User talk:Modest Genius/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

About Hayabusa2's mission extension

Hi, Modest Genius, regarding your recent edit at Template:Space observatories, the asteroid probe Hayabusa2 actually is planned to observe exoplanets, so in this aspect, it's now a space observatory.[1] During its mission extension from 2021 to 2026/7, Hayabusa2 will study the diameter of known exoplanets using the transit method. It's similar to the 'EPOCh' mission of the Deep Impact/EPOXI comet probe. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

That's pushing the definition of a space observatory. Hayabusa2 can only observe a handful of already-known exoplanets around bright stars, and are doing so partly because they don't have anything else to do during the cruise phase. It's not the purpose - or even major activity - of the mission extension. New Horizons also performed some astronomical observations (background light, parallax etc.) but that doesn't make it an observatory. I don't think EPOCh should count either, as it performed literally seven exoplanet observations that produced just one scientific paper (unless I'm missing something). Modest Genius ^talk 12:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hayabusa2 can only observe a handful of already-known exoplanets around bright stars

>>The fact that a spacecraft only observes known celestial bodies and doesn't search for new ones doesn't necessarily mean it's not a space observatory. ESA's CHEOPS satellite also observes known exoplanets exclusively. We've known of Jupiter and Saturn's existence from prehistory, yet we still point space observatories like Hubble and Hisaki towards them, as there's still much to learn about them. Same goes for exoplanets.

and are doing so partly because they don't have anything else to do during the cruise phase.

>>Yes, that's the truth.

It's not the purpose - or even major activity - of the mission extension.

>>While indeed it's not the purpose of the mission extension, to cite this space.com article,[2]

 This new extended mission will send Hayabusa2 on a decades-long cruise through space to focus on planetary defense, interplanetary dust and exoplanet detection.

Two among the three focuses, interplanetary dust and exoplanet detection are astronomical observation, so I believe it's safe to say that during its mission extension, besides being an asteroid probe, Hayabusa2 will also function as a space observatory. Although this is a primary source, this video from the Japanese space agency about the mission extension[3] mentions about observing the zodiacal light and exoplanets, albeit briefly, at around 1:12.

New Horizons also performed some astronomical observations (background light, parallax etc.) but that doesn't make it an observatory.

>>New Horizons' observation of background light was conducted for around a year (August 2018 to September 2019) with seven imaging programs[4], and the parallax observation lasted for around two days. For Hayabusa2, observation of zodiacal light and exoplanets lasts for five years (2021 to 2026) at the minimum.[5] The time allocated for the observation made by each probe is fairly different, and I don't recall the observation of background light and parallax to be featured in any summary about the entire New Horizons mission extension. The priority given to the probe's astronomical observation differs significantly between New Horizons and Hayabusa2.

I don't think EPOCh should count either, as it performed literally seven exoplanet observations that produced just one scientific paper (unless I'm missing something).

>>While I don't have strong objections regarding EPOXI, note that this was before Kepler's age, and at the time (with the exception of CoRoT and MOST) spacecraft missions focusing on exoplanet observation was mostly nonexistent, and thus has historical significance. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think there's a qualitative difference between a spacecraft that was deliberately designed for astronomical observations and is dedicated to performing them, vs a brief and/or temporary re-purposing of a spacecraft that was intended for something else or that already completed its primary mission. Observing a transit of a well-known exoplanet around a nearby star is not hard - it can be done with amateur-level equipment from a back garden and doesn't require a space telescope. I'm still not convinced that Hayabusa2, New Horizons or EPOCh constitute 'space observatories'. However I'm not particularly invested in the issue and only made one edit to one template. If you want to revert me I won't be offended. Modest Genius ^talk 11:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Short Description

This article was listed in the category Articles with long short description. See here

With short descriptions, we have a situation where we are aiming to have a maximum of 40 characters. The driving reason is that the short description is displayed on the mobile access to the article in a search result. 65% of access to Wikipedia is now via mobile devices or tablets. With courtesy, your reversion somewhat defeats that objective to display a short description that is readable on the mobile device. Descriptions over 40 characters get chopped off. In this instance, your guidance is sought. What form of short description would you consider appropriate? --Whiteguru (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Whiteguru: Fair enough. I reverted because a nonsensical short description is worse than useless for those users. I agree that the pre-existing text was too long, which is why I then cut it down, but apparently not by enough. 40 characters is really short. I'll have a think to see if I can come up with a briefer description, but am struggling to do so. Some scientific topics cannot be explained to non-experts in such a brief phrase. (For anyone wondering what we're talking about, see [6] and [7]) Modest Genius ^talk 11:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. You should see some of the chemical compounds we have to deal with. Same problem, trying to get to a reasonable description with common sense. Thanks for your efforts. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Steven Weinberg ITN

