User talk:Rillian

Please note: unsigned comments will not be read. To automatically sign your posts with a date-stamp, add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message.

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does poor Michigan have gender identity issues? If not, I think "He is a frog" is clear enough! ---Isaac R 16:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page updated. Thanks for the catch. Rillian 03:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are the administrator of The Citadel page, [...] This page won't service cadets and grads, but rather outsiders who are trying to learn about the school... the page that is up there is disgraceful and will give a horrible image to anyone who comes across it. I'm sorry for this if you are indeed not resposible for the content, but I did notice that you had reverted the vital changes that I made in hopes of putting forth the proper image of The Citadel to those that wish to read about it. Regards -- India 05 grad User:Alum05

Rillian, I went ahead and called the KA Order headquarters for help, and they directed me to an online citation regarding the Beta Commission and KA Order commission policies in general. I have added the citations. That should address your citation request. I'll look for the NMMI book for citation as soon as possible (if no one gets to it sooner). Loubocop 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian, the Beta Commission at VMI is usually listed on the KA site. It is the only "commission", every other listing else is a "chapter". I am an alumnus of VMI and a member of the Beta Commission of the KA Order. VMI policy prohibits being active in any fraternity while a cadet (in the general orders), thus I was inducted into KA immediately following graduation in the 1980s. The practice continues, and it isn't a secret. I know of no written public written policy regarding VMI's Beta Commission. So, I have lived it, but how am I to cite it in a way that meets your satisfaction? A call or email to KA Order would confirm the policy, but how would one cite that? As for the NMMI reference, I have heard it from others, and I have read it in a book published by NMMI which I will try to locate and cite. One of the early staff graduated from VMI and partly modeled NMMI on VMI. It might take a while to find the citation, as I believe the book is in storage. I'll do my best to help there, but it might take a while. Thanks. Loubocop 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian don't you think we should do something about this person who keeps changing the VMI page? User:John73

Keeping Wikipedia accurate and NPOV is everyone's responsibility. Rillian 03:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the vmi pages alone. I don't know why you are so obsessed with vmi, but please move on.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marshall3 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC) -- moved from userpage ∞Who?¿? 09:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you want to spend a lot of time editing, please archive VMI's discussion page. I will keep making the appropriate changes as long as it takes. Additionally, I would appreciate it if you would please leave the VMI article alone. You contributions are always made to detract, not enhance. I understand your view, please try to understand mine... Thanks, Rubicon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.176.34 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 8 August 2005

Rillian, Please find another article to "occupy" yourself with. VMI's page looked great before you started to dilute the facts. Just move on if you can... Signed, Nate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.26.176.34 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Rillian, Believe it or not, I am trying to make the article you and I keep working on better. Why don't we try to meet somewhere in the middle on this thing and arrive at an article we both feel content with? I'd like to get something together that represents well and is accurate. I feel like it's fine, but you have some different ideas...Let's work something out. Marshall3 21:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian, PLEASE read my edits before you simply revert to your old saved copy and edits. I'm trying to work with you, not against you. The pictures need to be properly spaced...it simply looks and flows much better. Also, the "most general officer fact" needs to be in the notable grad section. I've made very few changes to a great article...let's work together on this man... Marshall3 01:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User: Rillian, just wanted to let you know I moved the VMI ratline merge comments, photo comments, and peer review comments to the peer review page. Those entries were a bit outdated and duplicated, so it seemed appropriate to move them where they belong. Just wanted to let you know and to say thanks for all your help with the article...it reads well. Thanks againAlum94 18:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am not removing any comments, but I am archiving old comments. All comments are available for research purposes, and I kindly ask that you stop reversing my (and other users) edits. Thanks Tuf 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian, Regarding the VMI discussion site, I set up a second archive set. This should suffice and satisfy your request. Please let me know when you've got a problem and stop it already with the silly warnings...we don't need to mess around with that. Let's be civil.Tuf 02:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC) Tuf 02:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC) ADDED: Made your requested changes. How's it look now?Tuf 03:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I've made the changes you requested. Please stop vandalizing the VMI talk page. Tuf 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion on discussion page, article modified and archives made.Tuf 13:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop reverting commentsTuf 14:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian, please "cut it out." I don't appreciate your one-sided reversions and edits...and you know what I'm talking about. Changes have been made to the article to stick to the facts and accomodate the person posing as a graduate. I'd be happy to elevate this issue along with your continual one-sided edits (I've noticed the way you've chosen to edit and organize this page for example) up the chain with other senior admistrators and wikipedia editors if you wish...Marshall3 16:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you repeatedly to consider other's edits to the VMI page. Yet again, please stop blindly re-editing VMI's page. As it stands, the ranking is accurate and the prayer in the mess issue is completedly dated and irrelevant. Marshall3 17:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove my edits. Article cited is relevant and I do not believe you have been appointed the "keeper" of this article.Blue2221 20:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I've added sources and you have deleted them... I do believe that would be considered vandalism. I do not appreciate your trolling and edit mongering and I ask you to kindly stop.Blue2221 04:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check cited website and you'll notice "first state military college" is on the school's main website page at the top. Please stop reversing it as it is not a "peacock statement." Also, it is precisely because this school is all military that it is called the westpoint of the south. Period. Placing this statement after the statement about spartan environment (where you continually place it) makes it appear that westpoint has a spartan environment. When compared to VMI, Westpoint is certainly not spartan. You are taking statements in the article out of context and I am once again asking you to stop. Nothing I've placed is untrue or even a stretch...it's 100% accurate and significant in distinguishing this school from others. You need to stop your senseless edits without looking at the sources. In short, cut it out Koonoonga 23:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to the John G. Roberts, Jr. page got me thinking. See my comment here, I'd like your input. NoSeptember 13:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the candidates for the June 14, 2005, congressional primary have been proposed for deletion. I am writing those who worked on election articles to request that they offer their votes against the proposal. The VFD's can be found starting at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_8#Peter_Fossett. It is my view that we ought to provide a complete record of the election and my deleting so called "minor" candidates we do a disservice to them and the historical record. Please vote against all these proposals.PedanticallySpeaking 14:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

