User talk:Transatracurium/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Potential edit war - help please?

I am currently in a revert slap with User:68.54.3.79 over the article Rave. While I am trying to improve the article, he insists on using urbandictionary.com as a reference for one of his drug references and put his edits at the beginning of the section, though chronologically they belong later in the section. As shown on his talk page, I have tried to reason with him regarding this. I do not wish to get into a 3RR complaint about this. Could you help? Thank you for any help you can provide. Regards, --Manway (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have settled down. My last revert stayed put. Thank you. --Manway (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't actually have a chance to do anything, but I'm glad everything sorted itself out. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

National Anthem of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania

why did you remove this article without discussing? you should put {{notenglish}} into the article following WP:CSD.--Soslanx (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's see how long it lasts, shall we? Colds7ream (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I will try to expand it.--Soslanx (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment on wake-up call table in shuttle article

There was a request for comment made at WikiProject:Human Spaceflight, on the inclusion of a table containing the wake up calls. If you get a minute and could comment on what you think, that would be great. Thanks!--NavyBlue84 14:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

graphics lab photo

I've redone the editing on it. Let me know what you think of the new version. -- penubag  (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the noise in the photo. Tell me if you see anything else. -- penubag  (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC review

Good luck with that, and many thanks for the heroic efforts I have seen you expending over many months. FA or not, the article is already a terrific resource. I wish I had more freedom to devote a lot of time to it, but I will look at it as much as I can, and comment on the review if I have anything to add. BTW, do you watch Space debris? I just reread it, and it is really getting quite alarming, especially since the Cosmos-Iridium collision lately. It looks like we are already in or very near the exponential runaway phase in the 500-2000 km region, and it may already be unstoppable. Wwheaton (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Wwheaton, and thanks for the kind words. If this goes through, major source of stress relieved. :-) I haven't been watching the page, having been becoming more alarmed by this via the increasing number of DAMs the ISS has had to perform, but will add it to my watchlist - looks like launches are going to be getting a bit hairier sometime soon... :-S Colds7ream (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Shuttle-Mir patch

Hi Coldstream,

I have done an SVG version of the Shuttle-Mir patch. Please take a look and let me know whether it's ready for primetime yet. --Slashme (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that the JPG is the correct source, not the PNG, so I'm going to fix a few things. I'll let you know when I'm done. --Slashme (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks ever so much for this - it's looking great! :-) Once you've sorted the ribbons etc. out, feel free to add it straight to the articles. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, check the latest version and let me know. I've got to log off urgently now, but I can add it to the articles tomorrow evening. --Slashme (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's almost perfect. The only thing I'd say is that the blue at the back of the ribbon on the right is probably supposed to be the lighter blue rather than the darker used on the US ribbon. Colds7ream (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I got it straight from the jpeg: the back of the ribbons are darker than the front - it's a shadow effect --Slashme (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, just spotted some of the lines on the solar arrays are missing too. Colds7ream (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, Done! --Slashme (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Job done. :-D Colds7ream (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million for the barnstar! --Slashme (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:MRM-1 at RSC Energia.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:MRM-1 at RSC Energia.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ISS FAC and youtube hilarity

All of the trials and tribulations with ISS at FAC instantly made me think of you the moment I saw this: video on YouTube (be sure to enable captions). It is already being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Video_spoof. -MBK₀₀₄ 11:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is so true its unreal! :-D Many thanks for pointing it out! Colds7ream (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saw your latest reply at the FAC, watch the video again, relax, and then look at this: User_talk:Roger_Davies#Copyedit_request, help may be on the way. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MBK. It's appreciated - maybe if I offered money someone would rock up to help out? :-( Colds7ream (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully money will not be necessary, Roger should either be able to point you to someone or be able to help out himself. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Transatracurium. You have new messages at Talk:International Space Station.
Message added 20:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 20:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hi there. Thought I'd let you know we have another copyeditor having a look at ISS - it isn't their field, so they're worrying they might inadvertently mess with the facts. I left them this post - so if something does go awry, just tidy up and tell them they're doing a good job! cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the note. I can't believe we've finally got someone to copyedit the blasted thing for us! :-D Colds7ream (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Some issues

I'm posting this here rather than in the FAC because I didn't want you to feel like I was piling on or holding things up. I did another check through and found a few more concerns:

• "...across fields including human research (space medicine), life sciences, physical sciences and Earth observation." This sentence seems redundant with the "Scientific research" section. Could it be merged into the latter section?
• "...goal of increasing the use of the ISS by other Federal entities and the private sector." Should this be "Federal agencies"?
• "This aspect of ISS operations reduces mission risks, advancing the capabilities of interplanetary spacecraft." This has become ambiguous. Are these two separate things? I.e. is it "thereby advancing" or "while advancing"?
• "...following a long journey in space." This is vague because long could be several weeks or several years. Please provide a baseline.
• "The microgravity study's techniques are applied to professional and Olympic sports injuries as well as ultrasound scans performed by non-expert operators in populations such as medical and high school students." This seems irrelevant to the ISS, so I think it should be removed.
• "Because of delays, however, the..." Probably should move 'however' to the start of the sentence.
• "As of May 2009 the station was 82.8% complete." I'm not sure what this means. Is it in terms of mass, total launches, total sections, or what? Please clarify.
• "The JEM Exposed Facility allows experiments to be exposed directly to space, serving as an external 'porch' for the Japanese Experiment Module complex, as does the European Columbus laboratory, which provides mounting sites for experiments such as the European Technology Exposure Facility and the Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space." I think the ambiguity should be fixed here. I.e. is the Columbus a porch for the JEM?
• "Until the main truss structure arrived, the arrays were in a temporary position perpendicular to the final orientation. In this configuration, the beta gimbal was used for the main solar tracking." Does the article need this now? Can it be moved to the Main article for the section?
• "It takes approximately two orbits (three hours) to be boosted several kilometres higher." Please address the vagueness.

I'm still in support of the article because these don't seem like show-stoppers. But I would like to see them addressed. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done and done! :-) This effort is bringing back my faith in the community... Colds7ream (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting

I've done a quick copyedit, now to all sections. The problems I still see are wordiness and sentences beginning with "this". Reworking those take a bit longer, so let's see how things go for now. If Tony has specific objections, I'm happy to address them. You'll probably see me tweaking and tweaking just so you know! Good luck. It's a great article & I've enjoyed reading it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support, we all appreciate it very much. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The outstanding comms para

Can you take a look at my comment here on the ISS talk page, and if you have access to Harland, look into this? Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

FA

Congratulations on bringing the article to Featured Article status! Whew!—RJH (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! Thanks for the double barnstar, and thanks for forcing me out of complacency!! Well done! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe we finally pulled it off! Thanks to both you guys! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well. I don't know if I would have had the perseverence to stay at it four four FACs. Good job! When you are up to it, is Mir next? -MBK₀₀₄ 02:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yep, Mir's definitely next on my RADAR, but I'm gonna take a bit of a break first, I think. :-) The last three years have been somewhat intense. :-D Colds7ream (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For you

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your tireless effort on the International Space Station article —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! It was quite a project - thanks for your help with it! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Transatracurium. You have new messages at Talk:List of ISS spacewalks.
Message added 01:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You should probably defend this article or else it is likely to end up at AFD as redundant. The other mentioned list does not have the level of detail this one does. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ISS clean-up

An IP has recently converted a redirect to a full article, and it could probably use a little work to bring it to the standard with the rest of the module articles: Pressurized Multipurpose Module. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shuttle–Mir Program/archive1

Looks like there are just a few more things to address on the above page to get the article out of FAR limbo. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 04:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the FAR save! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Things are going rather well at the minute, eh? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Undelete Hard Kaur cropped

Please undelete File:Hard Kaur cropped.jpg that you had earlier deleted. I had earlier requested for undeletion, but was unaware of it being restored 2 months later by another user, and hence missed updating it. Jay (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. You've got two days to sort it out before I delete it again. Colds7ream (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've asked user Slashme who had created the image from the source, to help me out. Jay (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Colds7ream, I've added the necessary info for File:Hard Kaur cropped.jpg. It's a derivative work of a GFDL picture with a valid OTRS ticket. Please let me know whether it's now OK. --Slashme (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rassvet images

Since MRM-1 was moved to the SSPF and then straight to the payload canister over the past few days, there ought to be PD NASA images of the module now available for the associated ISS articles. See this: NASA spaceflight.com thread -MBK₀₀₄ 02:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Cheers MBK, will sort something out this afternoon. Colds7ream (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:MRM-1 at KSC.jpg Colds7ream (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

