This is an archive of past discussions with User:N2e. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I feel your deletion was premature. The article is still barely more than a stub and there are very few citations. If you are going to delete "Squish", why not also delete "Swirl"(which has no citations)? I am aware that WP relies on referencing & verifiability, but articles should not be smothered at birth for want of citations. Rome wasn't built in a day! I suggest instead that Squish should be reinstated, with a citation needed tag. Arrivisto (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
That's great that you added sources. That info was removed only because it did not have sources. I'll try to get over to that Talk page in the next day or two. N2e (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I reverted your mass [citation needed] tagging of the specifications section of the SIAI-Marchetti S.205 article, as all the specifications are covered by the existing reference (i.e. the 1966–67 edition of Jane's All The World's Aircaft). The specifications have been unchanged since they were added with the citation parameters in 2010 [1], and the parameters that you tagged (i.e stall speed, range ceiling and climb) rate are as quoted in Jane's.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I also believe the best thing to do is to open a discussion to reach consensual agreement then have the discussion closed, so that this dispute doesn't continue throughout 2015 as it has throughout 2014. I have started the discussion on talk:Elon Musk, and have expressed my views, other editors have also weighed in. It would be great if you could review the discussion and add your views as well, thanks! Heuh0 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Elon Musk.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - andy (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Heads up on YouTube links
Hi, Thanks for all your contributions on the Elon Musk article. On the talk page you've listed several very good sources. However you've also linked to some copyright infringements by DreamTV and others on YouTube.Anyone posting videos on YT that is not the producer and owner of the video is in copyright violation. YT doesn't enforce it unless the owner complains but WP has a higher standard than that. So these URLs can not be used in citations or External Link sections of articles and should be removed from the talk page post per WP:YOUTUBE and WP:EL. If you can find the originals on the website of the content producers and owners, then they could be used. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
WorldVu satellite constellation and the WikiGraphist request board
Hi! I've now added the reason for the proposals, and provided reliable sources specifically for Tesla Motors (which you commented on in your decision to oppose). I apologise for the delay of this, just letting you know as you may wish to read them, and it possibly could change you descison somewhat, or perhaps not. Either way they are there. Thanks, Heuh (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Heuh. I think that is much better. I've finally figured out how I wanted to not vote on each of the two proposals, and have left my input on the Talk page.
In the future, I can think of one thing you may want to watch out for on proposals like that. (it's based on what I think closer's typically like to see...). If interested, ping me sometime and we can discuss. N2e (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
planetary ressources, prices, slides, plans
hi, i found this, first time i see that kind of details
Hello, i was not connected since some time, congratulation on your new job and on your perseverance on wiki.Economic and budgets aspects of spaceflight are often underlooked on wiki, i am happy to see that its a aspect of it you are according importance.Ad astra. Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, thank you Beaucouplusneutre! I agree that the economic aspects are a bit under-covered on Wikipedia, and would welcome having your input, and especially identification of any new reliable sources, for improving aspects of the coverage of economic matters on a variety of spaceflight articles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
You are right. My mistrake! Not NASA. It is some sort of terrestrial equipment for spaceflight though, so I tried a more applicable (although not perfect) cat. Perhaps a new cat is needed? Or ... ??? N2e (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Geez, that Spaceflight ground equipment category is underpopulated! I don't really think its a good category for a ship, but its no big deal. I'm not sure that an even more specialised ship category is needed at this point, since there's so few ships which would populate it...really just the Mariner, ASDS, and a few NASA ships...but I would not vote against it. — Huntster (t@c)04:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act
N2e, it's been well over a week since the above was posted, and there hasn't been any action. If there aren't any valid hooks proposed—and the ones that had been proposed have all been struck—then the nomination cannot continue. Please stop by soon if you wish to continue pursuing the nomination. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks BlueMoonset. I've gone over there now and proposed a new hook and set of Alt hooks. It's clear that the propective 31 December hooks are all outdated now. N2e (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMMStellation (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alexbrewer{talk}04:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I responded on the Zenit Talk page, and it appears you've come back and added some additional prose and another source. Looks good now. N2e (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello N2e, I wanted to touch base with you on your comments you mentioned on a recent article I put together on High Strain Composites. I anticipate spending a greater amount of time on this effort as well as few other Wikipedia articles I intend to initiate on spacecraft deployalbles and structures in the coming months. First things first, I am aware of the comments that have been left by yourself (thanks) and others and will be addressing them in the coming week. Your guidance is very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bld175 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I just checked it out. Looks like that article got over 7000 hits while it was featured on the main page. N2e (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and I continue to be real interested in the topic. Just slammed in work and other stuff, so haven't had the time to get after some deep thinking that I'd like to do in that area. Thanks for the pointer; I'll read it. N2e (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder. I care about the topic, and would like to look at it again, but have been slammed in work and other stuff, so haven't had the time to think more about that. I anticipate having more time roughly at the end of the spring school term. N2e (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Your comment re Lubnitz on the Germanwings article
