User talk:Siafu/archive5

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Camry Hybrid RfC

Hi, there was a mistake in the request for the RfC, see my reply here: Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid#Responses from uninvolved editors. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Inner Mongolian People's Party

The article Inner Mongolian People's Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, only sources (and indeed presence) are own and related websites

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Splittist (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Kublai Khan

Per your "not a crystal ball" revision, I replaced my formatting improvements to this page but removed the reference to the historical novel that will release in January 2011. The book is already available for pre-order on Amazon and Random House, though, with a book summary that includes the information I provided. Would the reference work if I deleted the year? Looking forward to your response. Thanks!

Tewonawonga (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the "Crystall Ball" comment (see WP:CRYSTAL) is because the book is not available to be verified as a reference for its content. It won't work as any sort of reference at all until the book is actually out or otherwise available in full, and other editors could (in theory at least) pick up a copy and verify what's inside it. Also, popular culture references, though quite common and popular in wikipedia articles, are not particularly important to the actual content of the article, so I would stress that it is thus extra important that we not go out on any limbs to include them when they're on shaky ground (as in this case). siafu (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. I'm new at this, but want to be useful, so I really appreciate the clarification. ;-) Tewonawonga (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:RFC

Thank you for participating in the RfC, but your comment was very short, so I have asked for a clarification on talk. The question is: What argument exactly do you find convincing, and are you satisfied with moving Merseburg 1002, Merseburg 1013 and Bautzen 1018 to "Peace of Bautzen" and Bautzen 1031 and Merseburg 1033 to "Treaty of Merseburg"? I would appreciate if you would clarify your take on this issue at the RfC. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I'm really sorry to drag you into this, but the editor that I am engaged in the dispute with on Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg, User:Skäpperöd, is now trying to get me topic banned, on account of the discussion on that talk page [1]. Since you've read the relevant discussion and commented on the dispute and since I feel like I'm being unfairly attacked and slandered, I was wondering if you could share your opinion of the matter at the Amendment Request form.radek (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the extensive dispute that seems to exist between you two, and truth be told, I don't really want to get involved. I will watch the arbitration request, however, and clarify any statements involving myself or my actions, or respond if specifically asked to comment by the ArbCom (which I think is unlikely). Otherwise, the facts should really speak for themselves better than an uninvolved and uninformed editor can; the fact that we are in agreement on a content issue should not be taken to mean that we are in agreement on other issue a priori, sorry. siafu (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I completely understand. Just to clarify though, I did not mean to ask you to comment on the general aspect of the dispute but just on the narrow part of it with which you have become familiar. Bad wording on my part.radek (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

what does cat mean

I just noticed a post from you from about a week ago that I only replied to now. Since it's buried I want to bring it to your attention. Here it is. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Space reorganization

Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:

1. Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
2. Separate the Astronomy and Spaceflight "sides" of WikiProject, and remove WikiProject Space.

If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ants

Do you know anything about ants? I've just discovered that they can predict the weather, although I suspect many species can do this. Is there anything in the literature about this? Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 0

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

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 1

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

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 15:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 2, February 2011
Project News · News from Orbit · Article News · The Charts · Yuri Gagarin Project News A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing. A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles. The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field. Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list. Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved. A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them). Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk · contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project. News from orbit Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article. On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission. The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January. Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit. A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space Shuttle Discovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank. At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February. Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable. Article news Reaction Engines Skylon is currently undergoing peer review, its discussion page can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Reaction Engines Skylon/archive1. A user requested feedback on major changes which had been made to the article, however at the time of writing no responses have been offered. Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria. Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved. A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle Questions surrounding the transliteration of Russian names resurfaced, with a proposal to rename Vladimir Chelomey to Vladimir Chelomei being closed with no consensus, and a proposal to rename Yury Usachov to Yuri Usachev ongoing. Several long-standing merger proposals were closed. A proposal to merge Venera 15 and Venera 16 into Venera 15 and 16 was closed as no consensus, with the combined page being moved to Venera 4V-2 to reduce the overlap in the articles' scopes. Returnable satellite was merged into Fanhui Shi Weixing. Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures was nominated for Good Article reassessment due to concerns over the article's quality. Doubts were also expressed over the thoroughness of the original review conducted upon its nomination for GA status. It was also suggested that the article's title may not be the most common name for the experiment, and that it might be necessary to move the page. Concerns were also raised regarding whether Space Interferometry Mission was up-to-date, however these are being addressed. Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet looks likely to be promoted to GA status. Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article. Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight. Stop press: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet has now been promoted to GA status. The Charts There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories. № Article Movement 1 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ↑14 (15) 2 Richard Branson ↑5 (7) 3 Neil Armstrong ↑2 (5) 4 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster ↑16 (20) 5 Global Positioning System ↓2 (3) 6 Apollo 11 ↑2 (8) 7 Satellite ↑4 (11) 8 Space Shuttle Challenger ↑42 (50) 9 Apollo 13 ↓3 (6) 10 NASA ↓1 (9) For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for January). Selected Article: Yuri Gagarin Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968. His article describes him and his spaceflight experience: “ Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin (Russian: Ю́рий Алексе́евич Гага́рин, Russian pronunciation: [ˈjurʲɪj ɐlʲɪˈksʲeɪvʲɪtɕ ɡɐˈɡarʲɪn]; 9 March 1934 – 27 March 1968), Hero of the Soviet Union, was a Soviet cosmonaut who on 12 April 1961 became the first human to journey into outer space. On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky. ” The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop

Please do not revert my edits. They belonged to the house of Yuan or Borjigin. --64.56.224.78 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the "house of Yuan" never existed; their family name was Borjigin, which was a royal family both before and after the Yuan. siafu (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

OK then. But if you have reason you should tell in the summary or let me undid my own edits. --64.56.224.78 (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Insults don't help end disputes

I don't much care for being called pedantic. If your genuine motive is to try to help end a conflict you're not involved in then it's probably not the most effective strategy jump in and belittle the parties to it. Even if you can't bring yourself to take someone else's dispute seriously, you can be certain that the people involved in it do, and that they'll respond more favorably to being addressed respectfully than otherwise. No hard feelings, though, this one time. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it would much easier to not use the word pedantic if that weren't what was happening; you and Collect have become experts at pushing each other's buttons. Telling you that that is exactly what's happening is, quite frankly, the best and most hopeful path that I can see to breaking the pattern. Hopefully it did. siafu (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never been much impressed when someone says "I'm sorry" just before he repeats an insult; the construct has always seemed disingenuous to me. I spent at least an hour preparing for that refactor, and an hour performing it. My only motive was altruistic, to make the page easier to read and to preserve our ability there to present and discuss the two topics at issue separately, a desirable and valuable goal. When I was almost done, Collect reverted that two-hours work after he saw that I'd (perhaps temporarily) removed one half of one sentence of his that was nothing more than sniping at TFD. It wasn't remotely connected to improving the article, not in any way. I find it impossible to believe that you wouldn't object to that if you'd been in my shoes, and that you wouldn't have objected if your actions and motives had been misrepresented subsequently. "Quite frankly", you'd do better to keep the pretensions to moral superiority that you've indulged in this matter to yourself.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're not being pedantic and just sinking your claws into this issue, perhaps you can explain why it is important to you to convince me that your side is the correct one? siafu (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What, rhetorical questions? Now you're just being pedantic.:P  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give you the long version instead of trying to elicit the response I as looking for. I was just trying to make it clear that by getting worked up over this and arguing with me, you were basically validating my original statement: the point is to let it go. You are quite aware of how entrenched you are in your own position, it would be wise to expect the same out of people who are arguing with you. I could care less about the talk page refactoring either way, and it didn't really have any actual impact, but I did see that both you and Collect were dedicating thousands of words to it because neither of you could just. let. go. I know that the both of you are quite capable of arguing this in a more productive manner (citing sources, presenting alternatives, working towards compromise, etc.) because I've been watching it in action, but when you got stuck on the particulars of policies only tangentially related to the dispute, I felt that a sharp shock was needed to break out of it. And, for the record, I'm not claiming any moral superiority because this isn't about morality; this is entirely a matter of practicality. siafu (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 3, March 2011
Project News News from Orbit Article News Direction of the Project The Charts Europa Project News There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger. An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project. User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation. News from orbit Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites. A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space Shuttle Discovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not. Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed. 4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data System communications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew. A Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle is expected to deploy the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft during a launch in March. The flight has been delayed several times, and was expected to have launched last month, however it is currently scheduled to occur no earlier than 20 March. On 29 March, an Ariane 5ECA will launch the Yahsat 1A and New Dawn communications satellites. Both currently require articles. On 30 March, a Soyuz-FG will launch the manned Soyuz TMA-21 mission to the International Space Station carrying three Expedition 27 crewmembers. On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear. Article news Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities. Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected. It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user. Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed. A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy. A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain. A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions. It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested. Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list. Editorial: Direction of the Project Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project. Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far. Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch‎, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks. Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated. In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-) The Charts Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off. Satellite was the most popular article of February, up six places from seventh in December. STS-133 was the highest climber in the top 10, up 78 places from 88th. January's most popular article, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, dropped seven places to eighth. Moon landing remains ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories for the second month in a row. Of the top ten, two articles are featured content, two are listed as Good Articles, and the remaining six are assessed as C-class. № Article Movement 1 Satellite ↑6 (7) 2 Space Shuttle ↑11 (13) 3 NASA ↑7 (10) 4 Neil Armstrong ↓1 (4) 5 Apollo 13 ↑4 (9) 6 Global Positioning System ↓1 (5) 7 International Space Station ↑5 (12) 8 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ↓7 (1) 9 Apollo 11 ↓3 (6) 10 STS-133 ↑78 (88) For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for February). Selected Article: Europa Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it: “ The Europa rocket was an early expendable launch system of the European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO), which was the precursor to the European Space Agency and its Ariane family of launchers. The programme was initiated by the UK and the first launch occurred in August 1967. Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage. The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects : Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed. ” The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Talk:Song Dynasty