You worked on articles on the special election in Ohio on August 2. I have posted my articles on the nominees in that race, Jean Schmidt and Paul Hackett at Wikipedia:Peer review and would appreciate your comments. The individual pages are at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jean Schmidt/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Hackett/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 19:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

So, just using the word nepotism is a POV? I don't get it. Nepotism means appointment to a job based on kinship. Although some may see negative connotations in the word, it is not inherently negative. It means that someone got a job based on the fact that they were related to someone else in the company. I'm pretty sure Jim Belushi didn't just happen to stumble across a job at SNL by coincidence. Leadpipevigilante 07:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man -- I know we've had disagreements about the possible "unaccounted for" passenger -- but thanks for keeping up the rvs. The page gets too cluttered when people list EVERY single individual (i.e. "Other #1" "Danielle's Crew Member #2," etc, etc. It's good to keep things concise. I also agree with you to NOT include characters who died in the crash (i.e. "co-pilot," "Lake Man," etc.) and CERTAINLY not Jack's dead father. What is your opinion of the "non televised" characters being included? I personally am against this. It is not true canon. Danflave 18:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian -- wanted to thank you for being so thorough with the "Characters of Lost" page! I appreciate all your edits in keeping the page as accurate and free of OR as possible. Danflave 04:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dharma logo does appear on the wreckage. Good try though.

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7007/dplanebig13cc.jpg

http://www.lost-media.com/modules.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimage&meta=topn&cat=7&pos=0

http://lost.cubit.net/pics/doorMarks.jpg

It is also on the wreckage near Christian's coffin, though google was being a bastard with finding that picture.

Cheers, User:Synflame

I made a mistake on my last edit to this article. I used popups and reverted your edit without making an edit summary. My apologies. Anyway, I meant to say that the fact that the two box companies are one and the same was confirmed by the producers on the Lost podcast. -- MisterHand 14:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian, would like to get your thoughts on adding the Camp names after some of our Grads. Please take a look at the dicussion page and let me know what you think. Thanks for all your help as always, and thank you in advance for your time on this. V/R {Drive2365.217.57.101 17:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

• • Keeping a complete list of Citadel alumni on the main page, seems redundant to me...and the page is already overloaded. See List of Citadel alumni, Category:The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina alumni pages I recently created, in accordance with similar pages for other institutions of higher education. Wrightchr 21:23, 6 January, 2007 (UTC)

When you click start, it should load the page, and then the changes pages, showing any changes it made, and the text should be shown in the large textbox, does this not happen? If it is restting, it might be because the servers are being slow. Martin 17:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it is having trouble loading the page, this may be due to server outage or a problem with your internet connection or browser, make sure internet explorer is working correctly. Martin 19:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian, I am trying to see if there is some interest in an article about cadets in the civil war. I have started some discussion on the VMI site relative to some facts. However, not sure if I am doing it right since a lot of books are cited. Could you give me a good to go? V/R Drive2368.80.152.145 05:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have the same agenda... I've gotten into edit conflicts with you three times tonight. I've got to be faster on the ball. :) KI 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the first to admit, that I am not an authority on Gnosticism.

However in editing the Gospel of Judas article, I noted that no such template existed. I thought it would be a useful template to have to help distinguish 'Gnostic' articles from 'Christian' ones and to provide a common box for articles with a Gnostic theme. I was hoping that this would reduce the number of dogma based battles that occur over edits on the articles about early Christian texts that never became canonized.

I noted that you contributed significantly to that template in your edits, and I wanted to thank you and let you know that I encourage you to continue for the template has already taken on a better form because of your contribution. I'm going to leave this same note on the user page of a few of the others have also improved the template.

LinuxDude 14:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was thinking about taking this whole merge discussion in an entirely different direction. Instead of merging the info on the poorly named Ultraviolet map into the unfocused The DHARMA Initiative. How about we expand on Silentplanet's idea and create sub sections on known Hatches?

Remember the "The DHARMA Initiative" article is supposed to focus on what it is. Adding more information to "the Swan" only shows that this hatch should be expanded upon in another article. The title of this article after all is not "The DHARMA Hatches." To me it looks like we should put in some information about what exactly the DHARMA Initiative is. We should give some history on it maybe include the information on the film and then some brief information about the hatches and what they are. Hatches that we know more about like "The Swan" should have its own page that would then contain information such as "the Map", "The Timer", etc... I think that this is a more reasonable solution and would also make it a more logical solution as an encyclopedia article. Please let me know what you think (in your talk page)! And if you do agree please note that on your merge vote! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 04:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I left out sexual relations when I was shifting things around. But it doesn't fit in the same category as curfew and movie watching. Maybe I'll expand the first paragraph of that section some and include it there where "immorality" is mentioned.