Danno_uk, thanks very much. I think we risk hurting this knowledge sharing project by incenting additional anti-social behavior. Don't expect an editor consensus to ever fix it, so just hoping the foundation would consider how it hurts their brand, and purpose. N2e (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The redirect should be deleted
I give my reasons on the talk page for the redirect. If you could simply blank the redirect page, it would be taken as a request for deletion and speedy deletion could proceed smoothly. Thank you for your consideration of my suggestion. - Fartherred (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
On 2 May 2015, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Progress M-27M, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
Well, thank you. That is a quite notable new rocket under development, and is one of the first privately-funded competitive responses to the dramatic increase in space launch market competition in recent years. I hope they are successful; but the quarter-by-quarter funding of the rocket development by Lockheed and Boeing is not an auspicious sign. N2e (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
Hi, thanks for liking my edit on the Esteban Torres page, and thank you for adding the Lawsuit section originally. I'm new to contributing and appreciate the feedback from an experienced member. I can tell you are committed to truth and reality. Jmdanczyk (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jmdanczyk, for the note. I appreciate it. And welcome to the new world of Wikipedia, where we are, like bees in a hive, building a really great compendium of human knowledge, bit by bit. What is emerging here is amazing. N2e (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Why
I haven't been here forever, but that was the first time I have ever seen that template used. I thought it was a joke. The template documentation page provides no guidelines for usage. It appears to me that an editor could stick it at random after almost any declarative statement in any article. One could then get into an endless why game like my son used the play when he was four. The linked category shows hundreds of backlogged pages every month so it almost appears as if no one is reviewing/cleaning them up. This why I stated that questions should posted in the talk page. Nyth6318:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, Nyth, I don't think anyone is necessarily working them because they can be listed on a page with others that have the why template. I just think it is more clear—to the editors who care about or work on a particular article page—then would the use of the what template would be. N2e (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I've gotten your various messages with regards to the Robots in Disguise character pages. However, I've got to be honest-I don't understand how you expect to fill up a page about an animated series when the series itself apparently isn't viable as a source. OptimusMagnus (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but it sounds as if you are under the presumption that because a Wikipedia article page exists, it is necessary to "fill up a page." In my view, that is not at all the case.
Pages are created for all sorts of reasons. Not all have sufficient reliable sources to have much on them; or they may not even meet the notability criteria for a standalone article. That's what the process will show; if editors are able to find sources, without violating WP:OR, then more statements about the topic are retained in Wikipedia. If not, then statements are removed, or the article may be deleted.
If the statements, or the article, are not appropriate for Wikipedia, there is always Wikia, which as I understand it, is quite open to original research on such topics. In fact, it seems to exist exactly for that reason. So for lists of characters, even minor characters that have no particular notability beyond the genre, Wikia may be a better choice. Hope this helped. N2e (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Dino Charge
Why did you add citation needed tags for information that's known from the TV show? There's no reason to ask for a citation for every single cast member's role when that's from the TV show. Or citations for things that happened in the TV show as part of the story. Watching the TV show is the source and this isn't done on any other TV show character list ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8200:23E5:613E:E42D:D73D:6393 (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the question. And welcome to Wikipedia!
While American companies usually add numbers or letters to an engine desgination (like AJ10-118K or Merlin 1D), Russian designers usually give it a new name (like the RD-0107 -> RD-0108 -> RD-0110). This is giving me some issues of consistency on the Template:Rocket engines. I'm writing articles and usually I just do a single article listing the variations and development history. But if I link each individual name, the template will grow significantly and will only be adding what amount to a bunch of redirects. If I don't, I'm leaving a lot of engines that have actually flown. I've tried talking to the page but nobody ever answered. I'm bowing to your experience as an editor since you've always been around the articles that I write and/or edit, and you seem to be the most experienced here.