International Space Station program citation need advice

Colds7ream, I was wondering if you could give me some advice on what to do with citation need sections on this article. I can't find the information and some of it feels like original research. Should I just delete the sections?Aalox (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can see 3 cite tags. One is criticism-related, and I'd suggest you look to the main ISS article for help there, as I found a number of related publications during FAC4. As for the numbers, the ISS article may also be of help, but other than that, pass - I wouldn't delete the paragraphs just yet, though. Colds7ream (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I did go ahead with minor trimming. Please inspect and revert if unacceptable. Also, I'm discussing this topic in Talk:International_Space_Station_program#Cleaning_up_citations now. Do you have any interest in the P-3 Orion? Aalox (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

ISS science article move

Hi. I still think that the article title is much too long. This is my responsibility since I just strated the article without giving this particlular issue a lot of thought and simply coppied a title from the ISS talk page. When I moved the article I got a lot of complaints from the wikipedian who did most of the work on the ISS science article, so I just let it go. If this can be done without slashing any throats I would be all for it.--U5K0 (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How about simply 'Scientific Research on the ISS'? Colds7ream (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

that seems OK. Anything would be an improvement on the current situation. So what do we do now?--U5K0 (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection

Hi there. Do you have time to please look thoroughly into this issue? There's an experienced editor hiding behind an IP address, disrupting this article by restructuring the article, by removing valid content from the article, without first seeking community consensus. He is obviously ready to engage others in an edit war, knowing fully well that if his IP gets blocked he won't be bothered by it. If the article is semi-protected, that will force the IP editor to come out of hiding. I have requested for page protection and reported the editor to Avi. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ISS Expeditions

Hey Colds7ream, I am a little confused (which is not hard to do) about station expeditions. On the Expedition 23 page, the start of the increment is listed as 2 April 2010, which is the launch date of the Soyuz TMA-18 craft. Should the date on the Expedition 23 page be 18 March 2010 for the start, as that's the date Soyuz TMA-16 left? Or is 2 April 2010 correct? I am a little confused on which date should be used as it is a little more complicated now that the ISS is using 6 person crews, with new crews coming every 3 months. Thanks--NavyBlue84 17:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I'm a little clueless on this myself - I think its the departure date of the last expedition though. Colds7ream (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. That is when they have the change of command ceremony. I will go through and check the article and fix them as needed.--NavyBlue84 23:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed it says launch date in the info box of each expedition. I don't think it should say that, but should be start and end date, esp. since there are 2 launches for each expedition. I don't know how to change the code, or even where the page for the info box is. If you could change it that would be great if not, I am sure someone knows where/how too.--NavyBlue84 01:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it: Template talk:Infobox space expedition#Start/end points of expeditions. Colds7ream (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Colds7ream! I asked User:GW Simulations if it was easy to change and if not if he could have a look. I know he is extremely good with that sort of stuff!!--NavyBlue84 00:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

TFAR

In response to your query: Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#A_Question, you would only get one point, and that means that the probability that the article would be bumped is almost 100%. Your best bet is to wait for October. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I make it five points for that date, and am submitting a request for it as a result. Colds7ream (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

ISS manned duration

Good catch on the record date for the ISS and manned crews. I'm still a bit confused, though, as the page you use as a source says the anniversary of the ISS being crewed is 2 November, and the article now says:

"The ISS is operated by Expedition crews, with the station programme maintaining an uninterrupted human presence in space since the launch of Expedition 1 on 31 October 2000, a total of 9 years and 190 days. The programme is thus approaching the current record, set aboard Mir, of 3,644 days (8 days short of 10 years), with the ISS expected to take the record on 23 October 2010."

The Expedition 1 article says: The International Space Station received its first resident crew on November 2, 2000.", and the source here talks about November 2 as the anniversary date. So the count should be from November 2, surely? The records page here uses launch and landing dates, but that seems to relate to manned presence in space, rather than presence onboard a space station. Unfortunately, the two Soyuz missions that started and ended the record time span don't give docking and undocking dates. Maybe, unlike the Shuttle missions, the crews were delivered and returned faster, and there was no hanging around (like between the 31 October launch and the 2 November arrival at the ISS)? Carcharoth (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, Soyuz normally undocks and then lands a few hours later. All manned flights to the ISS and Mir take two days from launch to docking, although the time period can be longer. I'm not sure if same day as launch docking is possible. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes things clearer. Thanks! It does show how important the wording is when writing about these records. You can talk about how long a space station has been manned for, but that is slightly different to the records relating to maintaining a "continuous presence in space". This has me wondering if anyone has ever done a complete timeline of the occupation of space? You would start with the animals and then Yuri Gagarin, and then others would appear as the timescale rolled forward. What is clear is that in the last 20 years, there has nearly always been someone up there! The other thing I've always wanted to see is a timeline of Mir and ISS occupation, showing who was there at what times. The overlap between crews and non-crew Shuttle astronauts arriving temporarily, has always made it confusing for me, and a single list making it possible to say who was there at any single moment in time, would be wonderful if someone could do that. Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Space Editor RFA?