Thanks for the recent editing you did on the BJU page. You got rid of a number of things that I didn't have interest enough to zip. Some time take a look at the Alpha Omega Delta page and tell me whether you think this is a legitimate Wikipedia article.

John Foxe 21:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. it seems that User:Marshall3 isn't interested in fact checking, just PR regarding their rings.--Vidkun 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rillian, I saw and reverted your change to the MoS regarding numbers. Please bring it up on the talk page; such major changes to the WP:MoS can rarely be done without first attempting to gauge consensus. Thanks! --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One talk discussion coming up! Thanks, Rillian 14:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian, in the past you have always been right on with edits and changes. Could you please help us now. Some one is making changes to article on The Citadel that are not accurate. Any thoughts or help you could give me as a honest third party would be much appreciated. V/R Drive 2365.217.57.101 21:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian, I wish there was some way we could thank you for your GREAT work in helping us! You are everything that is good about this Wikipedia!!!! V/R Drive 23 65.217.57.101 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read your changes today and they look great. I added info re STA-21 and MECEP students within the CGPS. These are enlisted active duty members of the Marines and Navy that go to The Citadel to get commissions. THANKS as always! V/R Drive 2365.217.57.101 18:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Rillian! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Joshua Frederick Cockey Talbott Pavel Belyayev Philip Reed J. J. Abrams Samuel Ringgold Rakesh Sharma Carlton Cuse James Heller Franklin Chang-Diaz WCWM Azie Taylor Morton Talgat Musabayev United-SF The Kids Will Have Their Say Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje Pedro Duque Harold Perrineau Jr. Samuel Meredith Valery Bykovsky

Cleanup CW Television Network Valery Ryumin Walt Cummings Merge Transnational Staff college Irenaeus Add Sources Nazi hunter Milton Berle All of Mexico Movement Wikify Schengen Information System The Ultimate Enemy MattHawkins Online Expand List of Little Penguin colonies List of British entomological publishers Short-lived recurring characters on Saturday Night Live

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have you responded to you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Proposal for section Percentages. —Centrx→talk • 23:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your edits, and I won't replace the line you've removed. But it does have revelance to the notion that Graves was defined by his flirtation with the Klan. The three Alabama schools (which have a total of five things named after Graves)would have probably found ways to rename them long since if Graves was remembered for his Klan membership. Also, the entry above Graves, the one for David Davis, mentions the two buildings named for Davis in Youngstown, Ohio.

John Foxe 13:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A did a few tweaks on your good edits, but I can't figure out why all the linking words are now underlined?

John Foxe 14:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong? If Al Gore would have won do you really believe that there would have been an attack on iraq. (BobShoe 14:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have been away for a while and saw that you have been helping us out with The Citadel page. As always thank you. Do not let others get to you...your darn good and I agree with your edits 95% of the time, which is good considering I am a little biased.65.217.57.101 21:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian, I changed the reference on the disambiquation page back to comprehensive vs. liberal arts. I thought we could discuss this here or via email instead of just switching it back and forth ad nauseum.

I have been a prof in the Citadel's electrical engineering department here for nine years and we have faught the liberal arts label as long as we have been here. The presence of a school of engineering makes us a comprehensive college - not a liberal arts college. This is the way The Citadel refers to itself and this is what we are. In 2006, we graduated more majors in engineering than any other discipline except business: http://www.citadel.edu/instresearch/06cds/degrees.htm. Mckinneym 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that the ad should be merged with apple computer advertising. My reasoning is that, I beleibe that if all the apple advertisements are in the one article, they are easier to compare and contrast. Before it was very difficult to try and find the appropriate article. Now it is a lot easier.Useamac 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with you that the 1984 ad is one of the best and most publicized articles made in the past 25 years however, this does not mean the article content will be any differant if it was part of the apple computer advertising article, it will be collaborated so, all he articles will be easy to access. I will stop reverting the redirection and stop being difficult (I admit I can be REALLY difficult :) at times) but, I do not change my pov. I will add a tag immediately and remove the article. Let's just get over what happened (i overreacted) and move on Useamac 16:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to voice your opinion in the merger discussion page (at the bottom of the page, you will find it on the discussion page of the 1984 (Television Commercial) Your opinion is welcomed - not that I think much of it in this case sincerely Useamac 06:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear rillian,

yes, i have used the ip address, to edit stuff on wikipedia - i was away from our house and wanted to add my opinion to the vote however, i am not a puppet belonging to symode09. How do i symode98 prove this to you?

can you please contact symode09 so you can ask him/her to prove it to you?

If I may also ask, what are the grounds on which you accuse me of being a sock puppet?

Useamac 14:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI Rillian,

I see you think that User:Symode09 may be operating a sock puppet. I certain that he isnt as there are a group of boarders from Aquinas College, Perth, that have been working on a number of articles all with similar interest, but their individual levels knowledge and skill do vary suggesting that they are different people. They are all recently arrived editors having only found us since November.

If they're causing you problems drop me a note (or if its significant issue email me) and I'll council them on the issues . Gnangarra 23:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the Apple iPod advertising page. I wanted to move it before, but never found time. Thanks! Arbiteroftruth 03:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the revert. I mis-read it. Your edit looks good. :) Wahkeenah 01:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rillian,

I noticed that you modified the first article link at the disamb page Lost to be "Lost (2004 TV series)" -- this really shouldn't be done, because the title is actually "Lost (TV series)". When piping links, they should either be the accurate name of an article, or an in-context, clear "short form" (such as, the television series, Lost). The matter of adding the date to the article's title is a contentious one, and thus incorporating it in the actual link confuses the matter significantly. See: Talk:Lost (TV series)#Lost (TV series) is ambiguous disambiguation. Thus, I would ask that you revert it back.

