User talk:N2e/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

New Source

I noticed yesterday that there is apparently now a new source for blockchain. Might be interesting. Saw the link at http://www.coindesk.com/ledger-first-volume-blockchain-research/ and they apparently have the first issue out at http://www.ledgerjournal.org/ . Thought you might find it interesting...Also wish you a Merry Christmas :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I had heard that a scholarly journal was in the works on this topic. Did not know it was out, or even close, as I had not followed it.

And yes, that could provide a reliable source for some parts of some of these articles on the topic. The Fed Reserve Board economists also recently published a paper on these rapidly growing distributed ledgers and how it is, and will, affecting financial entities in the payments, clearing and settlements system. I read it last week, and think I may have added the link to Wikipedia, but have been too busy to keep everything straight. Don't have time to look at my own history right now.  ;) N2e (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, I just read one of the papers in that journal, the one on governance via blockchain and social contract theory. While I was interested in that topic partly due to some deep reading on SCT I did back in grad school, I'll just say that that paper has a lot of fairly general statements also about blockchain technology generally, and a little specific blockchains like Bitcoin and Ehtereum, that would be very useful as sources for the various wikipedia articles.

In short, that article is no doubt a very good (and scholarly) reference for sourcing statements about these technologies, and possibly (since scholarly) would help make an aplogia for the relevance of these technologies generally against the likes of "blockchains are fringe" believers like David Gerard and Earl King. N2e (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@N2e: I haven't really read the journal yet, I just started on an article and got sidetracked with other things in my life. It would be very interesting if this blockchain theory can start to be more at the intersection of humanities and technology (I guess steve jobs coined the theory, related to the iphone)...I will surely read that article about social contract theory, I wonder if there would be a place to start a discussion on those humanities articles about integrating technology into them. Maybe it will get more interesting over the next few years as it gets deeper than just the onslaught of new uses, and the discussion of the coin prices. Take care :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Am reading this evening, and came across this: "Roio argues that events such as the blockade of payments to Wikileaks by the US government and major payment companies in 2010 have been important enablers of theme he identifies as the “cypherpunk imagination,” 29 justifying the use of Bitcoin as an alternative payment system." (page 7 if the PDF, or page 140 if reading the page numbers). I wonder if this is a basis for the argument that underpins the foundation of the blockchain as a payment system? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Could be related; but I would doubt it is only that. All of these blockchains have some sort of value token associated with them; it is fairly central to why the block chains can operate in a peer-to-peer, no central authority, public space, and is foundational to what some have termed cryptoeconomics that underlie public blockchains.

So there are literally hundreds of blockchains that have simply used slightly revised versions of bitcoin's open source code. All of them have value tokens. Most are worth little or nothing, as few people want them and therefore their price (as expressed in what one must give up (or "sacrifice", in the terms I use in an early econ lecture when I teach occasionally) is very low, or near-zero for many. Yet, even so, these tokens can be used for "payment"; they just are not widely accepted so would typically be exchanged for some other, more acceptable, form of payment, such as bitcoin or any standard currency. Bitcoin is, of course, accepted for payment much less readily than some standard currencies, but much more readily than other digital currencies. Makes sense; it is established, and the oldest, and has been around for seven+ years now.

In this sense maybe the sacrifice is less, therefore the value is less. Maybe this is akin to a larger nation state, that has greater number of subjects that have accepted the king's authority. Your comment got me thinking that the more users bitcoin has, the greater the network effect, but in this case network effect becomes sacrifice. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ethereum comes along as a new second-generation sort of blockchain, capable to doing full Turing-complete programming language functions on the chain, and thus implementing what have been termed "smart contracts". These essentially have facilitated new ways of human organization, based on the institution (broadly considered) of a new technology protocol and platform. It is amazing what can be done with this stuff, but it is new; the technology is nascent. While there are other v2.0 blockchain technologies, the empirical fact is that the Ethereum value token (or, rather, the sum of all such tokens in existence) had risen to be second only to Bitcoin, with a total market value of nearly US$1 billion, by mid-2016, when the Ehtereum protocol and token had just turned one year old. Net: so of course it can be traded as a payment for stuff humans want to exchange (humans will trade nearly anything!, as 4000 years of history have shown); but it is also not surprising that, in just it's second year of existence, Ethereum is not yet particularly widely exchangeable for payment.