I've asked User:GW Simulations about the possibility of standing for an RfA, and I figure that another editor's opinion (such as yourself) would be useful, plus you might get to co-nom... User_talk:MBK004#Ghaznavi -MBK₀₀₄ 00:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've actually somewhat forgotten about that due to a number of issues including a death in the family. If you want to take the lead, I'll gladly put up a co-nom. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Gosh MBK, I'm sorry to hear that... :-( Colds7ream (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Images on RSC Energia pages

Could you please let me know whether images found on Energia pages (E.g. [1]) can be uploaded to Wikipedia? If so, please provide information about which license to use and also permissions etc? If Wikipedia allows then, can the images be for example cropped before uploading? Kurun (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware, no; they'd be Fair Use, and given that we have other images of, for instance, the cosmonauts and the modules on orbit, this means that there are alternatives to Energia's images, so Fair Use does not apply. Colds7ream (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really, But Thank you very much for the information. NASA only have images/Bios of several cosmonauts. For example, there is not even a web page/image of Cosmonauts Anatoli Ivanishin, Sergei Revin etc in NASA. Hence, it is kind of frustrating.Kurun (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but the fact that they're living people means we can't use Fair Use images of them, as a photo could still be taken (see WP:NFC#UUI). Colds7ream (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

New Template

Hi, I noticed you use {{FA user topicon}} and wanted to let you know that {{DYK user topicon}} has recently been created, so that you can showcase your DYK credits in your topicon space as well. It works exactly the same way as {{FA user topicon}} Happy editing! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. Just let me know. ---kilbad (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Kilbad#Dermatology task force (3). Colds7ream (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Author requests category delete

Hi there. Could you please delete this category? There's a typo in the title. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the swift reply. Amsaim (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem - anytime. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mir

I know you're working on the Mir article, but perhaps you could lend me a hand on something tangentially related for the time being. I've just stumbled upon these Mir Expedition articles that was written by a newbie with no grasp of wiki-format and as you can tell, they need an extreme amount of work to even meet our standards: Mir EO-3, Mir EO-4, Mir EO-5, and Mir EO-6. The goal I suppose is for them to look like the ISS Expedition pages, but I could use some help. An interim look might be that of Mir EO-24 which at least looks acceptable. -MBK₀₀₄ 12:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good grief! They're horrific! :-) Sure, I'll happily lend a hand sorting out that mess... Colds7ream (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added infoboxes and created a navbox for the articles. --GW… 08:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Salyut 6.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Salyut 6.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid no-one knows who the author of this particular photo is, other than it's a Soviet cosmonaut, nor do we know what date it was taken, other than that it was some time between 1977 and 1981. Colds7ream (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats alright, its more my fault for rushing to template instead of actually evaluating the problem. Apologies,Acather96 (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the ranges anyway. Colds7ream (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

wiki research

Hiya, regarding your research proposal on the Medicine main page, you/we could always just review a more limited field for wiki accuracy. For example; information about MI or information about heart sounds...? Tannim101 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tannim! Apolgies for the long reply time - I've spent the last few weeks on three different RAF stations, and haven't had a reliable web connection. I'd be very interested in doing a study on a limited field like this - sounds like you're interested in the cardiac side of things; are there any other subjects you're particularly fond of? If not, cardiac is fine! Colds7ream (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, my names Tom btw. umm, I'll try to summarise my areas of interest: ECG, Patient assessment/examination, Heart disease, Pre-hospital care, wilderness/remote medicine. The main problem I see with this research, is that we are essentially auditing wiki against the Gold Standard of knowledge, so we would need to decide what the gold standard of knowledge is... Tannim101 (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK Tom, I'm James. How's it going? :-) I would suggest that patient assessment and examination could be compared to Macleod's Clinical Examination or something similar; as for the rest, we'd have to go digging about to find one; when I start year 4 I can ask around and see what each specialty believes to be its gold standard and we can go from there? Colds7ream (talk) 10:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

