User talk:Magneticlifeform

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Boeing X-37, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -MBK₀₀₄ 10:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Magneticlifeform, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

Hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Good luck. -fnlayson (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Rocketry activity check

You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as being a member of WikiProject Rocketry. In order to establish how many members are still actively editing within the project, if you still consider yourself to be an active member of WikiProject rocketry, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Members and move your name from the list of inactive members at the bottom of the page to the list of active members at the top of the page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Rocketry at 19:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits...

Hi there. You appear to be adding content to Wikipedia from a source that you yourself have authored, and that has been self-published as an ebook. Self-published sources are rarely considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. You may also wish to read Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflicts of interest and maintaining a neutral point of view. While the information added by your edits may well be factual, if the source does not meet the reliable source guidelines, they cannot, unfortunatly, be included in Wikipedia's articles. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger, the recent improvement in the conversion template (e.g. 5"=127 mm rather than 130 mm) is a welcome change. I don't know if you were responsible for the upgrade, but, if so, thank you. Two digit accuracy was simply not enough for numbers beginning with 1 or 2.Magneticlifeform (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger, you are correct. I have collected a lot of data on rocket motors and engines and placed this data in a variety of Wiki articles. I don't know specifically which edit you are referring to. The original sources for most of the rocket engine data (PWR, ATK Space Propulsion System Catalog, etc.) are given in the references at the end of the Solid-Fuel Rockets Wiki article which was the first article in which I placed the data. In subsequent articles in which I have used the same date, I referenced a table in the Evolution of Rocket Technology book which contains all the data compiled in one place. I recently edited the Tiny Tim Wiki article with unpublished information I was able to obtain from the Caltech archives and the Caltech Alumni Association. The Caltech data dump was rather large and much of it is just loose papers that I haven't figured out how to reference in a meaningful way. Its all a work in progress. I can answer specific questions but the general problem of having a wriiten reference for everything I put Wiki articles is not going to go away because much of what I write is based on my first hand experience as a aerospace engineer and I am not going to leave that out of my writing. I would be glad to share information and sources with you directly.Magneticlifeform (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi, have you read this important Wikipedia policy? The first paragraph probably applies to you. In particular, if you can't cite a source, do not add it to Wikipedia. Contrary to popular belief, just because something is true does not mean it is allowed to be added to Wikipedia. All the best, Mlm42 (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Enough of this snobbery. A book written by a career-long aerospace engineer who has worked professionally for Rocketdyne, Bell Labs, and Thiokol IS a source. If you have a complaint about something I have written, be specific. I will be glad to identify other on-line, ebook or print sources for the same information, but first you have to tell me what it is. In most cases I have already cited independent sources for the same information in the references to other Wiki articles. My library dates back to 1953 and probably weighs more than your car. It amazes me that you accept Wade's astronautix.com and Guntersspacepage but shun books written by professional engineers who actually worked on it and want to pass along information to people with shared interests. Be specific. I will either email an independent source or tell you where one can be found. What I will not do is go back and do dozens of do-overs for no good reason.Magneticlifeform (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I think more experts (such as yourself) are needed around Wikipedia, and in most cases I think their contributions are well received - in particular, when they correct mistakes. But I'll give you some specifics, which will help you understand why this thread was started: the section Liquid rocket propellants#Hydrogen, which you significantly expanded a little while ago. Here are some comments that will raise alarm bells for most regular editors: "Hydrogen has a reputation with many people.." may be true, but this is not an "encyclopedic" sentence because using words like "exotic" in this instance could be seen as editorializing; in any case, a reference to the "Hindenburg syndrome" wouldn't be hard to provide. Vague phrases like "claims are made.." are basically never appropriate. Claims are made that the moon is made of cheese. This sentence should be changed so that it identifies who is making the claim, or it should be removed; that's why another editor tagged it with the "by whom?" tag.

Basically, editors want articles to be written in such a way that somebody could verify fairly easily that most things are backed up by good sources. If things you've written are questioned, then a "citation needed" tag is often added. Another editor added such a tag to your claim about hydrogen only venting into the atmosphere once it's loaded on a launch vehicle. If no source is provided, then this statement (and others) are at risk of being removed (is this statement even always true?).. usually a week is considered long enough to allow a source to be found. If you want that content to stay, then the burden is unfortunately on you to provide a source. In other words, you have already been asked for sources for specific things.

Hopefully you can understand why Wikipedia demands sources.. because anybody can create a username and claim to be an expert. Fortunately, experts often know their sources well! :-) I'd be happy to discuss this further; Wikipedia can be a pretty unwelcoming place.. certainly your experience is not unique, and many experts experience the same backlash, causing them to give up. Hopefully you won't give up; as I say, we need more experts around. Mlm42 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the "thumbs up" on the WikiProject: Physics page. Hip-waders and bullet-proof vests are required equipment to edit here it seems. You've encouraged me to continue, knowing I'm not the only one suffering. I do think that it's proper to have some of the confrontational nature of scientific method, and I can't say where the balance should be. I guess I'm willing to type in five partial differential equations each of five vector variables in Cartisian, cylindrical and spherical coordinates just so I don't have to say "the centripedal force inherent to a spinning sphere of matter". I do hope you'll join me and continue working through these issues, we've all the time in the world to get this right. Watchwolf49z (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Gentlemen, thank you for your patience with my impatience, and thank you for the personal notes. One of the stumbling blocks for me in Wiki editing has been trying to address common misconceptions by first bringing them up and then arguing against them. That has been a poor approach. Hydrogen hazards was an example. Kersoene vs. hydrogen test stand fires would have illustrated the point about hydrogen safety w/o mentioning "Hindenburg syndrome". I'm learning. Another problem has been slow turnaround. After I write something, it is pretty rare that I see it again in a week, so I have been missing most of your editors' notes. Thanx for pointing that out. I have a lot of catching up to do. Just figuring out how to add a photo along with the text is something I haven't gotten around to. I would like to find out more about Watchwolf's physics page, so I will probably be looking more into that. Thanks again.Magneticlifeform (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rocket launcher may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

the 1510 edition of the Wujing Zongyao translated by Needham and others at Princeton University. (The original Wujing Zongyao was compiled in 1040 to 1044. The original was lost before the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]