Hello, Siafu. You have new messages at Talk:Song Dynasty#Removal // Royal House infobox.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LaRouche

Re the RfC, I've trawled through Google Scholar and brought up some academic sources that call LaRouche an economist, in addition to the various media sources that were already listed. Have a look at them, and see if they change your mind, or not. I tried to avoid the ones that I know are LaRouche's own publications. Cheers, --JN466 18:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. I had resigned myself to the likely outcome of the RfC, and removed the economist label, but now see that LaRouche, under the pen name Lyn Marcus, authored a book, Dialectical economics : an introduction to Marxist political economy (1975) (entry at archive.org), published by D. C. Heath and Company (Lexington, Massachusetts), which was reviewed[2] in the American Economic Review, published by the American Economic Association.

The book has citations in Google Scholar and in Google Books.

To my mind, this changes things, and I feel less happy to let the matter drop. Surely, having your work reviewed in the American Economic Review, which according to our article on it is one of the most prestigious journals in the field, counts for something. Add to that the fact that he was considered quite an important economist by various Latin American governments, according to reliable sources, and I feel uncomfortable not calling him an economist. What's your view? --JN466 03:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that my particular opinion was so deeply desired on this. I still don't personally think that LaRouche is an economist-- certainly he's more famous for being a conspiracy theorist/political agitator than anything else. It would, however, be fair to say that he has been described as an economist, which can be cited in the works you've discovered in your investigation. siafu (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. When new info comes to light during the course of an RfC, it's always a little tricky to know whether to notify editors who commented beforehand, based on incomplete info. When I comment at an RfC, I don't necessarily watch the page afterwards.

In that vein, I should let you know that the AER snippets I found turn out to be from an ad in the journal's back matter, rather than a review of the book. That's it from me on this topic now. :) --JN466 22:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

content relevant discussion

I'm dropping the the discussion about NPA on the talk page. If you have problems with my behavior take it up on my talk page; don't fill the article talk whining about personal attacks. I don't really care, mind you - you somehow think it's OK for you talk attack me by accusing my of stupid crap but get all offended when I point out how stupid you're being - but the article talk is not the place to hash it out

I swear, I get so sick of people who cannot understand that talk pages are for content-relevant discussion ONLY. Everyone's allowed to make a few mistakes, but if you drag stuff like this out in article talk you're being a troll. You stay off my back, I'll stay off yours, otherwise we use MMA rules. got it? --Ludwigs2 17:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(cross-posted) I'm afraid this isn't something that gets to be so easily dropped. It was, you may recall, you who diverted the conversation into discussing the behavior of editors and the potential intervention of the ArbCom. I was responding to it, and perhaps it would have been better on your talk page, but my points stand. Not only did pepper the discussion with threats of "bringing in" admins, you advanced it to suggesting that your interlocutors would behave badly and suffer consequences from the ArbCom, and when called on it you called me an idiot. Now you're doubling down by coming to my talk page and calling me stupid. I wasn't acting out of offense-- seriously, words from a person I don't know and will likely never meet, directed me, someone you don't know and will likely never meet don't have much capacity for offense-- but simply pointing out the facts. Being a dick is just going to make you enemies not convince anyone of anything, or resolve any disputes. Ever. You certainly don't have to be behave this way, and you might surprised by the results you can get with the alternatives. siafu (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Should you be interested in starting an RfC regarding Ludwigs2, I would be happy to certify and/or comment. His behaviour is not only appalling, it is flagrantly hypocritical. → ROUX ₪ 01:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OPERA neutrino anomaly

Hi. You added this sentence to the OPERA neutrino anomaly article. What is the source for this claim? Thanks.--90.184.154.70 (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a ref to the article to Misra & Enge, but per my talk this is in the GPS ICD, and therefore in every GPS textbook ever. siafu (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Boldly removed the sententence from the article again. No matter how many textbooks discuss generic relativistic corrections in GPS, it is not a comment on van Elburg's particular calculation; reading it as such is a WP:SYN.--90.184.154.70 (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be seen that way. Van Elburg is claiming that this particular correction wasn't made, and that that mistake accounts for the anomalous results. It just so happens that not making this correction would be extremely unusual-- that's not synthesis, it's verifiable fact, and I can provide plenty more references if you need them-- it is, in fact, essential to make this correction in order to obtain a position solution, since 3 ns ~ 1 meter in position error. I'm going to copy this whole conversation to the article talk page, also, since we shouldn't be picking over content here out of sight of the other editors. siafu (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif

Hello Siafu! I hope this message finds you doing well! I read your comment at the RfC and have replied to you there. I look forward to your response :) Have a nice day! With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply there. I've responded to you again. Thanks for your participation in the RfC. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have pages that I edit automatically added to my watchlist, so there's no need to notify me here. siafu (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I did not know if you added the article to your watchlist or not so I thought I would notify you :) Thanks for the heads up. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Full name / Issue

Hi! Thanks for your message. I have seen your point regarding the issue field. I changed the content out of full name field because they were really their titles, instead of their personal names, thus do not actually belong to the full name field. But now I see they do not really belong to the issue field either. I will see the better way to place them. Thanks again. --Chinyin (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no specific fields in the main box for misc titles etc, but since they already appeared in the article anyway, it may be better to actually have a full name field containing their personal names instead. Thanks again. --Chinyin (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Spoofing attack, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Jammer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Happy new year!
	we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 19:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas

My style was quite deliberate, and will hopefully have a positive long term affect.

One thing that seriously bothers me about Wikipedia is that one can write almost any quantity of any sort of incomprehensible, uninformed and illogical garbage, so long as one says it nicely. As soon as another editor firmly points out that it's incomprehensible, uninformed and illogical garbage, with a little headlining style, the latter editor is in serious trouble. Please look at the words, rather than the style.

Trying to participate in that conversation nicely, with a different view from the terribly nice insiders, was having no impact whatsoever. I will continue to occasionally use shock tactics to wake up the nice conservatives here whenever it seems necessary.

Don't worry. Despite your concerns, my level of emotional involvement is well under control. I'm sure they have heated discussions at times about content at Encyclopaedia Britannica. They just don't do it in public. We have little choice. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Using overly aggressive battleground language, and then claiming its justified, does not change the fact that you are using overly aggressive battleground language. It's not very productive, e.g., to accuse other editors of not being able to read. siafu (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Request for comment

In response to your question on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence I have hopefully clarified the RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Alex West

Hello. Your edit is a BLP violation. Please remove it. Caden ^cool 21:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

My edit is not a BLP violation. If you disagree, feel free to take it up with the community. siafu (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the comment made by Crakkerjack merely indicated that statements made by Mr. West were homophobic and bigotted; there were no factual assessments, nor any direct assessment of his character. There is no BLP violation here, and if you're upset about someone saying something apparently disparaging about one of your heroes or somesuch, you're just going to have to deal with it on your own like a proper adult, rather than attempting to censor it with a misapplication of wikipedia policy. siafu (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of how or what Crackerjack says it is still a BLP violation. Alex West is living and therefore is protected by BLP. I am not censoring Crackerjack and I am not misapplying policy and I am not a fan of Mr. West. There is no need for you to say such things which can be seen as a personal attack. Furthermore I take offence to your statement, "you're just going to have to deal with it on your own like a proper adult." Caden ^cool 22:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Characterizing statements made by an individual as being bigotted or homophobic is not, in fact, tantamount to characterizing the person as homophobic or bigotted, which is itself debatable on BLP grounds. Where is the BLP violation? siafu (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing the talk page comments of others should not be done except in the most dire of circumstances, like racist rants or violations of WP:OUTING. Jumping in and doing so on extremely flimsy grounds without first requesting that the original poster of those comments do so themselves is not acceptable behavior, hence my recommendation to act in a more adult manner. I do not retract the recommendation. siafu (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dude stop calling me immature. I am acting like an adult. I'm not making personal attacks against you so stop it. Caden ^cool 22:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

External link removed

Dear, Siafu, please, explain why you deleted my link in Ephemeris article? What's wrong with it? Thanks. Mivion (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:LINKFARM. siafu (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand, this is free and opensource project, and more precisely than JavaScript Ephemeris linked there. Please explain, I am novice here. Thanks. Mivion (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably, some of the other links there should be removed as well, but the overall thrust is to limit the "External links" section to only a few helpful and content-related links. Links to actual ephemerides do not help elucidate the topic itself, and are thus not really appropriate (as opposed to links to pages further explaining what ephemerides are, their history, how they're used, etc.). See WP:External links for guidelines. siafu (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that my link is more useful than others, because it provides a convenient way to obtain accurate ephemeris than others. Is it not so?? Mivion (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, linking to actual ephemerides or databases of them is not appropriate for encyclopedia articles, since wikipedia is not a collection of links. Google provides that service already, much better than wikipedia can. Cluttering up articles with links like these is not helpful, and is therefore against wikipedia guidelines. siafu (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Then why you just don't remove other links like JPL HORIZON or others? I still don't understand. But I respect your opinion and agree with you, especially since I still have no choice. Thanks for the clarification. Regards. Mivion (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't removed the other ones because I'm a volunteer, not a paid employee with responsibilities; this is just how wikipedia works. If I have time and motivation later, I will go through and clear them out. siafu (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I am volunteer too, and I've created this service for free and without money, and I am not a paid employee, if you think so. Mivion (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that matter. I did not mean to imply that the service you've created was somehow bad or not useful, merely that it does not belong as a link from an article on wikipedia. siafu (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

