short time ago I wrote some articles for Dutch wikipedia about the early Russian space missions. During my research I was lightly horrified by for example Venera 2 on english wiki. Is that really all there is to say about it ?). Kind regards and please continue your work for english wiki (it is not my native language so I hope I don't make too many errors writing this), Maasje (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't decide whether I'm sad or relieved to see that that entire derailed ANI discussion ended up going exactly nowhere (and personally I don't think it's a great practice that ANI threads can be archived without closure). I suppose the important part is ultimately that Synchronous motor did eventually get the attention it needed (or so I guess; I'm disinclined to look at it currently). I'm forced to wonder whether any editors walked away from the whole situation having learned anything though, and it would have been nice if certain editors had been told "No, it's not okay to talk to your fellow editors that way." Sigh. Doniago (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)