As you have mentioned, Ethereum extends this blockchain utility. Maybe it allows for different kinds of sacrifice. Maybe with bitcoin one can only sacrifice goods and services, but in the case of Ethereum one may also sacrifice authority in a broader sense. Meaning if you decide that Ethereum will be the arbiter of a contract instead of the courts, you hand jurisdiction to the machine-judge rather than the traditional judge. Maybe this is an inherently different type of sacrifice. In reading much about ethereum I still find it fascinating the concept of if or if not ethereum violated the concept of the immutable chain in the DAO fork, or if they simply had to step in to invalidate a code weakness problem that was the fault of solidity, and not of ethereum. Like the King stepping in to rule on an issue in Thailand when the legislature gets it wrong Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hope any of this helps with your question, Jtbobwaysf. But I recommend you not go looking for a single simple reason for Ethereum becoming acceptable for payment. The answer is a result of complex interactions amonsgt myriad individuals and businesses. What will be will only be known over time. The outcome is emergent! N2e (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

GAR

SpaceX reusable launch system development program, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Kees08 (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look and see if I can help where entropy has occurred since it was originally imporved to make it a GA-class article.

I have not worked substantively on that for a long time, but one thing is for sure: the topic is sufficiently important to spaceflight technology that such an article deserves to be of such a quality that it is a GA class article. N2e (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Podcast interview request

Hey, N2e,

I'm not super familiar with Wikipedia editing, so please forgive if this isn't the best way to do this. I'm one of the cohosts over at The Orbital Mechanics podcast, a show about spaceflight engineering. We saw /u/retiringonmars calling for editorial help on the SpaceX page over on /r/spacex. I reached out to them asking if they could come do an interview on our show about the research that goes into a resource like this, and they pointed me at you, as a heavy contributor to the page.

Is that something you'd be interested in? We usually cover engineering topics on our show, but I think it'd be really interesting to hear about the archival/historical efforts that help us find and tell stories about companies like SpaceX. Please drop me a line at ben@theorbitalmechanics.com.

Benetherington (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC) benetherington

Hi Benetherington. Yeah, I've made quite a few contributions to that subject area, as SpaceX does seem to be at the forefront of making things happen in spaceflight and spaceflight technology that is motivated more by private economic forces than it is by the political calculus that has informed nearly all of the first five decades of human spaceflight technology. Moreover, beyond SpaceX, I have followed closely in news and other sources for over 15 years the general intersection (think Venn diagram overlap) of spaceflight with market forces, and that broader area has had a large part of my Wikipedia editing attention in recent years.

I've been kind of busy with a work gig recently, and have had to cut back on WP editing substantially.

But I will chat with you about your request. Will write you at your email address to discuss further. N2e (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In the event, podcast was set up. Recorded on 25 March. Released by "The Orbital Mechanics" on 28 March, the day before SpaceX' first-ever relaunch and relight of a previously-flown (and recovered) orbital booster stage. Podast URL: https://theorbitalmechanics.com/show-notes/niall

Podcast followup

Daveb377 (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Hi-I just listened to this podcast, and enjoyed the discussion on complex adaptive systems. I've been interested in them for a while, and I'd like to know if you have any good references you could point me at?