[PPS]

---

Siafu, I am getting access denied for GPS PPS. It says ERROR Access Denied

Access Denied by security policy The security policy for your network prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your administrator if you feel this is incorrect.

Is this a classified document? RHB100 (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not classified, and I found another link with the same information that we can use instead from the ION. siafu (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ductile iron pipe

Hello, Siafu. Your comment on the Ductile iron pipe talk page mentioned a pattern of editing by two accounts: this is something I had also noticed and found troubling, leading to my belief that bias may have been intentionally added. If you are interested in the topic, your assistance addressing the bias would be gratefully received. Do let me know if you have any comments on the new content that I have proposed for the "Environmental" heading. PiperOne (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Meet up on campus some time?

Hi Siafu! Sorry to hear that you couldn't make it to the Wikipedia meetup today. I'm going to be in Boulder until around January 7; if you're in Boulder before then, maybe we could meet up on or near campus sometime? I'd love to say "hi" and talk about the Wikipedia events we've organized and plan on organizing in the future. Drop me an e-mail, or leave a message on my talk page! -- Gaurav (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

GLONASS

So if GLO is for Global, what is the NASS for?

Thanks!! 184.57.77.157 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's GLObalnaya NAvigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema (Global Navigation Satellite System). siafu (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sign

can you sign your post at ANI. thanks --sarvajna (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

I feel your behaviour on this matter is growing inappropriate, specifically that you are assuming an authority on dictating procedure that is not in any way supported by policy. Swordfish made that revert on the basis of wanting reliable sourcing (he had not followed the wikilinks included in the added text to see that the point is more than adequately sourced and not at all controversial); I directed him to those sources and he has made no objection to my reintroducing the content so far. The fact that I made my case in an edit summary is utterly irrelevant -- there is no policy requiring me to start a superfluous talk page entry as opposed to making the sources known through any other venue or means of discussion on the project. And in approaching the matter in this way, I in no way violated the principle of WP:Consensus, to which I am fully committed as an editor; had Swordfish reverted again, I would have opened a discussion on the article's talk page, but it's not your place to just assume his reaction to my new evidence and insist on a particular course of action in resolving the (non)issue between the two of us. Your actions in this case, and especially your tone in your edit summaries, seem to suggest that you feel you are in a position to dictate the methodologies of other editors with regard to work flow and communication, but in this case you have no policy argument to support this behaviour and no special position in the community entitling you to interfere in this manner, especially when you had no reason to believe the matter was not already dealt with to the satisfaction of the original parties involved.

