User talk:N2e/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

DYK nomination of Hyperloop pod competition

Hello! Your submission of Hyperloop pod competition at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 18:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Co-marketing

I don't know why I suddenly care, but in this edit you removed some material and failed to notice the real problem - the entire article was hijacked here. And now, back to my wiki-retirement. --Muhandes (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hijacked, or not; I make no assertion on that at all. But I did take a look and remove a bit more of the totally unsourced material from the article. N2e (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, N2e/Archive 8. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Charles (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Thanks for the help, an dfor the notice. N2e (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, N2e/Archive 8. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Misplaced content on "Talk page for the Hyperloop pod competition article"

Hi N2e,

I am a member of rLoop, the only non-student and independant team advanced in the SpaceX Hyperloop pod design competition. We received your email to invite us to contribute in the editing section of the page. For your information, I submitted a page about our team last month, but due to a lack of notable press coverage at this time, the page was not approved. Since then, our group and activity was gladly featured in web magazine such as Forbes, Electrek, PSFK, Fortune, Motherboard and others which I hope, will allow rLoop's wikipedia page to be live.

I wanted to send you the updated page which contain also the technical information about the manufacture of our Pod. However, I misplaced the overall content on the following talk page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hyperloop_pod_competition Obviously, the content should not be put on this page. Can you help me to move the content from section 8 to 15 to the appropriate place please ?

Thank you Vandaso (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vandaso/Sophie. Thanks for the note. Yes, that content was indeed misplaced. I have removed it from the Hyperloop pod competition Talk page, as that is definitely the worng place for it. I have not reviewed that content yet, but I suspect you can make it comport with Wikipedia standards (like WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS) by ensuring solid sources and good writing. I'll help you once you find a proper place to do it: maybe in the Vandaso/drafts area? The WP:COI policy can be an issue, but should be quite workable if you work on the article with other editors, and then once it's in good shape, we can just resumbit it via the process you used in February, or that editor you work with can move it over to avoid the COI issue.

In the meantime, for the Hyperloop pod competition articke, a very terse summary of the rLoop team and pod, something appropriate for the bullet list that is in the Hpc article at present, would be helpful, as long as it has sources in wiki-citation format like I suggested in the previous Talk page section on the Hpc Talk page. Then, after assessment, a non-involved editor could simply add the terse summary and citations.

Hope this is helpful. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi N2e,

Thank you for the cookies, I can definitely use them as of now. I have a hard time navigating through the wikipedia rules and I hope it will make sense to me very soon! Thank you for removing the text. I think the content is located in my draft now.

I can definitely use your help for the formatting and regulations. 17:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC) vandaso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandaso (talk • contribs)

@Vandaso: Yes, I will consult and help. Just add a link to the place you want to work on improving this putative article, whether in your personal drafts area or in the original (and more public, official) drafts area where you began to develop the article back in February. I will then work on/comment on the article there. 17:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

rLoop COI

Hi N2e,

Thank you for your guidance. There is a lot to discover on wikipedia. I am leaving the page to your consideration and understand the rules of Wikipedia. I have reverted my own edit in regards to rLoop. I would like to bring to your attention the fact that the organisation now comprised 300+ members since its creation.

Thank you. Vandaso (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to get over there and look at that soon. Just be sure each statement is supported by a solid source. N2e (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Waterloop

Thanks for the updates regarding the image. It is now cropped and updated in the competition talk page. I unfortunately don't know the convention for best formatting of the image -- it would be better to me if it had a caption as in the framed formatting, but then it requires uploading a low-resolution image so that it doesn't fill the page. Do you have a suggestion for this? Mrdeluna (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the cropped image. I will add it to the article. I, too, am no expert in the image side of Wikipedia. For example, sometimes when I change "|thumb|" in the file syntax for adding an image to "|250px|" or "|325px|", it works okay for me; sometimes, especially at the top of an article it doesn't. If it doesn't in the next 15 mins, I won't have time to mess with it any more, so you might be able to click around Wikipedia (say, WP:IMAGE to start; but there are many places...) and figure it out. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Hyperloop pod competition

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that it is now on the Main Page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Older SpaceX photography