Happy to chat Daveb377. I've found the literature on the topic is still rather discipline specific. I'm most familiar with the economics-related literature, and could provide quite a few pointers from that discipline, where it seems to be called spontaneous order or self-organization. More broadly emergence or emergent-order, and seen in WP articles like complex system or complex adaptive system, which all include at least some links into source materials. I am much less familiar with the secondary literature of the other disciplines (biology, nanomaterials, ecology, climate science, astrophysics, ...) although I certainly read in the areas of biology of social insects and in astrophysics, and sometimes chaos theory. N2e (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go do some reading Daveb377 (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference Organizer

Hello, N2e! I have followed some of your contributions (because you contribute on the topics that I also find interesting, like SpaceX, rocket reusability, etc; the first time when I noticed your work was when you updated the Firefly Space Systems article) and I have seen you work with references (moving references to list-defined format, removing duplicate references, etc). So I wanted to let you know that I have written a JavaScript user script to make that kind of work easier. The tool is called Reference Organizer. It started out as "convert all references to LDR-format", and has become much more versatile since then. Now it allows converting references in both ways, sorting, naming references etc. Maybe you are already using some other tool for this, but if not, please check it out. Cumbril (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That is AWESOME Cumbril! I am very pleased to hear this; Wikipedia definitely needs more ref tools to automate things that either don't or should not require a lot of human manual attention. I will definitely be an early tester (perhaps a user) of your tool. Having said that, my job and real life have cut back my aggressive rate of wiki-editing immensely over the past half year, so it may be a bit longer until I can find a bit of time to get my hands around it. But do expect to hear from me when I do. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

New Blockchain Company: IOHK (New Entry): Advice?

Hello N2e,

The company IOHK <https://iohk.io/> is ready to launch Cardano SL, a next-generation blockchain platform with (arguably) more advanced features than any protocol yet developed in the space and the first to evolve out of a scientific philosophy. We are also working on building a client for Ethereum Classic <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic> which is a continuation of the original Ethereum blockchain. If you scroll down their wiki page, you will see a description of our team (Grothendieck) who is currently working on the project.

I think the mission of IOHK as summarized by our CEO captures the complex vision of this company: "We view the world as a series of giant and mostly interconnected social graphs with hundreds of complex systems embedded. Our mission is to perturb those graphs to a more connected, transparent and fair configuration for both the flow of ideas, and value." <https://iohk.io/>

Upon reading further into your interests and contributions to various wikipedia subject matters, it struck me that you may be a wonderful advisor to potentially help steer us in the right direction toward gaining entry into Wikipedia. The company has been cited several times in various reputable media sources <https://iohk.io/press/>. I was wondering if you might have the time to review the summary we have prepared for our company to be posted as an entry in wikipedia? If so, please let me know if there is a good way to reach out to you directly.

Thank you so much in advance. T.haas11 (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)T.haas11

T.haas11 — If your company has been, and is mentioned, in standard sources the meet the Wikipedia reliable sources verifiability policy, and meets the notability guideline for standalone articles, it will likely get an article someday.

You are doing the right think by not trying to start such an article yourself, for this reason: WP:COI. So you just kind of have to wait for significant coverage in media, plus some independent editor choosing to start an article.

I've become very busy with my life outside Wikipedia and have little time to contribute recently. N2e (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

SpaceX reusable orbital taxi listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SpaceX reusable orbital taxi. Since you had some involvement with the SpaceX reusable orbital taxi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 12:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I responded over there. N2e (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas McGuire (engineer)

The article Thomas McGuire (engineer) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say that your removal of the prod was technically out of process because it was a WP:BLPPROD, and you didn't add a source when you removed it. That being said, it was easy enough to find one. Also I have nominated it for AFD per your suggestion (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas McGuire (engineer)), so feel free to participate. menaechmi (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Did not realize there was a special process for that subset of article PRODs. Yeah, only thing I eve did was create the redir for that person, to a clearly sourced section about the person. Some other anon editor turned it into an article much later.