Since you have a scientific background, I think it should be a blurb Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I commented at WP:ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 10:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Antony Hewish

On 16 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Antony Hewish, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Postnoms

I suggest you actually read the RfC. It certainly did not conclude that the template should not be changed. It concluded that either size was okay: which means the original size when the postnoms were added should be retained, not the size when the template was first used (given some editors applied the template to thousands of articles that already had postnoms, that would mean that the small size was preferred over the normal size - not what the RfC conclusion said). However, I can't be bothered to argue further. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: I did read the RfC. The original question (which you wrote!) refers specifically to the template: "should we keep the template default for the size of post-nominal letters at 85% or increase it to 100%?". The outcome was 'no consensus' and the closing rationale stated "status quo ante should remain with the template default at 85%" and recommended "seeking consensus on the talk page before changing the size in an individual article (either to or from the default)". I agree that this isn't worth arguing about, and suggest it's not worth changing in articles either. Modest Genius ^talk 11:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Applying the template to an article that already has 100% postnoms without changing the size to 100% is changing the size! Nowhere does it say "after the template has been applied"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The template was added to the article in 2017. The RfC wasn't until 2019. Modest Genius ^talk 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion pages.

What if the page im trying to voice concerns on have been locked? What forum do I have to voice concerns? Skeszler92 (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Skeszler92: You can still post on the article talk page even if the article itself has been protected. Modest Genius ^talk 17:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Rukraine

Hey, what's up with calling alt1 & alt2 editorializing? That Ukrainian resistance has been widespread is objectively nuetral, based on innumerable RS reports. All around the country and in its main cities, Ukrainian forces and volunteers have fought the Russians. And BTW, I was careful to avoid such POV adjectives as determined, stout, strong, tough, vigorous – even though some might consider them appropriate to the circumstances. – Sca (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:EDITORIAL wasn't quite the right guideline. 'encounters widespread resistance' seems subjective to me, as if the resistance was surprising or unexpected. But I can understand if you don't read it the same way. Modest Genius ^talk 16:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me you're reading something into it that isn't there. (Perhaps you thought the Ukrainians wouldn't fight?) It's meant as a purely geographic term. Of course it has military or political ramifications, but that's simply the result of what has actually taken place on the ground. – Sca (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Link change

'Twas Patar knight. Not that it matters now. – Sca (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nickel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed Modest Genius ^talk 11:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Eugene Parker

On 16 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Eugene Parker, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  21:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"St helens" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect St helens and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#St helens until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Margaget Burbidge and 92.21.65.50

Hello, Modest Genius. You have new messages at Talk:Margaret Burbidge.
Message added 00:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blue Riband► 00:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Modest Genius, I updated the discussion at Talk:Margaret Burbidge. Blue Riband► 19:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this to page protection. I have repeatedly invited this editor to join the article talk page discussion. Per WP:DISCFAIL, edit summaries are not a substitute for participating in discussion with fellow editors. Blue Riband► 17:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"Island monkey" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Island monkey and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 14#Island monkey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Too many articles about March equinox

Would you please move this edit to Talk:March equinox/Archives/2022#First Point of Aries vs. March equinox or give me permission to do so, so that the discussion can be held in one place? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to copy my comments there, but please leave them on WT:AST as well. I expect there will be a wider response if there's evidence of activity on the broader talk page. Modest Genius ^talk 11:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment invited

Hello. Thank you for your interest in the article Webb's First Deep Field. I invite your comment on this section in the talk page regarding your revert on the page. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I listed an RfC regarding our discussion at the talk page for Webb First Deep Field. I invite your comment there as well. Thank you. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Uighur report

Hi. I'm really disappointed with the IYN item, which *continues* to use the wishy-washy "may have" because the editors/writers of the blurb got excited about the term genocide. As you noted in the long discussion (which IMO should not have been shut while the item was/is still being displayed on the home page): The full quote is "Serious human rights violations have been committed in [Xinjiang] in the context of the government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-‘extremism’ strategies".