Hi, I uploaded some older SpaceX photos from their media gallery to Commons. These files include for example photography from the Thaicom 6 launch, early CRS flights and Grasshopper testing. Files can be found here and here (for now). --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Msaynevirta. That is very good to know. I'll tell User:Huntster (by linking here), as I'm guessing he'll have a chance to look at them just a bit faster than I will. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll review when I have some time, but I doubt there are any issues. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Vitalik Buterin

An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitalik Buterin —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Jtbobwaysf. I have evaluated the proposal, and have left my view on the discussion. Seems like a pretty ordinary BLP, with reasonably decent sourcing, for a new article on a young person who is, as of now, only notable for a few things. N2e (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

New Publication: SpaceX From The Ground Up

Hi N2e

I have recently published a NewSpace book titled: 'SpaceX From The Ground Up' which tells the SpaceX story past, present and future. Some of the details include:-

1. The Mars Colonial Transporter architecture

2. How SpaceX can finance Mars colonisation

3. Where SpaceX intend to construct Mars settlements

4. Future Economy of Mars

5. SLS/MCT comparison and conclusions

I understand this is one of your areas of interest and believe it is something you might appreciate reading.

If you feel it is worthy of such an award, would it be possible to construct a wikipedia page for this title. As SpaceX FGU's author I feel disqualified to create such a page but happy to assist or advise in any role you see fit.

Incidentally the British Interplanetary Society and Royal Aerospace Society have both agreed to review this title in their membership magazines and it certainly seems well received going by the reviews on GoodReads and Amazon. I feel this work contributes strongly to the NewSpace debate, particularly following Spacex's announcement that they intend to land a man rated spacecraft on Mars net 2018.

Looking forward to our future correspondence,

Chris prophet (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Author's Webpage

Merger discussion for List of Tesla superchargers

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of Tesla superchargers—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Deep Space Industries page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the bot note.

 Fixed N2e (talk)

The DAO

I think The Dao worthy of a wiki dedicated page. Soon I guess the Ethereum page has to implement a notability requirement on the companies listed in applications. I suggest we make a few pages for the most notable. Maybe The Dao, Slock.it, anything else? Or we make a page that is a list of Ethereum of applications. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

My view is don't rush it. I find the whole social phenomenon here fascinating, and at the intersection of a couple of areas of my interests over many years, so I've very gradually been adding material as I find good solid reliable secondary sources. I generally just add material to an existing page, until such time as the thing/idea/entity/whatever becomes sufficiently sourced as to obviously be capable of growing to become a decent Wikipedia article on its own. When it then meets WP:GNG, and looks like it will not remain a stub forever, I create an article stub.

That is what I did for The DAO earlier today. Other articles in that area may or may not ever need to exist, depending on what the sources tell us, over time. Wikipedia was not built in a day. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That logic makes sense for me. I noticed it looks like you made a redirect for Digix as well. Is your idea to add content to the Ethereum page for Digix (for example) and then make a Digix page later if/when it warrants it? That logic makes sense to me, and I hadn't considered it. Thanks... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have any plan. I just tend to go where the sources take me. So with Digix, I saw an article some time ago that they were using the Ethereum based blockchai, it was a reliable source, so I added it to the article. Ditto when I (or someone else?) learned, in some other source, that DigixDAO value tokens are different token than just plain ether tokens. Nor really trying to make it be sufficient to be its own article, or not make it that. If it ends up being sourced with 3 to 4 reliable sources, and meets WP:GNG, it then is at the state where any editor can really create an article for the company (Digix) or the value token. My personal view is not to do it if I think the article would likely remain stub quality over the next few months.

In my view, I don't really see those criteria met for Digix yet, whereas it is definitely met for The DAO. So I created The DAO article. Just following the sources on info that meets policy for being in Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, good to see a dedicated Wiki page for The DAO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiCapt (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

ConsenSys

Hi, if/when you come across sources for consensys please post good sources on the talk page for ConsenSys. It has weak sources right now and might be sent to AfD later (it has that warning on the page already). If you come across some where the company is the focus of the article and a good big name source (like WSJ, NYT, etc), that would be great. Thanks :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't have time to chase it right now, but will do if I run into any sources on that company in my reading.