User:Baldusi (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi User:Baldusi. Looks like I missed this. I'll try to get over there and look in the next day or so, and offer whatever help (or at least, an opinion) that I can. N2e (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposal help
Hi N2e! I will gladly give you the reins of this discussion on branching the template to you. Please help me because I don't know how to go on. I'll take this as my learning experience. Baldusi (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, Baldusi, I think you should actually make the proposal, and then I and other editors who follow that page can see if a consensus forms around that.
The trick to getting successful discussions, where something concrete is wanted like "yes" or "no" on a proposal is to have the proposal be as straightforward and narrow as possible, and not so complex that other editors can't just "support" or "oppose" the proposal. In other words, if the discussion of which way to go is still going on, and it could be 3 or 5 different ways, then you are unlikely to gain a clear consensus.
So I recommend you just tell me what way you think would be a good way to fork or split the template, and I'll help you write it up, as a draft proposal, on this discussion page. I.e., what specific way of spliting the article are you suggesting. I don't really know the domain well enough to even pick one method and propose it, but I think you do. When you like the draft, you can just copy it over to the Talk page to get the discussion underway.
And BTW, it doesn't even matter too much if your first proposal doesn't gain consensus. If it does not, then usually one just modifies to address the specific objection and a second (or third) one will. In this case, I think you already have strong consensus on something needs to split it; just proposing a specific way to do so. Hope this is helpful. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Fine. I will first make a few comments here to help us think. I've seen that the Avaition folk actually have an Engines Task Force. And they had discussed rocket engines and decided to fold them on a List of aircraft engines. Thus, I realized that we had been using what should be a navigational tool as an extensive list. I believe that Aviation could have a List of aviation rocket engines, Spaceflight could have a List of space flown rocket engines and rocketry a List of rocket engines. If so, Spaceflight could have its own navigation template where this would be a single entry.
I think you are making a good distinction between Lists and Navboxes. Both are useful, and you are correct that they do seem to serve different purposes. I've probably touched a lot more List of ... articles overt the years, and very few navboxes. Also, for your purposes, and perhaps our purposes here, I agree that it might just be best to leave any aviation-related rockets to the WikiProject_Aviation folks, unless you are a glutton for punishment. ;) N2e (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the current template, it is sort of nice, and I would hate to delete it since I've put so much effort into it. But I guess that within each individual project it could be scoped differently. In spaceflight, a discussion should be held if country and or propellant is a good way of sectioning it. And also what exactly means flown and what exactly is spaceflight related. In Rocketry it should be decided what is the scoping, since listing every rocket engine in existence is clearly a list's job, and not a navigational aid. This is specially important since every single missile in the world has a rocket engine or motor in it (or more). You simply can't put that into a navigational bar. It might be quite a bit more productive to actually prepare a Rocketry Navbar and have the list of engines as one entry. I believe that rocket concepts are more important than arbitrary lists.
If so, and if you are speaking about either "flown" as in "flown on an orbital spaceflight, or a spaceflight that was attempting an orbital flight", and not merely "flown suborbitally, but off of any test stand", then I agree you should just have that discussion on the appropriate page. Alternatively, if you have a specific proposal for some set of definitions that you think makes sense, and you'd like to see if there is some consensus for it, then just cut the discussion step and jump right to proposal. If a proposal, let me know what you're thinking, and I'll help you draft it since you said it was your first. N2e (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you meant by the Rocketry Navbar idea. Do you mean as separate from the current nav template you've been doing so much work on? N2e (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
These are my initial concepts. If you find them a reasonable I believe I will propose that the Nav be exclusively owned by Spaceflight, and offer to work on the lists and Rocketry navbar. Then we would make a discussion on Spaceflight alone about the correct scoping. But it would be a much more reasonable one since the lines are a lot more clear. Not crystal clear, since the suborbital flight can be argued as space, and things like Project Morpheus clearly are spaceflight projects. But it would be much easier to scope the article if it has to work for a single project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldusi (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to add that list should probably be made as orderable tables so readers can select by country, manufacturer, propellant, application, etc.
Yes, perhaps, but in my view there is a large tradeoff here, and one that many list authors don't think about. If interested, we can have that discussion another time. N2e (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, great thoughts. And you've got a number of good ideas. I'll respond specifically, inline, above, in the next hour or so. N2e (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
First draft of the proposal. I will explain the rationale later:
*1) Aviation engines will be out and should do their own template.