Thank you,--Leflyman^Talk 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated a number of changes I made to the article Astronaut, which you rather hastily reverted, including spelling corrections and clarifications. Blanket reverting a number of changes, including helpful ones, is not helpful to the project, and is merely antagonizing to other editors. I recommend you Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and don't engage in edit war-like behavior. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 00:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article on plurality since you need to be reeducated on this topic. Notice I did not write this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural . Thank you for doing us all a favor. Todd Gallagher 21:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rillian, have a look at SMC's talk page (note correct use of apostrophe in this instance) cheers--Bilbo B 14:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Todd Gallagher made a request for informal mediation here about the article Senior Military College. I don't see that you've been notified of this, or are willing to participate, but on behalf of the Mediation cabal, I am offering to mediate. Some points for your consideration: your participation is entirely voluntary, and can change at any time. Also, I have no power whatever to make or enforce decisions, I can only make suggestions. Please let me know here or on my talk page if you'd like me to mediate. IronDuke 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There has been quite a lengthy discussion last September at Template talk:Infobox Astronaut#Astronaut/Cosmonaut regarding the infobox fields and the designation of space tourists. Please don't ignore it and don't modify the infobox violating a consensus which has taken quite some time and has been quite tough to establish. Hektor 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:Moving a page for the proper way to move a page to a new name. (I've tagged Philip K. Dick Award to be fixed by an admin). Thanks :) --Quiddity 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were wearing identical test pilot/right stuff costumes, brand new, identical brown leather jackets. I was dissappointed that you felt it appropriate to try and start a revert war over this, likewise that you characterised my edit as trivial. Retracted, my mistake, I was wrong. Gwen Gale 03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I reverted your info boxes for Doug Shane and Peter Siebold, as neither one flew SS1 into space, and therefore did not qualify for their astronaut wings. Akradecki 02:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in the case of civilians who have not been qualified as NASA astronauts, there's only one other way to become one, and that's to receive their FAA astronaut cert, which these two did not do. They're not NASA qualified astronauts, they're not FAA astronauts. They're great men, I know them both, but calling them "astronauts" when they haven't been qualified as such is providing less than accurate information to our readers.Akradecki 02:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are correct in a way, there is no such thing in the U.S. as a "pilot's license". We have Pilots Certificates and associated ratings (but we don't have "badges"....I have no idea where you get the idea of a "badge", as there's no such thing). Melvill and Binnie didn't get a "licence" but a rating added to their pilots certificate for flying into space. The other two did not. It wasn't something "honorary", it was an actual rating, so they are rated as astronauts, while Shane and Siebold are not. You can train as a pilot all you want, but until you take the checkride, you don't get the rating or certificate. For the astronauts, you don't get that until you make the actual flight. Though I didn't say this earlier, by calling those who aren't really astronauts such a title, you denegrate the work and qualifications of those who have accomplished it. Let's bring this back to wikipedia-land, though: you have to have verifiability for statements, you don't get to make up stuff yourself. NASA certainly doesn't officially recognize these two as astronauts, so that leaves the only other body who can officially recognize them as astronauts, and that is the FAA. If you can point me to some other official, verifiable source that has designated these two as astronauts, then I'll gladly concur with you on this, but until you can, we should stick with wikipedia verifiabilty guidelines. Akradecki 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're suddenly readding these, and referring to a discussion on Astronaut. There's been no new discussion since the last one when it was established that these two are not recognized by anyone official as astronauts. Your persistence in this is approaching the realm of bad-faith edits. Akradecki 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you know the citing reliable sources is an important part of wikipedia. Making claims that cannot be substantiated by vaild, external sources are subject to removal, and should actually be removed by any editor who finds it. In these situations, this editor has requested your attention on this topic and you have ignored them, and continue to re insert the material. If you have source to back up your claims, I will be glad to re-evaluate this. However, should you continue to re-add this material, it will be seen as edit warring, disruption and may reluctantly lead to a short term block. Please find reference before re-adding the material. Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough to remove names from the Bob Jones University page that don't have bios. But it's a double standard to repost Sligh at the same time.--John Foxe 22:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they different, you ask? Because they are not recognized by NASA or FAA as astronauts, and to present them as such to our readers is deceptive. You know that this has been discussed before, and consensus went against your position, so please, even if you disagree with it, respect it and let it go. Akradecki 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, infoboxes are subject to requiring factual verification as much as content in the article. Otherwise, I could throw a country singer infobox, or an aircraft infobox on the article. The argument that it is an infobox and therefore does not count is faulty. Second of all, If a previous discussion has discussed this issue, and in a directaion not in your favor, re-adding it is in bad taste. Please cease re-adding it until this matter has been resolved. Thank you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a previous discussion regarding this? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there are no sources within the Doug Shane article that reference him as an astronaut. Also, none of the references in Peter Siebold also classify him as an astronaut. If you found sources stating that they were indeed astronauts, I may not be adverse to the inclusion of the infobox. Is there a pilot or aviator infobox? That may seem more appropriate in this situation. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is wrong somewhere else does not mean it is correct here. You are by all means allowed to request verification that other parties are astronauts or remove quotes saying that they are (as long as they remian unverified). Wikipedia articles themselves are not appropriate soruces. I hope you understand this has nothing against anybody in particular, it is just how the policies are written. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if they have done everything in the description. In this situation, that is YOU making the connection. When YOU make the connection, that violates Wikipedias original research issues. If these guys ar ereally astronauts, I am sure it would not be too hard to find a source somewhere that makes that claim (other than a wikipedia article). If there is no sources then it is not verifiable. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns. And actually it is very confusing. How many of the other people with infoboxes can you find a third party source stating they are "astronauts". While there is no official governing body that determines what an astronaut is, you could find a newspaper that refers to them as astronauts, a news report, a websit (as long as it is reliable in wikipedias terms). However, the point of wikipedia is not for US, the editors to make the connection. I know it is hard to understand. It may look like an astronaut, it may smell like an astronaut, but until SOMEBODY ELSE tells us it is an astronaut, it is not. (That is how it is supposed to work). By you saying that there is no official sources that refer to these people as astronauts but they meey the definition, that is YOU making the connection. We as editors are not supposed to make the connection, however write the articles based on an external parties connection. I hope this has helped to clear things up. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, there are official sources for who an astronaut is. The various branches of the military and NASA award astronaut wings for a reason: this is an official designation. Same with the FAA for commericial astronauts. Shane and Siebold were originally announced at the beginning of the SS1 program as part of the group of four who would become astronauts through the program, but ultimately, instead of each piloting one of the four planned flights, only Binnie and Melvill flew the missions, and only those two were officially designated as astronauts by the FAA. There is sources/cites for this information (which I've already added where appropriate). Akradecki 18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←Thank you for being civil through all of this. You are a very patient editor. Your use the country music analogy (which i had used previously). I guess rock music might have been a better example. In the rock music and heavy metal rock music wikiprojects and related articles, there are many edit wars over what genre a band falls within. There are many genres of rock music, grunge, post grunge, heavy metal, etc etc etc. The edit wars that occur are because a group of editors find a source that states something. ANother editor disagress and feels that the bands music meets the description of another genre and changes it. This is an example of how applying an article to a definition can constitute originial research. Good luck finding the sources! I have nothing against any of this, just trying to make everybody happy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know when these guys are scheduled to go into space? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Nowak's First Flight was to be sts-118 not sts-121 sts-121 was later in the manifest before sts-107 made changes in the manifest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesbondfan (talk • contribs) 03:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am proposing a page move of Astronaut Memorial. You have edited that page in the last few months. Normally I wouldn't spam user pages, but since that page does not see much action at all, and I don't want to go thru the work of fixing re-directs if people end up disagreeing, I'm soliciting your opinion prior to the move. If you don't care, or if you only edited the article for anti-vandalism or copyedit work, please ignore this message and accept my apologies for the interruption. Otherwise, please comment at Talk:Astronaut Memorial. --barneca (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For unknown reasons you keep reverting the removal of the extra dab from Black Swan. Please note that you are coming close to infringing the three reversions rule. 05:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 June 2007