I'll comment on the AfD page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone copying your userpage

I'm reverting it.[1] Doug Weller talk 09:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Turns out it was a sock. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much User:Doug Weller for helping to keep the encylopedia excellent! You are a gentleman, and a scholar. N2e (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And thank you for your gracious compliment! Doug Weller talk 18:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Bitcoin Magazine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bitcoin Magazine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted, or merged with Vitalik Buterin. I notified you as you have contributed to Buterin's page.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Magazine 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. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the discussion. I commented on the proper discussion page. N2e (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Proofread recent edit

Can you fix your recent edit to SpaceX satellite constellation [2]? I'm not quite sure what you were going for. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 00:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Brightgalrs, for letting me know that. Looks like I neglected to complete my previous edits and had left the article in a bit of a poor state with an exposed citation link as a ref. Very bad form on my part. Thanks for pointing in out to me! Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It happens to all of us, thanks. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 01:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

BFR (rocket)

Well done on BFR (rocket), a "BIGLY" snap on a current/recent subject. I like to look for similar subjects. - Peter Ellis - Talk 14:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much Peter. Seemed a very notable new launch vehicle and spacecraft design that was worthy of good encyclopedic treatment. Feel free to help, either improving the article (as I suspect it will become a much better article over the coming weeks as other information is added); or if you find really good secondary sources, just drop them on the Talk page. N2e (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

reflist30em question

Hello N2e. I have a question regarding why when I added reflist|30em to the Tesla Semi it didn't take effect until 7 hours later. I have used reflist|30em plenty of times and each time it worked instantly. Do you know why this happened? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 17:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

No, L3X1, I don't. That is an interesting observation however. I too have used Reflist|30em many times; don't recall one every taking a long time; but then, I don't always look. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please check Tesla, Inc. talk page

Hi, I am also adding to the Tesla articles including the one about the company.

There seem to be a lot of anti-Tesla people around judging by the comments in the talk page. I have no bias either way.

The Talk item I mean is the one I started about deleting content about the Tesla Semi. In Tesla, Inc. Cheers, User:Peter_K_Burian

• Okay Peter, I took a look, and commented on the Talk page, and made a few edits to the main page to hopefully help. N2e (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, N2e. I have no strong views either pro or con about Tesla or electric vehicles. But this is an important topic on Wikipedia at a time when there are many people looking at this topic.

The issue was not about the length of coverage about the Semi truck but the fact that a user deleted all of the recent content and kept the old, outdated content. Your edit has solved the problem: brief content with current information and citations. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, N2e. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks N2e, for your involvement in solving an issue that was close to becoming an edit war in Tesla, Inc. The edit you completed gives Wikipedia readers all of the current information but is brief, since there is another full article about the Tesla Semi, but now, it is up to date. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks very much Peter K Burian. I certainly try to do the things that both improve the encyclopedia and also help settle disagreements. N2e (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Google XPrize

I just became aware that the XPrize officials are calling it a "no winner". If you want to revert my edits at Interorbital Systems I am entirely ok with that. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Batt, good to see you again! No way am I reverting your super constructive edits. We all work on articles when we don't know something; in fact, we all work on articles where we don't know myriad things (profound and philosophical point ;) ). Your edits were quite constructive, and addressed a ton of issues with that poorly-sourced and too-heavily-speculative article on Interorbital.

I think the best is for you to just take another look, given GLXP ending, and mod the article further; later, I will; and we'll both just keep on keeping on making Wikipedia a better place. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

it:60183 Falcone

Thank you for adding information to articles in it.wiki. Please, for future occasions, consider recommending/suggesting variations in the talk page of the article rather than directly editing it, unless you are sure about italian syntax. Regards. --Ysogo (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by! In this case, that was an article that appeared to have been created by a bot, with no prior discussion on the Talk page, and therefore an extremely-low liklihood that any human would read a comment I might leave. As well, the comment I would leave would be in English, and I'd have no reason to believe said random Italian WP editor could read it. So, I put a change in that was nearly perfecto: the link was spelled correctly in Italian, and I used only an incorrect form da rather than della. Cheers, mate. N2e (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 Flight 8 upper stage listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Falcon 9 Flight 8 upper stage. Since you had some involvement with the Falcon 9 Flight 8 upper stage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 10:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 Flight 7 upper stage listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Falcon 9 Flight 7 upper stage. Since you had some involvement with the Falcon 9 Flight 7 upper stage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 10:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 Flight 12 upper stage listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Falcon 9 Flight 12 upper stage. Since you had some involvement with the Falcon 9 Flight 12 upper stage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 10:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Former derelict satellites that orbited Earth has been nominated for discussion