*2) This template will be owned by Spaceflight and will be scoped accordingly. Only spaceflight related rockets.
*3) Rocketry can't list every rocket engine in a template. In fact, the template should encompass all rocket engine related data:
*4) Categories should be improved. In the current category system there's a sub category for aviation engines but no for space, military, atmospheric rockets, etc. But you can't have an article both at its parent and son categories. Thus I would propose to crate a list of "Spaceflight rocket engines", a "Military Rocket Engines" and a "Miscellaneous Rocket Engines". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldusi (talk • contribs) 13:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
First off, I think you have about four proposals there. If you make them all at once, especially if some are a bit complex (as no. 3 is), I think you'll get discussion, but perhaps not clear consensus. Therefore, I suggest you break it apart, give about a week for each one to see if consensus is gained, and only then move on to the next one. Your mileage may vary; this is not the only way to do it. But I have found that it is difficult to achieve consensus with complex proposals. I'll come back later today, and draft a simple single-issue proposal on no. 1. If you like it, modify it as you wish (after all, it will be your proposal) and copy that material over to the relevant article Talk page.
Re no. 2: I think you'll find that WikiProjects don't "own" articles. They are merely gatherings of interested folks to communicate on article improvement in a subject area. I could find the policy on that if you have questions.
In the main, I agree with you "big idea" of no. 1 and no. 2. That is, you want to reduce the scope of this template to encompass only spaceflight-related rocket engines. So I do think that most work on this template would then logically get done by the sorts of spaceflight-interested folks who are involved with WP Spaceflight.
So, just possibly, the initial proposal might be re (stated positively) the scope of this template, which would then justify removal of both aviation-related rocket engines, and also non-spaceflight-related rocket engines. If that were to gain a consensus, you might just create a copy, leaving only the aviation stuff, and put it into a "draft" template in your sandbox. After it is done, and the spaceflight template (per consensus) is up and running, you might then write a note to the aviation folks and let them know they could use the draft in your sandbox if they want to.
Baldusi, I think the single-issue proposal you ultimately made is a good one. I'll comment over there. But I think that one is sufficiently concise that a clear consensus can emerge. N2e (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear N2e, I see there was much support on my proposal. How do I close the issue? I can do the changes in 10min, but I would like first to say something regarding the closeing of voting and discussion. Or something along those lines.
I've already implemented a Template:Aviation rocket engines, and I am in the process of developing a Template:Suborbital rocket engines. I will do later a Spacecraft rocket engine template and I am thinking about the ballistic and other military rockets, as well as things like ballistic sounding rockets and small development crafts like Morpheus and Xaero. But with aviation, sub-orbital, spacecraft and orbital we will be covering 95% of all non military engines. So I feel that there is little reason not to make the scope change.
Yeah, Baldusi, congrats on how smooth that all went! As to closing discussions, I don't really think that it requires a formal close. See Wikipedia:Closing discussions; some do, some do not. For ones I've proposed, I usually just make a note on the Talk page as to how I interpret that, and then go forth and make the changes on the main article page. N2e (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Barnstar for your work on SpaceX articles
The Original Barnstar
For your hard, tireless work updating and expanding spaceflight articles! A lot of updates on SpaceX from the news would be missed without your work. Thanks, Appable (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, thank you very much, Appable. I appreciate that.
What I do is rather simple: I read a great deal about the expanding influence of market forces and economic decision making in spaceflight, and a little on the legacy government-decision making in the space sector. Since the latter is so exhaustively covered in nearly every article on the early decades of human spaceflight technology, I merely try to encyclopedically summarize some part of the advances being made by the players who are responding more to the economic incentives.
If I find something, and it's not covered in Wikipedia, I often write a sentence or two and add it to the appropriate article, always being sure to add a source citation so others can verify anything that Wikipedia asserts.
Simple protocol, but I guess all the small changes at the margin eventually, after some years, have a larger impact on making this info available to the wider world who don't follow the esoteric space news outlets like I do. Thanks again for noticing, and stopping by to say hello. N2e (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
time capsule
Dear N2e, Thank you for your support of the Wiki loves galactic exploration project. I understand the limitations of the project but the time capsule part is critical. I have memory space limitations based on a SD card so I am hoping to put a curated WikiOffline profanity free version into orbit. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hallo, I've just stub-sorted the journalist stub; a couple of things
Category:BLP isn't used, it's Category:Living people. I find it easiest to use the {{subst:L|||}} syntax eg {{subst:L|1917|2009|Smith, John}}, to add birth and death date categories if present or "Living" and "Date of birth missing" cats as appropriate, and also the sort key. I think it has to be a capital "L".