please see this request for a 3RR intervention Jimfbleak 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't violate 3rr, but there's clearly some reverting going on. Please discuss the content dispute at Talk:Black_Swan#Slow-burn_editwar and try to self-limit yourself to 1RR. There's no point in filling the page history with reversions. Thanks.--Chaser - T 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? You give no justification for the deletion of this information in Senior Military College. Why? PLEASE DISCUSS CHANGES ON TALK PAGE! — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, you did. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts without discussion or proper explanation in edit summary are rude, especially when reverting a page where there is a dispute. Please assist in reaching a consensus by discussing your edits on the talk page, rather than reverting without an explanation. Also it makes edit histories much easier to read if edit summaries are accurate. Thanks and happy editing! - Jirt 00:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's seems to me your very bias, when it comes to edits. You undid my edit, when I added the patches, and and mission info, for the four crew members I did. But not for other three. OH AND FYI, NASA has never changed a shuttle crew this close to launch. Looks like you and Jerry's Soup Nazi have something in common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subman758 (talk • contribs) 06:29, August 7, 2007

I've wanted to remove the statement about the "First flight of an educator astronaut", but I honestly thought it would cause edit wars, considering how inconsistent NASA has been with the term, so I just left it in, lol. Now that the mission is over, it will probably not get reverted though, so good job! ^Ariel♥Gold 14:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!. I see you modified some of the text of Space exploration, apparently to eliminate terms like astronaut, and emphasize these were the first people from the nations in question to go into space. I support that idea, but "citizen" (in the minds of some readers) implies "non-military". And as you know these first-time-in-space people tended to have been in active military service at the times they were launched. I don't want to start an edit war, but nonetheless intend to change these uses of "citizen" to to "person".... (sdsds - talk) 16:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Removal of Malaysian Astronaut program info. I respect your edits a lot, as I hope you know, we've worked on several articles together, and I think you're a great editor. But this issue, I do not agree with your decision to revert me. It is not my opinion at all; if you see the list, there is commentary about new programs, (see Canada's first group, X Prize, etc.) and the brand new Malaysian program is quite appropriate to mention. The program is real, the training is real, and while yes, NASA termed him a SFP, that doesn't diminish the Malaysian program, and it deserves to be mentioned, just as that of Canada, (1983) X Prize, etc. I realize there has been a lot of silly edit warring on the whole Shukor being a tourist/astronaut issue, but I do think that it is really not something that should be edit warred over; the terminology NASA used is because they don't have a designation for someone who isn't from NASA, JAXA, ESA, or RSA, so they use the catch-all term, but there are plenty of references to back up the fact that this program is real, his training was that of an astronaut (not the same training a paying tourist does), the Russian government has confirmed he's a "cosmonaut", and actually have extended an open invitation to Maylasia to send another astronaut to the ISS.

