User talk:Thor Dockweiler/2010

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Regards, Accurizer (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Irving Middle School (Los Angeles)

Hello. I was a little confused by your edit summary in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Irving_Middle_School_(Los_Angeles)&diff=235118715&oldid=234891005 - "Undid revision 234891005 by FlamingSilmaril. Article predates LAUSD site. FS violated CA Const. A1S1/US Const. Am1. Rewording is necessary. FS should contact Fl1pcartman. Will edit 2 wks." For one thing, Fl1pcartman hasn't edited Wikipedia for over a year, leading me to think that it would be rather difficult to contact him. Regarding the LAUSD site: I presume you're talking about this one, which has the same text I removed: http://www.geocities.com/mara_byrne/. Can you say for certain that the article actually predates this website? According to the website's source code, it was created with Microsoft Publisher 2000 - which doesn't necessarily mean it was created before the text was added to the article, but strengthens the case somewhat. The Wayback Machine doesn't have anything helpful: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/mara_byrne/. Finally, regarding the thing about the California Constitution: unless I'm wrong, the relevant part of the constitution reads:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

How did I violate this? Additionally, you may want to read Wikipedia:No legal threats regarding accusing anybody of violating a law. Thanks for taking the time to read this, FlamingSilmaril (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised by this response. I expected it. Certain personalities just have to control, especially when one looks at his record. Let the record reflect that FlamingSilmaril created the problem with the original article's author. Pointing out his tactic/problem is not a threat. Let the record further reflect that I was a third party. It would have been simpler for him to fix the small issues than get all worked up about it and hack and slash. Improve the articles. It is easy to destroy, slow to build. I further note that it is quite possible I may know something more about this area as I reside in it, whereas FlamingSilmaril resides in another spot in the country. I would expect FlamingSilmaril to know more about schools in his area likewise than I would, unless I had gone to great length of research. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroids

Hi there! I see you've been working diligently to make stubs for asteroids. It looks like you're doing a good job too, so thanks! I see that you are labeling them as asteroid stubs, which is good. In addition you could add appropriate categories as well. Looking at the asteroids category 2 things are appearent:

there are some sub categories that may be appropriate for some of the articles you are creating, so be sure to use the most specific one available.
they seem to be sorted by the alphabetic name rather than the number. You can achieve this by adding the category tag at the bottom like so: [[Category:Asteroids|name of asteroid]]

Looks like you're doing a good job, keep up the good work! ./zro (⠠⠵) 06:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: asteroids in sub groups with "named after" are sorted by alphabetic name, not all asteroids. ./zro (⠠⠵) 06:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy to be of service. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion as to template minor planet navigator

I am opposed to the deletion. It serves a very useful function. It has been in use since 2005. Why is it now, after over 3 years, being considered as unuseful? Thor Dockweiler, astronomer. 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the standards

Please pause and read Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices, the extensive document list you're adding to numerous constellation articles like Ursa Minor don't fit the intention of Wiki appendices. It also seems to be the same list on each article, which is not adding value. You may find one umbrella article where you can usefully add some of these references, but not the entire list on dozens of articles, thanks. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew the standards before the work was done. It is obvious to me that Chuckiesdad is not familiar with astronomy. The username says everything that one needs to know. Although, I will note in this case that a relative end justifies the means approach would have been immensely valuable towards encouraging others to greatly enhance all articles involved on the constellations. The work input by myself on this aspect took in excess of 100 hours. The slow route will take several times more, and the persons submitting will probably not use the best resources which was compiled in the list. As to no value, I totally disagree. A great many (over 100) have pointed out to me directly that the list was absolutely fantastic and that the articles were greatly improved by it. I do note that such a valuable contribution did cause quite a cackle behind the scenes in private channels between the chopper and others. One will note the resultant affect in which I have made no contribution to the constellations for 2 years having considered leaving on doing any further input in Wikipedia. I further state that some who even have astronomical degrees seem to be more detrimental than helpful in Wikipedia astronomical articles. Why should I waste my valuable time if the effort is slashed away rather than improved or without sufficient proper reason. Let me be the one to praise good ones like Rursus, Jyril, BlueEarth, and others. Build up Wikipedia. It is not yours alone. No one owns an article or articles. Make them better. Contribute. Make Asimov's dream of an Encylopedia Galactica come true! Thor Dockweiler (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of (202084) 2004 SE56

The article (202084) 2004 SE56 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All notable information is at List of minor planets: 202001–203000. Not enough notability for a second page.

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. avs5221 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad I did not catch this one. The deletionist proposer was an idiot in my opinion. Obviously not an astronomer and with a bias. The deletionist made the situation worse. Now there is substantially less information than before, basically useless. Who wants to just look up a number on a table? With somebody like that all the species of animals would be eliminated in Wikipedia. Well history certainly tells on this person. That person hacked and slashed so much after getting a higher privilege that the person lost it and was removed from Wikipedia after doing so much damage. Then on top of that it the deleted article just cannot be fixed easily. We do not need people like this in Wikipedia. Thor Dockweiler (talk)

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:

Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
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 00:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

WikiProject Jupiter proposal

Hello! Would you be interested in forming WikiProject Jupiter? If so, please show your support by clicking on the link above!--Novus Orator 06:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joined. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constellations Task Force activity

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the astronomy-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of the Constellations taskforce of WikiProject Astronomy. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this task force, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is moved to the 'active users' section - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Astronomy at 16:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Responded 2010 December 31 on appropriate page. Looking forward to continuing. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]