{{otheruses}} is used for links to dab pages - for a specific link like this one use {{for}} or {{about}} (I prefer the latter as it allows you to add more than one alternative destination, and optionally to describe the subject of the Primary Topic page you're on too).
Thanks very much, Pam. I don't do too many new BLPs and it is hard to keep track of all the wiki-wonderful ways to tag new stubs. But you've hit it on the head. I agree with both of your changes, and will try to take a look here in the future if I create a next BLP stub. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Stone, I don't believe Zond 3 ever launched "to Mars". I think it missed the window when a Mars trajectory would have been possible in the 1964 conjunction/synode, by failing to launch near the time that Zond 2 was launched. I believe the Soviets then launched the Zond 3 spacecraft as a test, but not "to Mars", a bit later on. Note also that Zond 3 is missing from the (much shared) Mars Exploration Family Portrait. Cheers. N2e (talk)
Hmmm. Looks like a typo then. If it is not supported by the source, it has no business being in Wikipedia. I don't have time to do more research right now, but I do not believe that Zond 3 ever launched "to Mars". Perhaps a misreading of the source by yours truly when I updated that article??? Not sure. N2e (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Moved from top of page where it had been misplaced
Dear N2e
thank you for your email.
I appreciate your intention to help me. Your support is very welcome for improving the OneWeb satellite constellation article.
I have edited the text plus citations trying to be neutral. I send you this draft as well as i would like to send you the original of the work accepted for the 64 International Astronautical Congress in Beijing in 2013.
How I can send this files in Adobe format to you?
As early as in 2013 Fatima Dyczynski, 23 year old aerospace engineer, scientist and the founder of Xoterraspace Company developed her vision of 88 nano-satellite constellation for Earth Observation (EO) and space born communication.
B.Sc. Fatima Dyczynski presented her scientific work “A Novel Business Model To Substantiate the Commercial Viability of a Cubesat Constellation for Advanced Earth Observation and Monitoring” the 64 International Astronautical Congress in Beijing in 2013.
This innovative scientific work was performed at the Technical University of Delft in the Netherlands together with Professor J.M. Kuiper and substantiated the commercial feasibility of a nano-satellite constellation of 88 Cubsat.
The Delfi-C3 the first Cubesat nano-satellite was constructed by students at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and was launched at 03:53:42 on 28 April 2008 from a space centre on the island of Sriharikota in India. It is still functional. This project was supervised by Mr Jasper Bouvmeester from the Department of Space System Engineering, TU Delft in the Netherlands.
Fatima Dyczynski was a pioneer in commercialization of nano-satellite constellation and presented her scientific work at the 64 International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Beijing in 2013 and at the TedX in the Netherlands in October 2013.
Fatima stated in her TedX talk entitled “Make Space Personal":
"Living in the 21st century, as we do, we all have the mandate of pushing the limitations of technologies and scientific breakthroughs to the adjacent possible".
The nano-satellite constellation in Lower Earth Orbit (LEO) as an extension of business intelligence and communication, available via personal mobile phones was the Fatima’s next scientific topic published together with Dr Angelo Cervone, an Associate Professor at the TU Delft and Mr Norman Noordervliet, Executive Officer of the XoterraSpace Company.
Fatima had been invited to present this topic entitled: “How to successfully create and implement an end-to-end business intelligence tool through integrated space based applications” in Toronto, Canada during the 65 International Astronautical Congress, in October 2014.
B.Sc. Fatima Dyczynski was a pioneer in development of the commercialisation of a nano-satellite constellation and its commercial feasibility.
Fatima’s intention was to make the space born Earth Observation available via mobile phone for the benefit of everyone and the whole mankind. B.Sc. Fatima Dyczynski was a passenger on the Flight MH 17.
I would like to add to the information put on this page yesterday to improve the OneWeb satellite constellation page.
B.Sc.Fatima Dyczynski
The annual Fatima Dyczynski Prize on Space Innovation and Entrepreneurship was established in 2014 in honor of the person B.Sc.