I initially was on the side of those who was calling Shukor a tourist at first, but then I did some research, read up on it, and realized that's not what he is, he's not a "participant", and the sources back this up. Now, consider the list, it is a list of astronauts, and their positions they were selected for, and trained for, i.e. Mission Specialist, Pilot, etc. It is not a list of the position they held when they flew. Now obviously Maylasia is not training these people to be "Spaceflight participants", lol. This is another reason that the term does not work with this list. There is truly no valid reason to use this term in this list, as it is quite specifically a list of the positions they were selected for, and trained for. Therefore, respectfully, I disagree with you removing that section, and I will restore it, as both the terminology, and the commentary, is appropriate for the list's context, and it is backed up by a reliable source (and can be backed up my multiple reliable sources). I hope that this doesn't turn into a big issue, as I hope you can understand the context of the article, the meaning of "spaceflight participant" (used mainly for tourists), and the appropriateness of adding commentary to another country's new program. Respectfully, Ariel♥Gold 16:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, and good job on the article. I think a hatnote needs to be added somewhere to Space tourism, to direct readers there. I'll work on adding reliable sources, and I moved the Charles blog into "External links" as that's not a reliable source, and added the {{reflist}} template and references section. I'm glad you took the leap to do this, when I suggested it months ago, nobody thought it was a good idea, so I just created it as a redirect to the tourism article. I think this fills a gap, as I'm sure there are people who type in this term and don't really find the tourism article specifically helpful. Thanks for creating it! Ariel♥Gold 04:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you again, lol. I thought you might want to weigh in on the flag discussion, Talk:Expedition_16, per the Manual of Style, WP:FLAG, everyone seems to be in agreement that the flag icons are unnecessary decoration and to emphasize nationality over the agency represented seems to be off in context, so we were talking about changing to a new system of simply linking to the agency, such as NASA, RSA, ESA, CSA, JAXA, etc. I thought you might want to get in on the conversation if you hadn't noticed it. :o) Ariel♥Gold 01:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hi :) Again, lol. I'm so bummed about the postponed launch, blah! Anyway, I wanted to let you know that I moved the ECO sensor image back up under the header, because if it is at the end, it would displace the image that will be added for launch day, and displace all images added during the course of the mission. The section will be expanded after today's briefing, so the image won't overlap, but if images are put at the very bottom of sections, it causes layout issues. I hope you don't mind! Ariel♥Gold 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I reverted your revert of my edit again. Maybe my edit summary was not sufficient to understand what I have done, therefore here a longer explanation: Although I'm a German, I own Nichelle Nichols Book "Beyond Uhura" in english. It was not available in a German edition, therefore I bought the original. On page 198 Nichols says: "[...] we were probably actually working with significant less money than that. This is why in the third season you saw fewer outdoor location shots, for example. Top writers, top guest stars [...]". Therefore, after my modification it was still a quote, and I think it was even better quoted than before. --Cyfal (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I don't understand why you changed the phrase again, without any explanation. The problem with Nichelle Nichols observed that as a result of NBC's actions, "you saw fewer outdoor location shots, for example [in season 3]" is, that its meaning is somewhat ambigous. It can also be the case that "season 3" is the example instead of that examples in season 3 are given. (Changing the phrase into Nichelle Nichols observed that as a result of NBC's actions, "[in season 3] you saw fewer outdoor location shots, for example." would resolve that ambiguity.)

Shurely, from the context of the preceding sentence it is clear what is meant, but why shouldn't we use my version for the citation? My version has also the advantage the ugly brackets are not necessary. And as I said before, it's the correct quote.

Can you explain to me why you changed my version again?

Regards --Cyfal (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! --Cyfal (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been nominated for deletion, please join the discussion here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you are a member of the Space missions WikiProject. A couple of weeks ago, I proposed that the Space missions and Space travellers projects, which both appear to be inactive be merged into the Human Spaceflight project. Whilst this is being done, the capitalisation of the Human spaceflight project's title would also be corrected (ie. Human Spaceflight → Human spaceflight). The projects are all doing the same/very similar things, and in my opinion, a single, larger, project would be more effective than three smaller, and somewhat inactive projects.. In light of very little response to messages on the project talk pages, I am now sending this message to all members of all three projects, inviting them to discuss the proposal on the Human Spaceflight project's talk page. I would appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut does mean American space traveler. Please check here to see that Astronaut is not an internationally accepted name. http://www.answers.com/topic/astronaut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_space_travel_by_nationality http://homeboynet.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/astronauts-cosmonauts-taikonauts-and-spationauts/ http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Astronaut

I agree that Taikonaut is not universally accepted as chinese space traveler, but US denomination "astonaut" shouldn't overshadow Russian Astronauts (who don't see any reason to call themselves astronauts), or European Spationauts. The acceptance of amercian "Astonaut" as an international term is an unacceptable US-centered term.