James, I suggest we try to choose something with obvious value, i.e. looking at say heart sounds might be a bit pointless as the general public looking on wiki are unlikely to be practicing this skill. Something like, management of... Bee stings, would be something the public might well use wiki for, and errors on wiki would lead to incorrect treatment. What to do you think? I was just thinking about the need to justify the research. Tannim101 (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

An excellent point; maybe the differential diagnoses given for particular symptoms, for instance Haemoptysis? Colds7ream (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but there could be a long list of DDx for a symptom and we might need to rate them according to Severity and Incidence/Probability of correct diagnosis, if we just looked at top 5 or 10 causes it might be easier?. We could also look at treatment advice for x and compare it to NHS Direct as the governments Gold Standard for online advice? my e-mail address is tom.mallinson at doctors.org.uk Tannim101 (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the NHS Direct idea; that should work nicely - I suppose now we need to assemble a list of articles to compare? Colds7ream (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We could contact NHS Direct and ask what the 5 or 10 most commonly referecend sections on their website are. and then match those to wiki? Tannim101 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, although looking around their website there only seems to be a generic 'Contact Us' form; any idea where we can get a concrete e-mail address? Colds7ream (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mir article in the Bahasa Melayu Wiki.

I've noticed your difficulty of changing the image at the Bahasa Melayu/Malaysia *the right word is not Malayan by the way XD* for the Mir article when I was requesting some help with the image. Done, here [2].Syfuel (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the help! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

New Mir diagrams

Greetings!

First of all let me apologize for the delay. I promised you the diagram in 2 days, not 20 *blush*. But I got busy in real life and had to reduce my activity on Wikipedia. However, I hope you find the result worth the wait!

The details took more work than I expected. As did the search for good photos. Apparently this angle of the Shuttle is not a photographers' favorite!

I also realized that the solar arrays of Spektr in the first diagram were the wrong size and shape, and looked nothing like the photos or the JPG diagram. So I redrew them from scratch, made some minor fixes, reduced the nominal size of the image (to make it easier to view in the browser) and re-uploaded the file.

I uploaded white versions of both diagrams in case a B&W representation is needed.

I noticed that some translations have already been made. I'd be happy to update them. But first I want to know what you think, and if you have any comments or modifications.

Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 20:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Mir diagram (new version)
• 
  Mir diagram - white
• 
  Mir-Shuttle diagram
• 
  Mir-Shuttle diagram - white

Ye gods Orionist, these are beautiful! I can't thank you enough for sorting these out - that horrible old diagram has been a major irritation for ages, and your gorgeous SVGs are the perfect replacement! I hope you also noticed that the fr & ro versions were produced by users from the respective wikis, so these diagrams have obviously been impressing users overseas as well. :-) Many, many thanks! Colds7ream (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help! By the way you're doing a fantastic job at the Mir article. It looks set to become featured soon! -- Orionist ★ talk 05:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wouldn't hold your breath - took me three years to get ISS to FA... :-/ Colds7ream (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Humpers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjervis (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The article International Space Station is schedule to appear as the main page featured article in the near future

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on October 23, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 23, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The International Space Station is an internationally developed research facility currently being assembled in low Earth orbit. On-orbit construction of the station began in 1998 and is scheduled for completion by late 2011. The station is expected to remain in operation until at least 2015, and likely 2020. With a greater mass than that of any previous space station, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye, and is by far the largest artificial satellite that has ever orbited Earth. The station serves as a research laboratory that has a microgravity environment in which crews conduct experiments and observations in various biological, chemical and physical sciences. The ISS is operated by Expedition crews of 6 astronauts and cosmonauts, with the station programme maintaining an uninterrupted human presence in space since the launch of Expedition 1 on 31 October 2000, a total of 24 years and 21 days, taking the record for the longest unbroken human presence in space from the Mir programme today, 23 October 2010. The ISS project began in 1994 with the Shuttle-Mir programme, and the first module of the station, Zarya, was launched in 1998 by Russia. Assembly continues, as pressurised modules and other components are launched by American space shuttles, Russian Proton rockets and Russian Soyuz rockets. The station currently consists of 14 pressurised modules and an extensive integrated truss structure. (more...)