In the meantime, I'm pretty sure that the NYT article source that I added a month or so ago to the Ethereum article said quite a bit about ConsenSys. So you might look at that. N2e (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I deleted two sub-bullets on the ethereum page about consensys as I have already added all the consensys sub-projects on the consenSys page. Anyhow, fine if they stay on the ethereum page as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that explains that deletion. Now I understand the rationale behind it. Having said that, I'm thinking that, although they may be projects related to the ConsenSys company, they are nonetheless still examples of applications that run on Ethereum. So, yes, I'm with you, they probably do fit on the Ethereum page as well. N2e (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What I was talking about

I am with you, that you have had your account for a very long time. it is clear that many new users showed up in WP to "defend" the article and attack Gerard. Stuff you have done like this was great, and what the page needed. But you should you know way better than to have done stuff like:

• joining in on this section, was not something you should have done. That section was never appropriate for an article Talk page.

Well, we'll agree to disagree then. D Gerard had made a personal attack on several editors, including me, by saying I had come over to that article from a reddit request. This was not true for me, so may not have been true to for others. He clearly did not know me, nor my motive in coming, by asserting that he did, and it being something that is frowned on by wiki-policy: that is a personal attack. I never let those go unnoted, as it is behavior that hurts the encyclopedia. N2e (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• calling out who you are reverting etc as you did here and here just adds to the personalization of the dispute

I simply reverted, per WP:BRD, a section blanking. And I annotated the revert and the rationale on the Talk page. You are "jumping to a concussion" if you think I am a part of any "gang", as you alluded to above. The goal here, as in all article improvement, is to focus on the content, and not the contributor as you did with your "gang" comment. N2e (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• this is really not cool, furthering the "us" vs "them" thing that was already happening and setting up a GANG mentality that just further poisons things

I don't understand your argument here. I restored some material that, been per policy, should not have been removed. I then did not edit war with the named editor when he removed it again. But I freely accept that other editors may view it through a different lens and also choose to restore it. The "gang" thing is in your head. There is a lot of very poor editor behavior on that Talk page and in that article. Quite honestly, I don't understand the source of it, or what drives it. N2e (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Everybody makes mistakes (as I did in commenting on you on the article talk page, instead of raising the issues here). But as probably the most experienced editor who joined the "anti-Gerard" camp, that kind of stuff is not helpful to creating a calm, un-personalized environment within which to work on the article. Please consider. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

So, if that's all you have, you don't have much. WHich is what I said on the article Talk page after you made the personal attack on me. I encouraged you, if you had any evidence of unacceptable behavior on my part, or conflict of interest on my part, to take it to the appropriate Admin Noticeboard where you would have to "put up", and I could fairly respond to the allegations.

Since you have so little here, I would simply recommend that you strike the parts that were a personal attack on me, explicitly retract them, and I'll do the same on my challenge of your personal attack. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

My comments were not about COI but rather advocacy. Advocacy is the problem at the article and has been pointed out a bunch of times on the article Talk page so your "Quite honestly, I don't understand the source of it" is just... weird. I will spell it out for you. There is an avid online community of people who have helped build and support Etherium. They talk to one another on Reddit. Folks at Reddit raised the issue of what is going on with "their" article on Wikipedia, and a bunch of them swarmed over here, with no knowledge of how Wikipedia actually works (the policies and guidelines) or what the mission here is (to communicate accepted knowledge in an encyclopedic way) and just started attacking David Gerard (who does understand the mission and the policies and guidelines) and tried to "defend" a promotional "article" about Etherium that David had been trying to make in to an actual Wikipedia article. Some of those editors have holdings of Ether and so have a financial COI, but it is more than anything advocacy that is the problem. Read the essay WP:ADVOCACY and then read the bit of NOT, WP:NOTADVOCACY (which is policy) that the essay explains. Then maybe you will understand better.

The article is beset with advocacy which is driving bad behavior on the part of the advocates, and you have abetted that, in ways that you should know better not to do. You can ignore me if you like, of course. But you have been part of the problem more than being part of the solution. You have been part of the solution some and I encourage you to continue in that direction. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been here a long time and you do not know what GANG behavior is? oy. GANG is when editors coordinate inappropriately to "beat" the other side; it is a form of meatpuppetry. Your message to the editor that I pointed out was pure GANG in spirit. "Together we can out edit-war him without either of us breaking 3RR", was the message there. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