Fatima Dyczynski. The Prize shall encourage, stimulate, and award peaceful Space Innovation, Entrepreneurship at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and beyond.
Link:
http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/en/organisation/departments/space-engineering/space-systems-engineering/prizes/
@B.Sc.Fatima Dyczynski: Thanks for your note. Because of the challenge of potential WP:COI on your part in the drafting of the prose above, I'll not read all that at present, in order to keep my mind clear on the matter (since I am explicitly considering material that might lead to me editing the OneWeb satellite constellation article that we are discussing here.
I'm also less interested in the WP:primary source material of your published papers, and very interested in whatever WP:secondary source material might have been written about the work, or the proposals or concepts, in the space media, or really, in any other source that Wikipedia might consider a reliable secondary source. My attempt to focus on secondary sources published in reliable source media is to avoid WP:Synthesis, or orgininal research, (neither of which is condoned on Wikipedia) for whatever I might write up for the article. As well, I'm interested in avoiding WP:POV issues, which any over-emphasis of the academic papers of any single researcher runs the risk of doing.
So the question is: do you have such reliable secondary sources that you might point me to where this work (concepts/proposals/etc.) have been written about? Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@B.Sc.Fatima Dyczynski: As per N2e above, WP:NOR as well as WP:NPOV is a big concern for me in your planned edits. "Fatima’s intention was to make the space born Earth Observation available via mobile phone for the benefit of everyone and the whole mankind." seems more promotional than encyclopaedic, unfortunately. You may want to check out WP:Here to build an encyclopedia in order to write better prose for the article. In general the rule is that if you wouldn't find it in a professional encyclopaedia, you shouldn't find it in Wikipedia. NottNotttalk|contrib15:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
---FOLLOWING COMMENT BY FATIMA DYCZYNSKI was added at the top of this Talk page a few weeks ago; I'm now moving it to the bottom of the section that F.D. has been engaged in, per ordinary Talk page formatting practices. N2e (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear N2e,
Thank you for your comments. I have read the Wikipedia links. It is very helpful. I appreciate it. Concerning to the sentence:
"Fatima’s intention was to make the space born Earth Observation available via mobile phone for the benefit of everyone and the whole mankind."
This is the announcement of the 64 IAC in Beijing at the page of the hosting organization the International Astronautical Federation in Paris:
64TH INTERNATIONAL ASTRONAUTICAL CONGRESS HELD IN CHINA
From 23-27 September 2013, the Chinese Society of Astronautics (CSA) welcomed the global space community in Beijing, China.
After hosting the very successful Global Lunar Conference (GLUC) in 2010, Beijing was selected as the site for the IAC 2013 by the IAF General Assembly. The Congress’ theme was Promoting Space Development for the Benefits of Mankind.
Link:
http://www.iafastro.org/events/iac/iac-2013/
The sentence sounds pathetic even poetic in the modern times of a progressive space militarization. However it was the conclusion of Fatima Dyczynski’s scientific work entitled:
A NOVEL BUSINESS MODEL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OF A
CUBESAT CONSTELLATION FOR ADVANCED EARTH OBSERVATION AND MONITORING
Please find attached copy of the 1st and the 7th page of this work
May be the concerned sentence sounds better in the following edition:
"Fatima’s intention was to make the space born Earth Observation available via mobile phone for the benefit of mankind."
Hi N2e, I've been trying to implement some improvements to Efficient energy use, but given that I have a paid COI, I've been having some trouble finding anyone to help out. I noticed you're one of the few members of WP:Energy that is still active; do you think you could review some of the changes I've suggested?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation. I'm slammed with work right now, so unsure I'll have much time for that beyond my regual WP editing. But will endeavor to get over there and have a look on the next "rainy Wednesday afternoon" I encounter. N2e (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Sea Gypsies (people groups)
Hello N2e,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sea Gypsies (people groups) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
Thanks for the notification, Pixarh. Looks like another editor has removed the speedy.