Thank you

For creating the Strela crane page, it was very needed.--Craigboy (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

International Space Station 'Trivia'

You removed a paragraph from the ISS article about Richard Garriott placing a Geocache there quoting WP:TRIVIA. That refers to "lists" of trivia saying that they are wrong and the information ahould be integrated into the article in a better way. The information was not a list. Why did you remove it and how could it be better integrated into the article so that you are happy with it? -- SGBailey (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, I probably should have put 'remove irrelevance' - this has absolutely nothing to do with the spacecraft visiting the ISS (the section it was placed in), and has nothing whatsoever to do with the hardware and operation of the station, the subject of that article. Colds7ream (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 problem

Hello; congrats on the ISS FA, by the way. When it appeared on the main page I appreciated the boost in hits to Expedition 1, an article I recently got to GA status.

Anyway, I wanted your advice on something. It seems about 80 Soyuz articles have been tagged as Top priority in 3 different wikiprojects (Space, Human Spaceflight, and Russia), apparently by the same editor. This has caused the Version 8.0 automated system to think they are very important, and is currently including all 80 in their next release. Unfortunately most of these 80 articles are not in good condition, and shouldn't be Top priority. Do you have ideas on how to recify this?

Also, do you have opinions on how a WikiProject like Human Spaceflight should rate the priority of the Soyuz articles, or for that matter, the Space Shuttle (STS-???) articles? Thanks a lot, Mlm42 (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human spaceflight#Human spaceflight articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release. Colds7ream (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I had been trying to find a suitable image for WikiProject Human spaceflight to create a consistent identity for the spaceflight projects. Didn't realise there was one so close to that used on the HSF banner. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your words of encouragement. He pointed to three editors by the way, not just me. Mlm42 (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Mlm42. Colds7ream (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be time to make a request for comments, as you suggested. Mlm42 (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Fallout

You are absolutely correct that this was just the proverbial straw (though you do have to admit that just about every article on the Progress was written by him and could be misconstrued as an attack on him). Several of the other articles he has written were proposed for merges or deletion over the past few months. Add to that the fact that he was taking a small break from editing (I had been attempting to keep up the slack unsuccessfully until he fully returned), this made it seem as though his entire contributions were not appreciated and he was not wanted here anymore. As to my thoughts, I've already laid them out in the discussion, I feel, as with GW, that they are all notable (they just haven't been fully developed yet ... GW was getting around to doing that) -MBK₀₀₄ 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. That was probably that then - I had no idea to the background here; probably would have taken a different view of things had I known... Still, what's done is done - any thoughts as to how we could encourage him back? Colds7ream (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

He has made that quite clear on his user page, the articles need to stay or forget it as far as he is concerned. I think he would be agreeable to the Expedition/Soyuz compromise that is being worked out amicably, but I don't think he is willing to compromise on the Progress articles. (Note, I have not been in a discussion with him since the retirement yet) -MBK₀₀₄ 22:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have to engage in dialogue over the Progress articles, otherwise we're being held to ransom.... Colds7ream (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I fear that the dialogue will not go well, especially since Mlm is going ahead with trying to get rid of the very first Progress which I though we had already agreed was inherently notable as the first one. The idiocy is making me want to stop contributing too! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not about notability.. it's about merging. Your contributions (and GW's) are extremely valuable. If one day someone wants to add tons of information and text about Progress 1 then they are free to do so. Mlm42 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unmerging is easy.. Mlm42 (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is about you trying to force a consensus upon others. The Progress 1 article was here before you wrote the Salyut article and you copied all of the information and are now trying to get rid of the article by claiming the duplicate information. They both belong and there are some things that can go in the Progress article which do not belong in the Salyut article and vice versa. You have not been negotiating in good faith with regards to this, especially in how you worded the RfC. You really should stop trying to force-feed this upon us like Obama did with the health care in the USA. I've got an extremely bad taste in my mouth right now. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Progress 1 is notable in its own right - I could try to make a list of notable Progress flights, if that would be helpful? Also, can I suggest we try and keep this discussion all in one place? Spreading it around talk pages makes it very difficult to keep track of things. Colds7ream (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the one place, but as to the notable Progress flights, ask GW (I can also try to drum one up). I've suggested that we put the Progress issue on the back-burner until the Soyuz/Expedition issue is dealt with completely so we don't confuse anything. Plus hopefully GW will return for that one... -MBK₀₀₄ 03:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, seems reasonable. Colds7ream (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