This was a discussion based on WP:Verifiability alone, a matter that, until someone tells me otherwise, seems to have been resolved. If you decide that you have issue with the sources in question, how they should be referenced, or the content itself, fine I urge you to open a talk page discussion on it. However, if you continue to meddle and revert my content again on no other basis than trying to enforce your preferred procedure, clearly an administrator will have to straighten the matter out. Snow (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time someone declared "But I'm not edit warring!" I would be a wealthy man. Similarly for every time an editor insists a particular interpretation of sources is the obvious one. The page in question, List of common misconceptions, has been quite contentious in the past and as such requires an extremely conservative attitude in editting, as indicating by the edit warning inserted on the page. Your claim that another editor has "made no objection" to your re-introduction of the content is misplaced, and would only really be valid if editors were full-time employees paid to pay attention to wikipedia; an objection was raised, and you did nothing different to deal with that objection. Really, you seem to be going to a great effort to avoid simply laying out your case on the article talk page and gaining consensus for the page, when, if it's all as cut and dried as you claim, this should be no problem. Lastly, the comment "if you continue to meddle and revert my content again on no other basis than trying to enforce your preferred procedure, clearly an administrator will have to straighten the matter out." is really weird; you will find that administrators are not actually police (it is the community that "sorts things out"), and that any user has the same right to "meddle", as articles and even particualr parts of them (like the text you are attempting to insert) are not owned. siafu (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You are also now at the three revert limit; if for no other reason this should compel you to use the article talk page. siafu (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You may also want to consider reading WP:REVTALK and WP:BRD, as well. siafu (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Your tone here is consistent with what it was in the edit summaries from word go: frankly patronizing, tactless and most importantly still not addressing any relevant argument as to the content itself. Why is the burden on me to prove this beyond providing reliable sources? If you question their validity, then make an argument, or pass it to another editor you feel is qualified to do so if you don't. But you can't hijack the process is some sort of display of correcting editors which you perceive as junior members on a whim. Looking at the history on your talk page, I see I am not the first person to come to you here with grievances of this nature. But you did not act in concordance with policy in doing so. And yes, Swordfish might yet disagree with me, but the fact of the matter is, you didn't give him a chance to decide for yourself, did you? You just swooped in and reverted to make a point about what you perceive as proper form (but which, I can't stress enough, is nothing required by policy) even though you seem to have no argument against the content or sources themselves. You turned a minor difference of opinion that I have every reason to believe would have been a non issue or in any event would have been amicably resolved between me and Mr. Swordfish -- I could easily have provided more inline citations for it, if he felt it was necessary, I personally though it was inappropriate in this case -- and turned it into a drama. And I'm confident that the vast majority of editors, reading that exchange would be able to understand that I was aware of the need for care on a page such as this. You can assume I'm as green as you want me to be, but I didn't need you to explicitly tell me that this page would be rife with content disputes and that its editors would understandably tend be rigorous about vetting information. I've no problem discussing the veracity of the statement or the sources therein or even the formatting with which they are explicitly referred to in this article. What I do object to is you reverting because you felt like acting like a self-appointed policeman, which is why I'm not taking your accusations of own-complex very seriously. And yes actually, the administrators are there for a purpose; it happens to have a lot of overlap with the roles you seem to have appointed yourself, actually. So, yes, I will open a discussion on the original issue on the article's talk page. But I think an administrator should be made aware of your behaviour in this matter, as well. You started a revert war without a policy argument and you want to paint yourself as an elder completely divorced from how the issue arose, and it might be a pattern of behaviour. Snow (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what warrants the angry mastodon tone here; all you had to do to avoid a conflict was honor the original request to discuss the matter on the talk page, a request which I simply repeated because I agree with it. Accusing me of a pattern of behavior (we've just met?), as well as attempting to guess my motivations, are both just tossing good faith out the window as well. Discussing editors instead of content is also rather frowned upon, for good reason. Do you honestly believe that this is the most effective way to accomplish your goals here?

I do indeed have issues with the added content, but until you showed yourself willing to engage in the process, instead of just bulldozing over objections from other editors, I didn't (and don't) see any point in starting the discussion. The burden is on you, who would like to make the change, to demonstrate that it's warranted, not on me, who questions your rationale, to demonstrate that it isn't. I also believe that you'll find, running off to an admin, that in general administrators are not very receptive to complaints made without any real attempt to resolve the issue through other means. In this case this is especially apt, as I made it quite clear in the first place what was needed to convince me-- a consensus on the article talk. You have no spent a great deal of time and energy trying to explain why you should not have to do this, when it would really have been much simpler to just discuss it (the "D" in BRD) when it was requested that you do so. IMO, there doesn't need to be a policy to require you to discuss things on talk-- the very fact that one of your colleagues on wikipedia requested that you do so should be enough. That two of them voiced the same opinion? Should make it pretty compelling; it's truly difficult to see what possible advantage there may be in not engaging a discussion, since you claim to have "no problem discussing the veracity of the statement or the sources therein or even the formatting with which they are explicitly referred to in this article", and yet are not doing so. siafu (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If not for the fact that its convenience is obvious, I'd find it rather odd that you'd have an actual policy reason to object to the content and yet never once mention it in the edit summaries instead of issuing blanket pro forma demands which are not remotely required by policy. As I said before, I'm confident the record will rather obviously reflect your thinking at the time, you're attempts after the fact to paint me as disconnected and not willing to engage in discussion notwithstanding. Now that this mess exists, of course a talk page entry is necessary, but did the original point of contention require it? Probably not, and even if it had become the case, it would have been a much smaller and amiable affair., and wouldn't have involved you, since I'm having trouble summoning enough AGF spirit to believe you really had a valid content argument which you just decided not to mention all up until this point. But let's assume you did. Has it occurred to that you could have then been the one to create the talk page entry, since you were so keen on it? If you were really a party interested first and foremost in the integrity of the page and in challenging this addition in particular, how is the burden completely on me? And you use the word "requests" when you talk about your urging a talk page entry. Show me your request in these statements, your very first on the matter: "settle this on the talk page before bringing it to the article" followed by "No, really, take it to the talk page.", after I had already explained that the sources had been validated. Those are curt imperatives, not requests, and that's all I heard from you until you willfully pushed reverts up to their presumed limit and then made a point of going out of your way to point out that you were getting your way by way of forcing 3RR. Now you want to quote WP:BRD at me, but so you seem to be missing the spirit of that guideline on two levels. First, the "D" doesn't belong to any one party. If you really wanted to force a discussion on a minor fact-checking procedure between two editors that did not involve you, fine -- that's your prerogative as an editor after-all -- but how is it you feel that it then becomes the role of one of those parties to set up the framework for that debate, especially when any challenges to the content or sources would be coming from you? More crucially, I don't feel you had any point to discuss; I feel strongly that you acted as self-appointed discussion police before stopping to think if you had a policy reason to do so and then never stopped to put on the breaks thereafter, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think our relative approaches will speak for themselves to any editor who cared to look at the record. On a side note, you've apparently misread the meaning of WP:Burden, the gist of which is that a person wishing to add challenged content must provide sourcing, not that they have to prove its veracity against any conceivable challenge when a specific factual or source objection has not even been made. But that's all I have to say directly to you on this matter, and I think it's best we leave it at that. If in the future discussion of the content, you have something to say, by all means, present your case. Snow (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"I'd find it rather odd that you'd have an actual policy reason to object to the content and yet never once mention it in the edit summaries instead of issuing blanket pro forma demands which are not remotely required by policy."