As to the substantive questions, I had thought that since it was a disambiguation page one was not allowed to add sources to the disambig page. However, there is clearly sufficient material on these south asian and pacific people groups which seem to be rather widely referred to as Sea Gypsies, that a standalone article would be warranted, and would meet WP:GNG. But I really think that the wide use of the term to describe these groups is probably best handled via a redirect/disambig. Prior to yesterday, there was no Wikipedia disambig for this particular use of the term "Sea Gypsies". There is now, and I think that is a very good thing. N2e (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
N2e, thanks again for setting a very helpful example with your edits. I'm learning a lot from your contributions and doing my best to improve articles further in the commercial spaceflight area. If you should happen to have any feedback on these efforts please don't hesitate to let me know. Gnugnug (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I will be happy to assist you in your editing experience on Wikipedia. If you are interested in spaceflight, you should consider joining us on the spaceflight Wikiproject. There are always hundreds of articles that need attention.
As for myself, with a background in both technology and economics, I'm particulary interested in the intersection of bottom-up market forces and individual's choice on the advance of spaceflight technology in the human socialsphere. It's rather a passion of mine. 16:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Musk editing
First of all, I've only been editing in the proper information because the user Beyers31 has been using an unsubstantiated source to say Musk is no longer a Canadian citizen. User Softlavender also agrees with me and we both have asked for Beyers31 to provide more sources with information detailing this supposed "loss of citizenship." If anything, you should be warning Beyers31 for changing it back with an unreliable source. The article also already includes several sources stating Musk is a Canadian citizen. That is not the issue. The issue is Beyers31 keeps removing this information based on an unreliable source.
These sources have already been included, so I don't know why I would have to include more. This is substantiated.
So you got on that plane all by yourself at 17?
Elon Musk: Yes, so…my mother was born in Canada. Her father was American. But unfortunately she didn’t get her American citizenship, so then that broke the link and I couldn’t get my American citizenship. But she was born in Canada, so I actually filled out the forms for her and got her a Canadian passport, and me too. Within three weeks of getting my Canadian passport, I was in Canada.
I'm not going to argue with you here. I have suggested (in my two reverts of your additions) that you discuss the issue on the Wlon Musk Talk page, and quit edit warring in the article space. Other editors have done the same.
Personally, I have no idea how it will shake out. But it ought to shake out, with a full consensus, prior to you adding that Canadian citizenship claim to the article itself. N2e (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know that. Looks like those two articles were created in the article space about 15 minutes from one another. I had clicked on Jason-3 when I started writing the first article stub for F9 F21, and the Jason-3 link was still a redir to an overview article named the Ocean Surface Topography Mission; that obviously changed during the time I was writing up the new article for F9 F21.
So given that both articles exist, what now? Not sure. They likely both meet all WP:V and WP:GNG criteria, so both may continue. It is hard to tell which of the two will be more notable in relative terms. I guess with the launch only a week away, we just wait and see what develops. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I take it that you are not among the sceptics when it comes to Saint Elon's newest project? Well, please have a look here if you are so inclined. Have a nice day 141.23.69.52 (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a large project, and we all work to improve articles on the margin. If you have verifiablesources, then feel free to become a part of this project, whether supportive or critical of any particular project/person/item/etc. that is being explicated. After all, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk)
Well, thank you Salbayeng; I'm pleased to hear that. Just for feedback, it wouold be helpful to know what article(s) you found interesting or useful. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes that would be the hyperloop article , Nice link below BTW. Must be hard to maintain a NPOV when you can't keep a straight face! Maybe hyperloop is a concatenation of "hype" and "loopy". My first thought was thermal coefficient of expansion and images of buckled railway lines came to mind. Then I remembered the Mythbusters episode with the supersonic ping pong ball in an evacuated tube, and the issues they had going from a 1m long tube to a 10m tube. And the James Bond movie where he takes a shortcut across the Russian border in a pipe cleaning pig
BTW how do you get from outside the tube to inside the pod? Must be some fancy airlock thingy going on?
I'm just a newbie so I left some notes about some links to IEEE spectrum in the talk pages, hoping someone would include them in the article. I'm struggling to make the citations elegant. The hyperloop competition is a good training excercise for student engineers, so there is some usefulness in the project
And I bounced off a couple of links on your user page to wiki editing and templates. And learned how to make user boxes by initially copying yours.
Salbayeng, thanks. I'll get over to the Talk page(s) and comment as appropriate. As to citations, there are Tools available to help. Recently I've been using this tool, from Wikimedia Labs to help out. Just select whether your source is a news article, generic web site, or whatever, and fill in at least the few required fields, and voila, you have your citation syntax to copy and paste into an article. Also, I appreciate you noticing my professional restraint in my comment below to the IP editor. ;) Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Fixed Thanks for the notice. N2e (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