What I tried to suggest (possibly in the wrong place because I'm not familiar with correcting errors on the main page) is that the blurb should mention what is definitive in the report ("serious human rights violations") and avoid the maybe. True, the report is not a court, but the encyclopedia should reflect the report, not a *possible* accusation that editors wish had been made in court. Martindo (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Martindo: Sorry for the slow reply - I was away IRL for a week. It appears the item has rotated off ITN, so the wording is now moot. Modest Genius ^talk 11:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's moot, but disappointing that the "decision" remained on the home page but debate was closed. I just noticed that Jean Luc Godard's death mysteriously vanished from ITN a few hours ago, reverting to the never-ending "surprise news" about UK monarchy.

More generally, I think ITN and especially DYK are horrible, especially the latter's implied (or maybe overt?) emphasis on "recent info" as a factor for nomination. Some of the info is bogus, but the rush to WOW readers with weird facts means less time for editors to check and modify the DYK claims. A glaring example was the inclusion of Action_bias#In_sports as "fact" even though its sole "reliable source" was a speculative journal article by researchers unfamiliar with soccer/football. Two of us edited it. Martindo (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Hilary Mantel

On 29 September 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hilary Mantel, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit on Xi Jinping

Was removing that comment really necessary? Aren't potential surname hatnotes still a problem? Amyipdev (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Amyipdev: Personally, I prefer the footnote method (wasn't there a recent RfC about it?). But there's no point having a hidden comment that says 'this article uses method X, don't add method Y' if it actually already uses method Y, not X. If you think the hatnote is a problem and want to switch to a footnote, I suggest you raise it on the talk page. Modest Genius ^talk 15:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, have a great day! Amyipdev (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MNRAS cover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MNRAS cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

As indicated on the file page itself, that .gif has been superseded by File:MNRAS cover.jpg which I also uploaded. It's fine to delete the old unused file, but it would be nice if the new one could have its fair use rationale approved first... Modest Genius ^talk 12:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Twitter source

Moved to Talk:Duncraig, Western Australia

Doesn't this meet the requirements of WP:ABOUTSELF? Steelkamp (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: My understanding is that WP:ABOUTSELF would allow Parker's tweets to be used as for uncontroversial statements in the article Matt Parker (i.e. about himself), but not in the article about Duncraig. It's possible I'm misreading the policy though. Modest Genius ^talk 14:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It says Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities. I think the key word here is usually. I believe the Matt Parker tweet meets all five requirements of WP:ABOUTSELF and I find it unlikely he would lie about something like this. Steelkamp (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't doubt the claim is true, I just don't think there's a good argument for this being the sort of exceptional case that would justify going against the policy, which says Twitter should 'usually' not be used as a source. Modest Genius ^talk 15:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Sinhalese-Portuguese conflicts

Good evening.

Thanks for helping out editing that article.

A few things:

• Again, the article is called Sinhalese-Portuguese 'conflicts' so of course the most important parts will be highlighted for future reference and to add structure.
• I re-added one of the images which you removed, because I'll assume you are unaware, that was the most common military banner used by the Portuguese in the 16th and 17th centuries, including on Ceylon, and it's mentioned in the sources, if you want I can add them. But it's very very far from "unnecessary and uninformative". Similar images can often be found in pages about similar subjects.
• I have edited previous articles along these lines and it has never raised any issues.
• I don't know if you noticed, but I left some of your changes although I disagree with them. I'll appreciate it if you extend the same courtesy to me.

Wareno (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

One correction

The six-year rotation has nothing to do with who's in the mini-Cup, it's just which city hosts which game (final, semifinal with favorite, semifinal 2, none of those) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: Apologies if I've misunderstood the process. I was going by the descriptions on College Football Playoff National Championship "The participating teams ... are determined by two semifinal games ... hosted by an annual rotation" and the lead of New Year's Six, which describes a three-year rotation of which Bowl games are considered the semifinals. Modest Genius ^talk 13:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the participating teams are determined by the semifinals because that's what semifinals do. The Rose Bowl is in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, Cotton Bowl=Dallas metro area, Peach Bowl=Atlanta metro, Orange Bowl=Miami metro, Fiesta Bowl=Phoenix metro, Sugar Bowl=New Orleans metro. Which games are considered the semifinals means who gets to host. In most of the 20th century these bowls were the strongest teams of a specific region vs region matchup that would accept their invitation but in 2015 semifinals were created with the four strongest teams in the nation according to the committee and only them. Also I have to correct myself here: who hosts the final is no longer part of the rotation. I knew that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It's clearly a very complex competition structure, which is not well explained by the articles, and I'm still not sure I fully understand it. Regardless, my concern still stands - the semi-finalists are chosen through a subjective selection committee, not on objective results (as they are in most sporting competitions). Modest Genius ^talk 16:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of content from Epsilon Eridani article