Edit summaries are not the place to hash out content disputes. The article talk page is there for that purpose.

"Now that this mess exists, of course a talk page entry is necessary, but did the original point of contention require it? Probably not, and even if it had become the case, it would have been a much smaller and amiable affair."

Probably not, but your unwillingness to discuss it (still going on that one) has made it a rather large affair.

"and wouldn't have involved you, since I'm having trouble summoning enough AGF spirit to believe you really had a valid content argument which you just decided not to mention all up until this point."

Whether it would have involved me or not is not up to you, nor should you expect to have any idea unless you happen to have a magic crystal ball. Content arguments are for the respective article's talk page, not edit summaries, nor personal talk pages (like this one).

"after I had already explained that the sources had been validated."

By assuming that you fully understand the issue and the objections, you are making the further error that you have fixed it to the satisfaction of those objecting without investigating. Most people making controversial edits consider them to be "uncontroversial" and are genuinely surprised when others don't agree, so I'm not overly surprised by this view, mistaken though it is. Might I suggest that perhaps taking a less confident view of your own infallibility might be a wise choice with better results in the future.

" then made a point of going out of your way to point out that you were getting your way by way of forcing 3RR."

If by "getting my way" you mean "forcing an actual discussion of the content change per wikipedia standards of behavior", then sure, I'm "getting my way." Or perhaps I am, since there's still no movement on the article talk page. We'll see, I guess.

"If you really wanted to force a discussion on a minor fact-checking procedure between two editors that did not involve you, fine -- that's your prerogative as an editor after-all"

I really do want to force a discussion on the change, as I personally don't see it as so minor, or so obvious as you insist it to be. Again, whether it involves me or not is not up to you, and that is my prerogative as a wikipedia editor. This conclusion of yours hinges on the assumption that if Swordfish had not stepped forward with his revert, that I would have ignored it as well, something you couldn't possibly ever know.

"I feel strongly that you acted as self-appointed discussion police"

How you feel is not relevant, and frankly, insulting. Locking yourself into this conclusion is the source of the problem here; my motivations, being inside my head, are not available for your simple perusal. Discussing controversial content changes on the article talk page is just how things are done here. How do you know it's controversial? One very good hint would be that other editors object to it. Take the hint.

"On a side note, you've apparently misread the meaning of WP:Burden, the gist of which is that a person wishing to add challenged content must provide sourcing,"

It's not just about sourcing, it's about whether it's a good change to the article. Sourcing is a necessary, but insufficient, condition. Again, you are assuming things about my position without having bothered to find out. Assuming leads you into arguments like these; see how productive your time has been?

Now, aside from making blindly presumptive comments in edit summaries and ranting on my talk page about what you are convinced are my motivations, in addition to making various absurd threats about administrator action (Please-- if you feel so convinced about that, by all means take it to AN/I and see just where that gets you, this has accomplished exactly nothing. You have three choices at this point: walk away, explain your content change on the article talk page, or continue pushing despite objections from multiple editors. If you choose either of the first two (I vote for the second), this might come to a peaceful resolution; if you choose the last one you can likely expect further resistance from myself and other editors. Up to you. siafu (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've already made my intended course of action clear, both as regards the changes and seeking oversight to your actions. Snow (talk) 06:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Birth control causing abortions

There are many refs to support that this is a common misconception. Just google and check if you cannot see the source in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

SPLC and WP:CIVIL

I've replied on my talk page, but I'm reposting here because I want to be clear. I'm removing the comment in question as a violation of the core policy WP:CIVIL. If you restore it you will be blocked. If you disagree with this, please consult the appropriate noticeboard instead of edit warring about said comment. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pitching moment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pitch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I forgot that was you!