1. David Gerard got off to a bad start with me on that page when he first edit warred (rather than allow a WP:BRD to proceed on the Talk page, as it should have, in the Reverted state) and then he made a personal attack by saying I was someone who came to the article from a solicitation on Reddit (which I've clarified more than once is not the case). That colored the early interactions. Also, at the time I began to work on the page, his behavior had been called out be others, partially undeservedly, but partially deservedly. It has been extremely challenging to have a NPOV discussion with him, without him turning it into something that is "about the editors" rather than "about the content" and improving the encyclopedia.
2. One example of this is in a discussion on that Talk page going on today. Mr. Gerard says: "Why are advocates so averse to the word "cryptocurrency" around Ethereum?" If you want to play a neutral position, rather than as, it seems me, someone who also has a view that seems to run counter to other hard views on that page, here is an opportunity for you. Challenge Mr. Gerard to talk about the article content, rather than the editors. "Why are advocates ..." is clearly the latter, and not the former.

Moreover, that particular comment, where he has, once again, turned the discussion to editors rather than content, makes me simply want to avoid the drama and not comment. That is the poison on that Talk page that I'm talking about. We should be discussing how, per sources, Ethereum is more than one thing, it is clearly a smart contracts platform, and distributed computing resource, a cryptocurrency, etc. That D. Gerard has repeatedly argued it is merely the latter, and on more than one occasion changed the lede to express only that one claim, is clearly undue. I changed the lede back once to the more general terms, and explained in the edit summary that it isn't merely a cryptocurrency, per sources, yada, yada. The article prose/body clearly indicates that Ethereum is more than one thing; and other editors have made the same point. But here we are, rehashing the same point once again, pushed by Mr. Gerard. The fact that D. Gerard is, once again on the Talk page, impugning editors rather than merely discussing content, sources, etc., just makes me want to be on that page less and less, even though the article continues to need much work and improvement.

BTW, I could put some of this on that Talk page, and try to help folks chill, but with D. Gerard having already made it, once again, about the editors rather than content, it likely won't go well. mastodon drama will ensue, and my rather nice and wiki-friendly assumption of good faith but still calling out improper process for article improvement would likely be perceived by Mr. Gerard, and possibly you, as some sort of "GANG" (your term) behavior. But if you ask me too, I'll be only too glad to put the gist of this over there. I just don't think that would be very likely to reduce the heat and shed more light. So am just discussing it with you here, since you opened this conversation here.

So my point here is meta: if you are the neutral party you claim to be, also with many ten of thousands of edits as I have, why don't you use this opportunity to help D.Gerard be a better editor, and get a little more chill and constructive article improvement happening on that page. I'll watch and observe. Good luck. N2e (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This kind of discussion doesn't belong on article Talk pages. That is why I started it here and struck what I put on the article Talk page (the only reason I struck - it didn't belong on the article Talk page). So no please don't copy any of it there. You are perfectly free and capable of asking David on his Talk page to focus more on content; you don't need me to do that. (You don't seem to be familiar with DR advice for conduct disputes - the first step is always trying to have a nice conversation on the other editor's talk page.) Many times things can be diffused that way if you really do approach simply and in good faith. "David, your comments about "advocates" on the talk page don't seem to be helpful; maybe you could lead by example and focus more on content and sources? Please consider. Thanks." simple. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving that stuff off of the article Talk page. I just pointed out that, should you wish, I would be happy to transparently have this discussion over there, before all editors. Happy to go either way.

As for me writing Mr. Gerard: as I've pointed out, given his specific behaviors of personal attack on other editors, and his repeated choice to avoid gaining consensus on the Talk page before major edits, I don't believe he would be very receptive. That is why I encouraged you to do it. You have entered into the debate on the side of Mr. Gerard on several occasions on that Talk page. Should you find that "This kind of discussion doesn't belong on article Talk pages." as you said above, then it seems to me that you should enter into the same sort of discussion on Mr. Gerard's Talk page as you have here on mine. Otherwise, it would certainly appear you may not be the neutral NPOV party that you assert you are. So I think the opportunity to help diffuse the situation remains for you: by simply being even-handed in your own advocacy, whether for wiki-policy of limiting advocacy, or for widi-policy of acceptable editor behavior. N2e (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Decentralized autonomous organization

An article that you have been involved in editing—Decentralized autonomous organization—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have entered a position, with my rationale, on that page. Seems rather overwhelming opposition to merging/deleting that article, even though that article no doubt needs considerable work after the major content deletions by some in recent weeks. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Decentralized autonomous organizations has been nominated for discussion