Don't you think it would have been WP:CIVIL to discuss mass removal of the Further Reading section from the Epsilon Eridani first before ripping it out? Your action is bordering on vandalism. Praemonitus (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Further reading. Praemonitus (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not remove encyclopaedic content, vandalise the article, or post uncivil messages. In this edit I moved a dozen unused references from the 'further reading' section to the talk page. I am aware that Wikipedia:Further reading neither encourages nor discourages that practice - both places are acceptable. In my view, such a long list of highly technical references are not helpful further reading for readers, as I explained in the edit summary, especially in a Featured Article. Per WP:BOLD, there's no need to obtain consensus on the talk page before every change. The list of papers has not been lost - it's at the top of the talk page - and I encourage you to use them to improve the article. I simply don't think that dumping a long list was an improvement to the article. Modest Genius ^talk 16:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

PS. Wikipedia:Further reading is an essay, not a guideline or policy. It states that "Preference is normally given to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject" and "the section should be limited in size". Modest Genius ^talk 16:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"EX Lup variable star" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect EX Lup variable star has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § EX Lup variable star until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chess World Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biennial.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not an error - the term is defined at the start of the dab page. Modest Genius ^talk 10:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

"Html error codes" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Html error codes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 5 § Html error codes until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2–0 lead is the worst lead for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2–0 lead is the worst lead, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2–0 lead is the worst lead until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

PoS, self-published, no review?

Where did you get that information? [8] As far as a I can tell, every proceedings' peer review is up to the conference chairs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I don't recall exactly what I was doing 16 months ago... 'Self-published' means that SISSA publishes it themselves, they don't contract a commercial publisher - contrasting with the journals also listed there. Perhaps that could be phrased better.

As for not reviewed, Proceedings of Science is a series of conference proceedings, not a journal. In most fields of science (exceptions include computer science and some areas of engineering), conference proceedings are not peer-reviewed. They undergo a quick check by a guest editor (usually one of the conference organisers) to ensure they're in the right format and aren't obviously crazy, but that's it. They're not sent to referees, there are no reports to guide substantial revisions etc. The purpose is to record what was presented at the meeting, not serve as formal publication of the work - it's a form of grey literature. I understand the PoS 'about' page [9] as saying that PoS does not provide peer review, so if editors want it they'll have to do it themselves. Most don't, except in the fields mentioned above. Modest Genius ^talk 17:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording to 'published in-house' and added website references for each entry. Modest Genius ^talk 17:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Rubicon

An article that you have been involved in editing—Rubicon —has been proposed for merging with Crossing the Rubicon. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Everything for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Everything is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Chris Troutman (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever edited that page, so am puzzled why you notified me about it. Modest Genius ^talk 11:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Your oddly passionate refusal to allow Starship "in the news"

The last several times Starship got in the news section it was in a negative sense and now the first time that a massive success has been achieved you seem very passionate about making sure it doesn't make it into the news section. What exactly is your beef with Starship's soft-landing ocean touchdown success? Ergzay (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing against Starship per se. What annoys me is SpaceX and their fans promoting every incremental test as if it's a revolution in spaceflight. If/when Starship successfully launches a real payload (not a tech demonstrator or a car) into orbit, I'll be happy to support posting that in ITN. Until that happens, it's not a operating launch vehicle. To me, gradually improving test flights don't cross the threshold for a blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 10:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Except it _was_ a revolution in spaceflight. And this one wasn't a gradual improvement. It was a massive leap that exceeded most expectations for what was possible. Most SpaceX fans I knew expected it to fail long before it did, and that was the expectation set by SpaceX before the launch as well as they only wanted to "get deeper into the atmosphere" or "make it through peak heating". Ergzay (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, clearly we disagree substantially. But that's OK, ITN operates by WP:CONSENSUS. My opinion is unchanged though. Modest Genius ^talk 10:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)