Hello Rillian. Do you know if it's possible to click on an image in Wikipedia, to get to an article - i.e. clicking on the NASA logo to get to the nasa article. Regards Necessary Evil (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns about the different definitions on different pages are appropriate to bring up on the talk page of List of space travelers by nationality or associated pages. RandomCritic (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not worth arguing about, but I googled the phrase "younger contemporary" and found a number of first-rate uses of the term. Interestingly, the most scholarly of them are from old reference works. Presumably the phrase is less used these days.--John Foxe (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to try to resolve that dispute with words rather than code. Please do not restore those templates, which I already removed once, without clearing it with me, the admin that's looking into the edit warring. I dropped the ip a note, so keep me updated. El_C 01:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I applaud your removal of unflown missions from the astronout infoboxes -- thank-you for taking that stance! That said, I wonder if there is some way we should be consistently indicating on astronaut bio pages when there are upcoming missions they are scheduled to fly. It could be some additional field in the infobox, but it might be better as something more like the {{launching}} template for satellites, that is designed to be removed from the article once the mission is actually flown. Tangentially, have you seen the proposal to create a coordinated aerospace task force for aviation and space biographies? This is the kind of question which would be great for discussion there.... (sdsds - talk) 01:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't like the fact I called you out. I see you deleted my comments. If I am correct that is against Wikipedia rules. So like I said, you want me to use edit summaries, then make everyone else do it too.--Steve (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are being solicited at Talk:Virginia Military Institute#Reaching a compromise. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take notice: New text has been written for article Ronnie Nader based on many references, this is not text taken from EXA website you may want to compare those, i think you deleted it whithout comparing last time, they are different. Airwolf754 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your trying to make the caption more accurate, but they have made it clear that 2 citations is too excessive and they will quickly revert it. I have already hit my 3RR for the day, so I have the version that has already met consensus in other discussion pages. If you replace the caption with this, you should be fine:

On September 20, 2006, Sarah Palin visited Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity.^[1] Duuude007 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is need here, this Hilbert137 is vandalizing the article Ronnie Nader that you already checked up in August 2008, please help asap , revert to the state you last checked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Airwolf754 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for the welcome message.I would also like to stress I am keen to resolve what I suspect is only a minor difference of opinion on the respective weighting of the inclusion of astronaut & cosmonaut. My view is, very strongly but not aggresively, that both terms are widely used in English (although perhaps not in the US) and this needs to be recognised more than is current. Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very definitions of astronauts, taikonauts and spationauts fly in the face of any universal use of astronaut : astronauts are American Space travelers, and that's it. And you obstructing it on Wikipedia for jingoistic reasons won't change anything.J-Baptiste (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mediation case name, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, J-Baptiste (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Dear Rillian. The very fact that the US term for space travelers "astronaut" is used by you as the generic term for space travelers is a sure sign that you're not being neuitral. Since Russians launch "cosmonauts", since Europeans launch "spationauts", since Chinese launche "taikonauts" (even if this term might be replace by the corresponding chinese term, seldom used in western media...), you using the term astronaut imply a serious bias of any Wikipedia article concerned. I hope you can agree that the correct term is simply "space traveler" and that "Astronaut", as used during the Cold War, is linked to the US.[reply]

Considering the number of comments about you not abiding by wikipedia's common regulations, I hope you'll be banned altogether.—Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Baptiste (talk • contribs)