Category:Decentralized autonomous organizations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have entered a position, with my rationale, on that discussion page. N2e (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Two spaceport article

Re both of the articles below. I looked over both, and support deletion; have updated the RfD pages. N2e (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Spaceport Curaçao listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spaceport Curaçao. Since you had some involvement with the Spaceport Curaçao redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 15:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Spaceport Malaysia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Spaceport Malaysia. Since you had some involvement with the Spaceport Malaysia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 16:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Scaled Composites Stratolaunch page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed I do love bots noticing these little errata for me! N2e (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Volga Germans may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• Shortly after the German invasion, on June 22, 1941, Stalin sent Beria{{clarify}} and Molotov[[clarify}} to the Volga German Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic to determine a course of action for its

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of ShapeShift (company) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ShapeShift (company) 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/ShapeShift (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've reviewed the article, and added my input on the discussion page. N2e (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As the AfD was completed, the article was kept. N2e (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the SolarCity page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Churchill, MN

Hello. It seems you are missing one digit for the year/date at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Churchill,_Manitoba&curid=362756&diff=735926430&oldid=735926234. I could not figure it from the reference quoted. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks , BatteryIncluded. My keyboard misses characters, and doubles characters, somewhat randomly aroudn the low number keys. I'll take a look.

In the meantime, I believe I just found a source that dates that back to the 19th Century. N2e (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant the phrase: "...dating back at least to 199." The number 199 is missing one digit. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I knew what to look for..., cause of the digit issue on my keyboard. I fixed that; but then shortly thereafter fixed it even better by using a better source to get more specific yet on the years of operation. N2e (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

VRV

Did you mean VRF? I couldn't find "VRV" anywhere in the redirect target. And I read a magazine article about a new way to watch TV called VRV.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Vchimpanzee, which article are you referring to? N2e (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see the article now that I look at the history. It was Variable refrigerant volume, and a bot redirected it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Earl king Jr. has attacked other editors and been warned more than a dozen times in recent memory.

For example [1] and [2]. AGF is a real problem with this one. Someone should get real, else the warnings are meaningless. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 01:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did not do any deep analysis but a quick perusal of his Talk page history showed me there had been issues in the past. Not only that, but I believe he's attacked others (than the two I warned him about today on his Talk page) on an article or two where we've intersected in recent months. Those reasons were why I gave him a level 3 ("Warning") on his Talk page today, rather than a level 1 ("General note") or level ("Caution").

If it's a pattern, perhaps someone should start a case with the proper noticeboard. I would be happy to participate in that if it occurs, but simply don't have the time to do the initial setup/case etc. Unfortunately, due to the high cost of such things, uncivil and attacking editors can get by with a lot of abuse of other editors, driving good editors out of the Wiki space. Really sad. N2e (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

King has deleted your warning and buried it with an anomalous edit note: August 2016: embedded editor promoting cyber currency. -- consigning the warning to the cat-box of history. I wish I had the time and the patience, but I have been through this before with King. She seems to be protected. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So you think being gender insulting is funny? This whole thing should be removed, trying to promote trouble between editors, as Farney is obviously doing can be denounced right now.Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course, editors are always free to delete warnings on their personal Talk pages. But one does see the pattern here. Notice the move to ad hominem by Earl, says "embedded editor promoting cyber currency". It is not only an attack on the person rather than responsive to the argument, it is false. If you go to the page where that discussion happened, I was the editor that said I was agnostic on the argument that a particular source was not reliable (I just don't know), whereas three other editors disagreed with Earl's assertion. I had merely said that an article Talk page could not decide for all that any particular source was not reliable for all articles; it would need to be carried out on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. And then I called out Earl for his personal attack on other editors.