Category:Former derelict satellites that orbited Earth, 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. — JFG ^talk 10:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 Flight 6 upper stage listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Falcon 9 Flight 6 upper stage. Since you had some involvement with the Falcon 9 Flight 6 upper stage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 10:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Falcon 9 Flight 11 upper stage listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Falcon 9 Flight 11 upper stage. Since you had some involvement with the Falcon 9 Flight 11 upper stage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 10:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SpinLaunch

Hello N2e,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged SpinLaunch for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

SamHolt6 (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Substantive response added over there; and another editor subsequently removed your speedy nomination. N2e (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk

Do you think Elon Musk is good enough to pass GA review? I'm thinking of nomination it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Good question. I don't have time to look it over carefully just now. Feel free to ping me again if I forget to get to this. Is probably worth the effort to get it to a GA review; but that is a high bar; as it should be.

N2e (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

NAA's "BFR" Lander

I just came across this NASA 2018 study on a Mars lander capable for 20 tons payload, and they came up with something that looks like the BFR upper stage, complete with split flaps, but with ventral engines for horizontal landing. I thought you may find it interesting: [3], and [4]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting. It the largest and most-retropropulsive Mars lander design I've seen out of NASA peeps in a long time. So maybe they've been learning from SpaceX. I know they shot a lot of high-altitude video and data collection from one or two of the early SpaceX booster recovery tests. And the rough shape they are modeling certainly has a BFR-ish shape to it, albeit for a much smaller landing payload. Looks as though some agency politics might be changing allowing some on NASA payroll to begin envisioning larger payloads than could be done with the NASA Senate-designed large behemoth money eating rocket to nowhere. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Enterprise Ethereum Alliance

Hello N2e,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Enterprise Ethereum Alliance for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment about your edit to Int-ball

Hi, I would like to comment on one of your edits to Int-Ball. I believe it is still too early to look into the results of the Int-Ball experiment. Int-Ball started its operation in July 2017, and as far as I'm aware, there hasn't been any papers published concerning how it has eased the burden of astronauts. The Int-Ball project looks more of an engineering project, and to me it seems its practicality and usefulness are effectively treated as second hand aspects. The Int-Ball blog hasn't been updated from December 2017, so I assume the experiment must have settled for now. I believe the project is currently in the stage where they're assessing the acquired data, and hopefully the results about the impact it has had on the routine of astronauts will be released by the team soon. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment. Yes, the encyclopedic treatment of that topic could certainly use some update, it just seems like there may not be much. But for sure, the article will be improved when it can include some more context, and answer some "when" questions: like when was the idea conceived? when was it designed/built? when launched? when first tested on the ISS? etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:SpaceX beyond-Earth-orbit rockets has been nominated for discussion

Category:SpaceX beyond-Earth-orbit rockets, 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. — JFG ^talk 15:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi N2e, wanted to ping you about this. Apparently you had created this category to include ITS, BFR and their components, however Falcon Heavy and even Falcon 9 can also launch stuff beyond Earth orbit, so that the category made no sense as defined. Hope you don't mind having it deleted. — JFG ^talk 15:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi N2e! You created a thread called Ordering categories at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Honors of the day

		The Space Barnstar
		Granted in recognition of your meticulous work in general, and for this splendid edit on Atmospheric entry in particular.[5] — JFG talk 17:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, JFG. I do try to make the coverage of spaceflight better, and do what little one can in the great emergent system of Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Space launch market competition

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Space launch market competition has been completed.