MessageDeliveryBot Request

Hi, I just wanted to make sure that it was you who made the MessageDeliveryBot request Spaceflight portals since you did not make the confirmation edit. Was it you? A reply here will be enough to confirm it. - EdoDodo ^talk 06:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, yes it was - sorry! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll run the bot now :) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:36pm • 08:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals

Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

I think what we've learned from this is that the MessageDeliveryBot works really well! :) Mlm42 (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Errors In Message Delivery

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (WikiProject activity). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

• Hurricane Devon - User is blocked.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

Hi there! Thanks for using MessageDeliveryBot. I noticed that when writing the name of the WikiProject you are leaving out the 'WikiProject' at the start. I've been manually correcting this but in future please don't do it. Also, please leave out the ~~~~ at the end of the message – the bot will automatically add a signature with the date and requester name. Thanks! - EdoDodo ^talk 17:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Righto, thanks for fixing it and letting me know! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :). - EdoDodo ^talk 18:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar for you :)

		The Space Barnstar
		A barnstar for you :) ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! What did I do to deserve this? :-D Colds7ream (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

member lists

Hi; I noticed you've started discovering which wikiproject editors are active and which aren't. Maybe rather than striking out their names, you could just make two lists with titles "Active members" and "Inactive members", and this would accomplish the same thing (starting by moving everybody into the inactive section). The huge Military History member list appears to be set up like this, and it seems a little less permanent that having one's name struck out. Just an idea. Mlm42 (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Worry not, Mlm, all is in hand - I've got a grand plan afoot here. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Plans are awesome. :) Mlm42 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Errors In Message Delivery

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (WikiProject Human spaceflight activity). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

• 3Idiot - User does not exist.
• Aldaron - User does not exist.
• Eric Machmer - User does not exist.
• Jmclark911 - User is blocked.
• John Kavanagh - User does not exist.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

Tracy Caldwell Dyson photo

The large view in the cupola is quite dark compared to the slightly smaller version Any chance of replacing it? dm (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've put in a request at the graphic lab: Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#View from the Cupola. Colds7ream (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How's that? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty awesome dm (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Errors In Message Delivery

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (WikiProject Timeline of Spaceflight activity). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

• Meus Nomen - User is blocked.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 07:07, 19 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 00:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Transatracurium. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation.
Message added 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Activity checks

Could you possibly run activity checks on the Solar System, Mars and Moon WikiProjects, I think some statistics might be useful for the discussion regarding what to do with those projects. --GW… 21:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done the check for Mars and Moon (expect a note from the MessageDeliveryBot soon), and will will wait a few days before sending out the Solar System one. Immediate results: Moon has 24 members, Mars has 28, giving a total of 52 members representing 47 unique editors. Colds7ream (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --GW… 14:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't get a message regarding activity for WP:Spaceflight; I just happened to notice my name struck out on the member list. Did you send messages to all participants? If not, this probably explains why so few Spaceflight participants have unstruck their names. Mlm42 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Looks like I overlooked that one! *embarrassed* Colds7ream (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No harm done. :) Mlm42 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

MessageDeliveryBot Approval

Hello! Since you've been using MessageDeliveryBot quite a lot, and seem to have understood how to submit requests quite well, I have gone ahead and approved you. With approval you will be able to verify requests and run the bot. If you're not interested then feel free to continue submitting requests the way you normally would - I'll be happy to continue reviewing them. If you are interested, you can login here using a TUSC account (which you can create here). I suggest you give a quick re-read to the rules before approving any requests. If you have any questions let me know, I'll be happy to answer them. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, EdoDodo - its much appreciated! Colds7ream (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. By the way, we have an IRC channel for MDB at ##MessageDeliveryBot on Freenode. Feel free to join any time, there's usually another user or two in there if you have any questions. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Errors In Message Delivery

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (WikiProjects Moon and Mars activity). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

• Tom Ruen - User does not exist.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight activity

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 17:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Delivery Successful

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (WikiProject Spaceflight activity) was completed successfully. Happy editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 18:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Transatracurium. You have new messages at GW Simulations's talk page.
Message added 15:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another. --GW… 15:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Abolition of Space and reboot of Spaceflight