It is sad that such behavior is tolerated by our (actual) processes of Wikipedia, if not our policy. Surely makes other editors leave, or contribute less. Why, 'cause such folks get what they want with it, just like the bully in junior high school when noone stands up to him. N2e (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see Slade Farney can just not get away from creating tension and drama. Not a good use of talk pages. ^Talk Content disputes can be messy but striving to resolve things is the object. Not plotting drama boards. Basic reality on these crypto currency articles is that a few people are super involved in them off Wikipedia to the point of Googling their names spills out that involvement. Those press release news sites are not so notable but a lot of the supporters of the various crypto coins are heavily involved as public people in these issues. The line then become blurred on promotion and advertising. Slade Farney using a talk page edit with the name of another editor in the heading,? This is very bad judgment trying to focus on an editors name in a heading. Bad form, bad editor etiquette. There has been a big problem on these articles with involved people editing them. It says so at the top of the talk page. Maybe an editor such as Slade with some personal grievance against an editor thinks its a good time to further inflame a content dispute by casting aspersions on this editor. You can start by removing my handle from the section title. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) A single instance of personal attack is different from an extended history of personal attacks. When I have some time, I will examine the specifics of your history with various editors and your manner of disputing content. Much of your text above is incomprehensible, so perhaps you have offered a meaningful defense for your conduct -- who would know? In any case, your opening and second-to-last sentences in the para. supra are more examples. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I just restored this material to my Talk page -- that Earl King deleted. I've never allowed other editors to come into my Talk page and delete material, as Earl King Jr. just did.

I will, shortly, address a few other issues in a note to follow. N2e (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

To: Earl King Jr. — You are no longer welcome to comment on my Talk page. This is a right I believe I have, based on some case or the other I ran into some years ago.

Frankly, your standard practice on the web pages I've seen you operate on is attrocious. It is WP:UNCIVIL and rude, and is overly laced with personal attacks on other editors. I, personally, have had enough. I will shortly make the same communication on your Talk page, which should end the deal. Further communication about improving the encyclopedia can happen in article pages; and note, it could be quite constructive if you decide to focus on issues and the article content rather than the editor or person with whom you disagree in a dispute.

As I said above, I do not have the time to chase down a case with you. But I did tell the person who originally started this Talk page section here, on my Talk page, that I would participate if someone else starts up a case on the appropriate noticeboard.

I recommend you simply cease and desist from the attacks, and take a class in rhetoric (avoiding fallacious forms of argument like the ad hominem you are prone to drop into), or failing that, a class on being a nicer person. N2e (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a notice at ANI noticeboard. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the New Glenn page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Help.

I'm losing more time each day from idiotic edits. The latest is this guy Petebutt‎. RocketMotorOne for now is a redirect that I have clearly marked with {{R with possibilities}} and I have marked with the relevant categories of the article. I've obviously put the WikiProject tags that it belongs to on Talk:RocketMotorOne. This guy keeps deleting the Talk page and putting a redirect to Talk:SpaceShipOne. I undid his edit and explained the reasons on the edit, and he simply rolled back my edit. So I rolled back as VANDAL his and I'm angrily writing on his Talk page.

This is only the latest on a long streak of editors who simply "edit" without understanding the subject, making wrong redirects or blindingly "disambiguating" because a page had a {{dsiambig}} but didn't comply with a single element of the corresponding MOS. But to be frank, I'm getting really tired of fighting against this sort of things. When I'm left alone I do things like JSAT (satellite constellation), which meant no less than 18 new articles and quite a bit of work on links. Or you can go and watch how nice the Category:Rocket engines is looking now that I've gone through it and ordered. But fighting against the monkeys with edit rights is getting the nerves out of me. May be I should take a vacation from Wikipedia. But there should be some way to work focused without so much fighting. How do you do it? – Baldusi (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Baldusi. Indeed, Wikipedia can be quite frustrating sometimes from the editing behavior of others. But you should keep the faith, if at all possible. You are doing really great work in improving this encyclopedia. I saw (at a distance) all the great work you did recently to clean up and reorganize rocket engines and rocket engine cycles—a set of the older cats on which I did a very little work one time—Great work! You are leaving a legacy of knowledge for others to come in, reference Wikipedia, and learn a great deal quickly.

I will take a look at the article you mention and attempt to weigh-in with a third opinion in the next half day or so. Perhaps this might help you be a bit less directly frustrated, at least on that article. :) Heck, feel free to ask for my additional set of eyes from time to time as an article and its counter edits fall out of the norm of reasonable behavior; a little time off and distance from a dispute almost always helps my spirit when these things happen on articles I'm working hard on to improve, and I appreciate when another experienced editor comes in with outside perspective. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I took a look over there and saw that the dispute seems to have settled down on the side of leaving RocketMotorOne as a Redir and with a Talk page. That seems reasonable to me.