Duh! I was "sure as h____" having some fun at the GPS talk the other day. Isn't WP's such a collegial environment! Fgnievinski (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it is! I keep forgetting, though, how disruptive one person can be to the process. siafu (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

3RR discusion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you RHB100 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Roman And Byzantine Military History

Hello I currently have a project known as the Roman and Byzantine military history page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Roman and Byzantine Military History, I was wondering if you would like to join, as you have showed interest in byzantine history. Iazyges (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Siafu. 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)

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.1

Newsletter Nr 1 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta) Participation: This is the very first newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise. (To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, see below) Progress report: Since the Projects very first edit 9 december 2002 by User:Dan Koehl, which eventually became the WikiProject Genealogy, different templates were developed, and the portal Portal:Genealogy was founded by User:Michael A. White in 2008. Over the years a number of articles has been written, with more or less association to genealogy. And, very exciting, there is a proposal made on Meta by User:Another Believer to found a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, read more at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project where you also can support the creation with your vote, in case you havnt done so already. Future: The future of the Genealogy project on the English Wikipedia, and a potential creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input. You can discuss on the projects talk page how the project should be developed sign as member or supporter at the projects member list Check the goal, tasks and see if something interest you. put the User box on your user page by inserting the Template:User WikiProject Genealogy with the following code: {{User WikiProject Genealogy}}. develop or update the Portal:Genealogy? in case you havnt read Wikimedia genealogy project take a look support that project with your vote. Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy founder and coordinator Dan Koehl To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery Dan Koehl (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.2

Newsletter Nr 2 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta) Participation: This is the second newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise. (To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below) Progress report: In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well talking in chat mode about the potential new wiki, a new irc channel has been setup, and you are welcome to visit and try it out at: #wikimedia-genealogy connect (In case you are not familiar with IRC, or would prefer some info and intro, please see Wikipedias IRC tutorial) At m:Talk:Wikimedia_genealogy_project#Wikimedia_user_group is discussed the possibility of creating a genealogy-related Wikimedia user group: please submit comments and suggestions, and whether you would like to be a member in such a group. Prime goal for the group is the creation of a new, free, genealogy wiki, but there is also a discussion weather we should propose a new project or support the adoption of an existing project? Read more at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project where you also can support the creation with your vote, in case you haven't done so already. Future: The future of the Genealogy project, and creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input. You can discuss on the projects talk page how the project should be developed sign as member or supporter at the projects member list put the User box on your user page by inserting the Template:User WikiProject Genealogy with the following code: {{User WikiProject Genealogy}}. develop or update the Portal:Genealogy? in case you haven't read Wikimedia genealogy project take a look support that project with your vote. Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl. To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Genealogy project need your vote for creation of an email list

Newsletter Nr 3 for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta) Participation: This is the third newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise. (To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below) Request: In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well as taking new, important steps towards a creation of a new project site, we need to make communication between the users easier and more effective. At Mail list on meta is discussed the possibility of creating a genealogy-related Wikimedia email list. In order to request the creation of such a list, we need your voice and your vote. In order to create a new list, we need to put a request it in Phabricator, and add a link to reasoning/explanation of purpose, and link to community consensus. Therefore we need your vote for this now, so we can request the creation of the mail list. Read more about this email list at Meta; Wikimedia genealogy project mail list where you can support the creation of the mail list with your vote, in case you haven't done so already. Future: in case you haven't read Wikimedia genealogy project take a look support that project with your vote. Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl. To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.4: Mail list created!

Newsletter Nr 4, 2017-03-24, for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta) Participation: This is the fourth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise. (To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below) Mail list is created: The project email list is now created and ready to use! Please feel free to subscribe at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy Future: Discuss the next step, the creation of a meta Genealogy user group, list yourself as m:interested participant and vote on which name should be used for the user group. in case you haven't read Wikimedia genealogy project take a look support that project with your vote. Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl. To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Siafu. 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)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy - newsletter No.5 -2017

Newsletter Nr 5, 2017-12-30, for WikiProject Genealogy (and Wikimedia genealogy project on Meta) Participation: This is the fifth newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise. (To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below) A demo wiki is up and running! Dear members of WikiProject Genealogy, this will be the last newsletter for 2017, but maybe the most important one! You can already now try out the demo for a genealogy wiki at https://tools.wmflabs.org/genealogy/wiki/Main_Page and try out the functions. You will find parts of the 18th Pharao dynasty and other records submitted by the 7 first users, and it would be great if you would add some records. And with those great news we want to wish you a creative New Year 2018! Don't want newsletters? If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Cheers from your WikiProject Genealogy coordinator Dan Koehl. To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.