I spent a lot of time reordering the material in the 2010s section so that it is now roughly in chronological order. I also cleaned up dozens of duplicate WP links. Since the majority of dates were in the year/month/day format I fixed any that weren't; I also fixed a number of citation format issues.

The article does need updating in places and there was a problem with a quote I could not find in the citation.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Twofingered Typist , that is awesome. A good copyedit improves any article, and that article clearly needed it with four years of edits and no comprehensive copyedit. N2e (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

BFR Edits

Responded below your comments on my talk page - thanks. Solardays (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, N2e. Here is our discussion, copied from my talk page:

>>> Hey, N2e – I'm not some new interloper to the BFR page, but have made many contributions. You can see that I first added the Infobox to this article and its ITS predecessor; so a little deference to would be welcome. I'm still processing the info from today's presentation, and will add/update the citations this evening. Honestly, I'm waiting for SpaceX to update their page, they usually follow such presentations with a PDF of their slides, which makes a better citation than a youtube video link, IMO. Don't you agree?

Furthermore, the BFR article was already prepped in anticipation of today's event, including a 'recent changes/activity' warning banner at the top. So, with all due respect, why are you coming down on me for making some very surgical (and very anticipated) updates? These are just updated specs for the latest iteration of this vehicle; it has already been through this cycle once before.

I ask that you please add these back. Solardays (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Solardays. Hmmm. I'm less certain than you that it is a good idea to allow of bunch of unsourced numerical changes to an article that had been high quality and stable for a long time. I.e., if you have sources, then change the article; if you don't, hold off until you have sources.

I observe that subsequently, you made very helpful edits to the article, with source citations on each one. I think that is the best practice. Moreover, the latter approach, with a citation for changes to random numerical values, is also consistent with Wikipedia policy. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

<<<

With due respect, I ask that you re-read my response above. Do you really think I'm saying "that it is a good idea to allow of bunch of unsourced numerical changes to an article that had been high quality and stable for a long time"?

I fear you may have responded without reading or comprehending my comment, but of course I hope that isn't the case. It seems wise for us to come to an understanding on this before proceeding further; let's make sure we're on the same page. I'll let you respond before commenting further.

Thanks!

I think the misunderstanding is that I was, in any way, "coming down on you."

I don't make editor behavior an issue unless a particular editor is creating a lot of problems. The note I left on your Talk page was the gentlest form of msg I could leave (which Twinkle calls a "general note", or level 1). I went even further and offered to help you learn how to do citations if you wanted to ask me. Def not unfriendly.

You had simply made a bunch of edits (over a half dozen, as I recall) with numerical changes to numbers in the article, and left no citations for those. That was a WP:BOLD edit. No problem. I WP:REVERTed 'cause of no sources. No problem. Standard WP:BRD process says to take it to the Talk page and WP:DISCUSS it at that point. But there is no foul in reverting unsourced additions to articles.

So don't personalize it. I certainly did not. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel this has anything to do with being personal, but rather pulling the Revert trigger too soon. SpaceX had literally just hosted their event, we all knew there would be news and updates to follow. That the 'article had been stable' is moot in this case, and activity in the article and talk had already picked up in anticipation of this event. I began making edits, stepped away for a short while, and returned to your reversion; insert sad face.

I think it's very simple: let's be excellent to one another and more context-aware. The Current Event banner was in effect, I was a known contributor to this article, and everybody is just doing their best to add updates in the wake of an event which has played out, at the same time of year, for three years in a row. Take care and have a good one, N2e.