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International Space Station#The Failed FAC. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the editorial assistance that you gave to help improve this article. Keep up the good work as we try to take this article to WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rillian. You moved Presidents Day (United States) to Washington's Birthday back in May, but you did so through copy-paste. This is a problem because editors are required to be given credit under the terms of the GDFL. This is accomplished through the edit history, and by copy-pasting articles, the edit history is severed from the text (this effectively nullifies the GDFL for that article). If there are redirects in the way of a move, you can simply request an admin perform the move for you at WP:RM, or slap a {{db-move}} on the redirect. I already fixed this article, so don't worry about it, just keep it in mind for the future. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Simonyi is one of the few Hungarians (the first?) to travel into space. His ethnicity in this case is important and thus should be stated in the opening paragraph. However, as with every biography on Wikipedia of a living person, we also state their nationality. I understand why someone would want to state his ethnicity, and I agree that is important in this case. But placing emphasis on his ethnicity over nationality violates our Manual of Style, which states that "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." In this case, it is. However, nationality is always reqired, which "will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." Simonyi became notable when he worked with Microsoft in the U.S., and again when he went into space, and in both cases he was an American.--98.232.98.144 (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to make changes, such as the removal of the mission duration for STS-128, then you should do the same for ALL missions, see STS-125 and STS-127.--Navy blue84 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ronnie Nader, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Nader. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hektor (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GW… 22:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STS-134 and STS-133 have both been base lined as launching NET July 29, 2010. However only one is going to get the slot. They base lined them like this so that they can decided which one they want to fly first. In order to say that 134 is going before 133 for sure is stupid. A change request has to be filled, which it has not, and it needs to be approved before it can happen. Unless you can publish a reliable source that says the CR has been submited and approved then please don't change it. I know and just about every one who follows the SSP knows STS-134 is probably going to fly first, but until a reliable source publishes that information, it should be left alone. I will also add a section to the talk page so people can comment, and if consensus is given for your change then I will go with it. But untill such time, I think it should be left like it is.--Navy blue84 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian, mission insignias are unhidden when a mission is complete. This has been the way its been done since I joined Wikipedia, and as far as I am aware this policy hasn't been changed. Please lets leave it this way. Only completed missions should be shown in the info box.--Navy blue84 (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I've created an article on the Manned Spaceflight Engineer Program. YLee (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rillian, if I understand the latest edit activities (edit wars?) on the Patrick Lang article correctly, you want to make it appear as an autobiographical entry? Or add a Autobiography category. Do you have any evidence Patrick Lang is involved in the article? It feels very unlikely to me. Anything I should know, admittedly I am not an insider? Has Omarcheeseboro convinced you it should be added? I do not have the time to look closer into this, so I'd appreciate your help. LeaNder (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Public colleges and universities in Virginia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for deletion page. Thank you. Masonpatriot (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By changing oz to g as the lead, you are changing the amount of g so that it is no longer supported by the ref.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-MBK₀₀₄ 04:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to say that Clervoy is or was a CNES astronaut ? AFAIK he has been directly recruited by ESA. Hektor (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the heads-up. This is new to me. Hektor (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you offer any suggestions at Talk:Shenzhou 7‎#Rewording EVA? Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		This is awarded for your recent copy edit of Up in the Air (novel). Dan Dassow (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, there are a few more which I have posted at Talk:STS-132#All veteran crew. Perhaps you should revisit this edit? -MBK₀₀₄ 07:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a followup to the discussion you participated in on Talk:Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit GW… 13:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Tea Party Caucus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Yousou (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination apparently never happened, so I removed the hangon tag the page creator added in anticipation of it. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I see your logic but on Sunita Williams, the patches represent separate missions and expeditions. However, with Helen Sharman. These two missions are one individual mission. Technically, she is not a member of the Soyuz TM-11 crew. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharman is as much a member of [[Soyuz TM-11] as Williams is of STS-117. Williams' name is not on the STS-117 patch and presumably only trained for duties with that crew related to re-entry. How is that different from Sharman? Rillian (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, Williams trained as a mission specialist for the STS-117 crew, whereas Sharman was a Research Cosmonaut as opposed to a career cosmonaut and likely did not have many if any technical duties aboard Soyuz TM-11. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her technical duties would have been the same on TM-12 as on TM-11. We already list TM-12 and TM-11 in the infobox under missions, why not both patches? Rillian (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it would be better to list both missions (up and down) but only include one patch (up) to clarify the fact that it is one mission altogether, this is how it's done in other articles about non-career astronauts and cosmonauts. Is there a policy that says anything about this? Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 0, December 2010
Welcome to The Downlink · Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects · User Activity Checks Welcome to The Downlink Welcome to The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Future issues will contain information on issues under discussion, newly featured content, and articles written by members of the project to appear in the newsletter. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter. If you were not aware of being a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, membership of the former Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight and Space colonization WikiProjects was merged into WikiProject spaceflight during the reorganisation of the spaceflight projects, for more details, please see below. Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects The ongoing discussion of the future of Space WikiProjects has been making progress. WikiProject Space was abolished on 5 December 2010, with the Spaceflight, Astronomy and Solar System projects becoming independent of each other. On the same day, an assessment banner, {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} was created for WikiProject Spaceflight to replace the generic space one which had been used previously. On 9 December, WikiProject Space Colonization was abolished, with its tasks being subsumed into WikiProject Spaceflight. On 12 December, the Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight WikiProjects became task forces of WikiProject Spaceflight, whilst WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight became a working group. A number of issues are still under discussion: Introducing better defined assessment criteria and an A-class review process Setting clearer importance criteria for assessing articles Establishing a joint task force with the Astronomy and Solar System projects to cover space telescopes and planetary probes Defining the roles of projects, taskforces and working groups, and processes for establishing new ones Improving the profile and activity of the project Much of the current discussion is taking place on the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page, however there is still some discussion on the original proposal page. User Activity Checks A series of checks are underway to establish the numbers of users who are still active within WikiProject Spaceflight, its task forces and working group. All usernames on the members lists were struck out, and members were asked to unstrike their own names if they were still an active member of the project. If you wish to do so, and have not already, please unstrike your name from the master list, plus the lists on any applicable task forces or working groups Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Please could you take the time to reply at User talk:Sladen#Infobox Astronaut. —Sladen (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 1, January 2011
Welcome to The Downlink · Project News · News from Orbit · Article News · Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics · Salyut 2 Welcome to The Downlink Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements. Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details. Project News A new working group has been formed. The space stations working group is expected to work towards creating Featured topics related to space stations. It currently has three members. Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal. A discussion regarding opening relations with the Aerospace biography task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation was held, but no conclusions were reached. The Article Alerts bot has resumed operation, and a problem with the information the bot had been delivering was discussed and resolved. New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented. Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it. Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised. One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{WikiProject Space}} and {{WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class. News from Orbit On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article. On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles. On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite. 17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles. Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger on mission STS-51-L. Article News It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight. Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain. Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited. The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts. Missile Range Instrumentation Ship is currently listed at requested moves, with a proposal to rename it tracking ship. The only open good article nomination is of the book Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, which is currently awaiting review. Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic. Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project. One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative. To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN. This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided. I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content. Selected Article – Salyut 2 Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission. The Salyut 2 article describes the station: “ Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyut space stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973. ” The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 15:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I noticed you posted the notability tag at the top of this article. I agree that this article seems to be the self-publication of the individual and lacks notability. I checked the links provided as sources, none of them mention the "Bill of Federalism" other than the author's own article in the Wall Street Journal. I would be willing to support it's deletion. Squad51 (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]