I can see from the edit history that it was a frustrating process to get there. It seems to have settled out with no input from me. Still, feel free to ask.

I'm having similar issues with a couple of editors who actively think, and are on record as thinking, that a certain new database technology is a WP:FRINGE topic, and they are frequently removing lots of material, and generally being somewhat WP:UNCIVIL and NOT assuming good faith with other editors. Very frustrating. At first, I simply couldn't tell why or what motivated them. Now that they are on record as thinking the whole topic is fringe, it at least makes sense. But definitely could use more eyes from regular rational editors with no POV interest in the matter. So, if you would care to add your eyes once every week or two for a while to Blockchain (database), I'm certain that the encyclopedia would benefit. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

What?!?!? Blockchain (database) as WP:FRINGE topic?!?! May be that's because I'm an economist and was CTO of dotcoms, but that was the most disruptive technology on economy and IT of the last decade. I've added myself to watch that page. But I clearly am on your side here. It is a very important development. It just happens to be on the back end, but with huge implications for consumers and industries. It just has to solve the scale issues that it has on the mining side. – Baldusi (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your resilience work at SpaceX-related articles, civility, team work and overall quality leadership. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks very much Batt. Very much appreciated. And I also appreciate your reading of a lot of these sortsof major edits and helping with further edits to improve Wikipedia! N2e (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Raptor engine

A very good article on the Raptor engine: [3]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool. I had already run into that in my news feed, and have already started to add that excellent article as a source. N2e (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope this ends the "it is a sub-scale demonstrator/no it isn't" debate. – Baldusi (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I had seen that on some article in the past week or so. Very nice to have a source to clarify it now. N2e (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Hi, there currently is a discussion at Edit warring notice board you may be involved in. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like that one already got a determination, before I even got over their to look at it. Those edits are quite disruptive, and don't help improve the article, but they don't seem to qualify as "edit warring" by the somewhat narrow standards that exist.

I'd recommend very narrow/focused single-topic questions or proposals, which you see if can develop a consensus on the Talk page. If difficult or impossible to achieve with limited editor input, then suggest you open it to broader RfC process, to try and build consensus for a binding result. This process takes time, but seems perhaps worth a try to slow down the frequent large and disruptive edits. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Eatsa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eatsa 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/Eatsa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've commented on the article deletion proposal page. N2e (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, N2e. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Google spaceflight-related investments has been nominated for discussion

Category:Google spaceflight-related investments, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Solidity

Hello, you have previously contributed to the article Solidity. An editor has nominated Solidity to be merged with Ethereum. If you would like to comment, please visit the Solidity talk page discussion located at Talk:Solidity. Your comments are welcome. Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Energiewende edit

Hello N2e. I removed your {{clarify}} tag and comment <!--is this public policy driven? or market driven? or what? ---- If public policy, is it by initiative/referenda of the German people? or by the German governing body Bundesstag? --> from Energiewende in Germany because it is not a question that needs answering. The Energiewende is fully established government policy and has been so since 2010. If you had of looked at the reference  at the end of the sentence you marked, you would have found the official policy document. You could have easily downloaded it and read it yourself. Moreover the Energiewende has broad support from the major political parties in Germany and also has high public acceptance. The citizen support section lists some recent surveys. The Energiewende has been the subject of one general election in 2013 and is forming part of the election campaign for the next general election in 2017. It is certainly not an undemocratic policy, far from it. In fact, the Energiewende can only work with widespread public support. Please read the article and check out the citations before asking for clarification. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

RobbieIanMorrison, I think you are misunderstanding the purpose. I'm simply sugggesting that we could improve the article, and thus the encyclopedia, for our readership by having a bit of the why or how it came to be in the article. I'm fully aware of the policy, and understand it is quite well established; I even personally support it, though that should not affect how the article reads. Rather, I think the article is missing something of the history of the development of the public policy. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello N2e. You are quite correct, I did misunderstand your comment. Sorry. It might have been better if your suggestion had been placed on the talk page instead. I do agree that the article could be improved, particularly in terms of context. I do not intend to traverse that in the near future though. Rather, my next contribution will be to discuss the current challenges, based on Fischer et al (2016), after I get hold of a copy of that paper. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you, [[User:Bzuk|FWiW Bzuk]. And Merry Christmas to you as well! N2e (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)