Cheers, Solardays (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There's an easy way around it. Don't make eight edits to an article changing important numbers with a citation on any of those changes. Rather, just change a number, and add a citation. This is the Wikipedia way. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That's true – there's always an easy way. Thanks for being a good sport about this criticism, not dodging, and responding directly. Solardays (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

BLPs and WP:3RR

Hey there, just a heads up that BLPs are supposed to have the highest standards of sourcing. If material you've added has been challenged, you should try to use the talk page to talk it out instead of re-reverting. The WP:BRD process is exceptionally useful here. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 03:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, N2e. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

New Glenn

Hi there, when you get a moment you may want to take a look at my recent edit of New Glenn - I restored a paragraph which was truncated by your edit (for formatting/grammar reasons), but have no idea if it actually needed removing or not. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Jessicapierce, for noticing the broken syntax on that citation. I looked it over, and that was indeed the only part that was broken. The other parts, and the NYT citation, were duplicated elsewhere, so I left just the syntax fix. (plus, I found a redundant statement on the diameter that I had left in the article; so fixed even a little more. I think it's better now. Thanks for being such a conscientious editor, and for suggesting I have a look.

Look forward to working with you on other articles in the future. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh no worries, and thank you for improving that article so much! Jessicapierce (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Just a note let you know my thinking on the Blue Origin's Stena Freighter ship: it is likely that its retrofit will change the gross tonnage of the ship, but I opted for showing the last official record of it, as it gives a very good idea of its mass. Its Call Sign is likely to change too, and its name. But the IMEM and the MMSI numbers will remain the same. It would be useful to find out basic specs on its engines, but I came empty handed. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Rowan Forest. All the basic specs an are are there now. User:Huntster found a great source (the British Royal Fleet Auxiliary Historical group) and also a different ship registry with the current name of the ship: LPV I took that British source and fleshed out a fairly complete History section today. See what you think. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Blue Origin landing platform ship) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Blue Origin landing platform ship.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

An interesting article

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: : Thanks much for taking your volunteer duties in page curation so seriously, and for leaving the kind note, Cwmhiraeth!

I took a look at your user page and see you are super experienced in the DidYouKnow? process on Wikipedia. I wonder, do you think this article might be weird and interesting enough to be a good candidate for that? Or is there somewhere where one can just point out a interesting article/topic like that, and let a "jury of our peers/other editors" sort it? N2e (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It would be an excellent article to appear on DYK, and I see from the article's history that you started working on it properly on 24 November so you are within the seven day time frame. If you need any help in nominating it, please ask. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead Cwmhiraeth and nominated it for DYK. Please do feel free to take a look and see if I did it right. You are welcome to change/improve anything you think might make it better for the WP main page reader. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What you have done looks fine and will be reviewed sooner or later by a DYK reviewer. However, you have not completed the final phase. You need to add the template {{Did you know nominations/Blue Origin landing platform ship}} to the 24 November section of the DYK nomination page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that input, Cwmhiraeth. I've just added it now. N2e (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth—With that fixed, I have one more question: links. Should the nominator select/suggest which part of the DYK hook phrase is linked to the subject article? I didn't, 'cause I wasn't sure how to do it. Or does one leave it for the "process" that does it automatically 'cause that is the name of the DYK section, and it identifies the correct article? And after the nom is made, can things still be changed? and if so, where should one do it? N2e (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I had not noticed that the subject of the article was not bolded and wikilinked, and I have done that for ALT1 now, leaving you to deal with the other hooks. Basically, the nominator bolds and links the new article's title in the hooks, but a reviewer or promoter may still change the linking later. It is often best not to wikilink too many other words or the reader may not realise which link to follow to see the new article. After the nomination is made, things can still be changed on the article template or in the article, by you, the reviewer (when one turns up) or by others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the great help. I followed your lead. I think I've got it sorted now. N2e (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Remarkably, the nom seems to have been approved rather speedily, and is now on the approved page. Question for you Cwmhiraeth, if you are willing to help. The reviewer rather like ALT1, better than the main one, but approved them all (I guess). I commented on that page that I'd be happy to move ALT1 to the main hook. But now that it is on the approved page, I'm reticient to do so. If you think it is okay, could you just comment about that right in the discussion on that T/DYKApproved page: Did_you_know_nominations/Blue_Origin_landing_platform_ship

Would really appreciate DYK guidance once again. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You need do nothing further. Someone will promote the hook in due course and will decide which hook to use based on what the reviewer has said and their own opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Super. Thanks, Cwmhiraeth! N2e (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Blue Origin landing platform ship

On 18 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Blue Origin landing platform ship, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos aims to land rockets on a moving ship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Blue Origin landing platform ship. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Blue Origin landing platform ship), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Air Force Space Command

Could you please re-check this edit you a while back? There doesn't appear to to an actual cite. Thanks - wolf 06:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Thewolfchild for pointing that out. Weird edit on my part. Don't know where the full source was.

I've searched and found it, and added a cite to the article now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Glad it was quick fix and we could keep the info. Cheers - wolf 03:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi N2e! You created a thread called Searching in ALL of the various language Wikipedias, at one time? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi N2e! You created a thread called a strange bug is making a REDIRECT not work at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Merry Christmas! A Christmas cookie for you. Thanks for all your volunteer work. All the best Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks Rowan. I really needed that cookie to cheer me up this early cold winter morning, when I found my summary of a source might not have been far enough from the prose of the source, and therefore, I had an extra little work project to do. N2e (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Transpiration cooling

Hi N2e, Greetings. Please note that the one of sources provided could not be found - see here [6] and kindly provide the correct one. Secondly pls rework the lead section as there is a copyright infrignment where texts are copied from HERE is found. Do note Wikipedia takes copyright infringement very seriously as it entails legal imprecation. When you have done the above pls let me know so I may review your page for you. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing that new article. I had heard the concept quite a bit in recent months in the space press, but Wikipedia did not have an article explicating this particular thermodynamic concept. When I used the Theormopedia source, I of course endeavored to take the concept and rephrase it so as not to implicate copyright issues. I will take a look right now, and rephrase the prose to make it even farther from that particular source. Take a look in 10 minutes and see what you think. N2e (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for rephrase the lead section. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed Beta (finance)

/* top */ Removed {{lead too long|date=May 2016}} after adding ==Importance== Fixed Beta (finance) --Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ad Astra!

	Starman
	Thanks for making my redirect into an article! Libertyguy (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome, @Libertyguy:. With active integrated system testing underway on the first prototype—and the second test article, the orbital prototype, build underway—it was definitely time. Separating the detail of the coming test programs, on multiple vehicles, from the main BFR article was going to be super necessary in the next few weeks. N2e (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Libertyguy:, so SpaceX fired the Raptor under the Starhopper prototype tonight, for about 1-2 seconds. If you see a good reliable source for that, let me know, or add a sentence of prose with the source. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It looks like someone already posted that content. Here is also a space.com article if you think this would be a more reliable source.--Libertyguy (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I found a good source and added a sentence or two to document the (now well sourced) event. I would imagine that--as the second, third, or more test flights occur--some of the editors who are good with wiki-tables (like was done here or here) will happen on by and do the same for the Starship testing section of the article. N2e (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Belated, but we didn't have cool patches back then...

		The SPFLT Achievement Patch
		In recognition of your significant contribution to WP: Spaceflight. Neopeius (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much, Neopeius. I appreciate your kindness in saying something to me. N2e (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about USA-99

Hello, N2e,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username DannyS712 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect USA-99, created by you. Your comments are welcome over [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 2#Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for deleting - If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Furthermore, the target could just as easily be U.S. Route 99 (abbreviated US 99).|here]].

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|DannyS712}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DannyS712 for the notice. I responded back in May (right away) to your notice on the RfD page. I think the misunderstanding has been totally cleared up now, by consensus. USA-99 is very much the official USAF designation for a classified satellite, of which there is little released information; but some is "observed" by folks like the SeeSat skywatchers who find the milsats that the various governments (US in this case; but Russia, China, et al all like to obscure their data as well). And no one found ANY instance of the specific locution "USA-99" being used for "U.S. Route 99 -- abbreviated US 99. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)