Glad we're finally getting this thing going, would it be a good idea though to send an automated message to members of the Space letting them know what is going on? Unsurprisingly most are inactive on the pages so I'm not convinced all are aware, it will also encourage some editors to sign up to Spaceflight if Space is going. In the same vein it might be a good idea to contact the active members of the Spaceflight projects confirming what is happing and requesting their involvement in rebooting that project. Would do this myself but I have no experience with the delivery bot so I know I'll mess it up! :P ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Just having seen it, I suppose we could use the newsletter to inform Spaceflight members of what is going on. But we probably should still contact Space members. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just sent the bot on a run of all the spaceflight-related project member's talk pages - let's see what we get! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot

Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

Errors In Message Delivery

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (WikiProject Spaceflight reboot). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

• agr - User does not exist.
• Eric Machmer - User does not exist.
• Hurricane Devon - User is blocked.
• Jamal Wills - User does not exist.
• Jmclark911 - User is blocked.
• John Kavanagh - User does not exist.
• Meus Nomen - User is blocked.
• Μαστ3ρλινκ-εξ - User does not exist.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

UK IRC community meeting

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon

User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight

I noticed you've got rid of Colonisation. Should we deal with the rest of that proposal (ie. Human/Unmanned and TLS) now as well? I'm happy to do that if you want. --GW… 13:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I think I've got rid of it - if I've left any loose ends, do please let me know! As for the others, I'd suggest we keep them as-is until we finish the task force/workgroup discussion, as we may want to keep some of their assets, whereas I knew we wanted to completely abolish WPSpace colonisation. Colds7ream (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the HSF and USF task forces (in this discussion), there seems to be pretty broad agreement at the moment; I think I was the only voice against a USF task force, but at least a task force is easier to deal with than a separate WikiProject. So, in line with everybody else, I'm in favour of moving both HSF and USF WikiProjects to task forces (which will mostly amount to moving a bunch of pages to subpages of WP:Spaceflight). Also moving TLS to a working group seems unopposed. Mlm42 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been any discussion on this for a few days now, and given Mlm's position here, I can't see any impediment to renaming the projects to become task forces/working groups. The proposal does not cover the disposal of project assets, so they can be retained as-is for now, and dealt with later on a case-by-case basis. Since the only objection has been withdrawn, I'll press ahead with this tonight unless any further objections are raised in the meantime. --GW… 14:20, 10 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 16:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Help needed

Hello James! There's a deletion request at Commons for over 80 files, many of them on the subject of space and space flight. These were thought to be under the copyright of NASA because they were all taken from a remote sensing tutorial on one of its sites. Later it turned out that the author copied the files without noting the sources and many of them might not be free. Now we need to find the original sources, otherwise they will be deleted. Many of these files are extensively used in different Wikipedias, and rescuing them will save everyone a lot of headaches and red links.

The deletion request is here

I've already tracked down a couple to NASA and Hubblesite, hopefully the other files will follow suit. Please have a look! Best regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 10:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting a message at the newly-revived Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight, see if you can get some more help there. Having had a quick look through, I have to agree with the Salyut images being deleted from Commons - none of them are freely licensed, as Russia retains the Soviet copyright on them; I've made occasional efforts to upload them locally, actually. Colds7ream (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't want anyone to get unpleasant surprises at the articles they're working on. I'll also make sure that any used files that don't survive will be uploaded at least to en:wp, so that they could be retrievable for other projects. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 00:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Transatracurium. You have new messages at Talk:Progress M1-5.
Message added 19:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reconfirmation diff to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe

Hello. This is a message to inform you that your name has been removed from from the list of Wikipedia Signpost subscribers. Do not worry; this is simply a method of reforming the Signpost so that automated bots do not fill up retired users' talk pages with Signpost subscriptions (see discussion here) and to make life easier for the Signpost. If you wish to re-receive subscriptions, please send a reconfirmation edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe by signing with

1. MessageDeliveryBot [you can also use a user talk subpage (like
2. MessageDeliveryBot, replacing SUBPAGE with the subpage for the delivery), but this won't trigger your "New messages" bar.] Thank you for understanding.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of TeleComNasSprVen (talk) at 06:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

Christmas Card

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Green and Yellow Present.gif

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

File:Blue and Red Present.gif

Delivery Successful

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (Consteallations Task Force activity) was completed successfully. Happy editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 16:04, 26 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 14:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

ISS Cupola photo nominated for Featured Picture

You may be interested: I've nominated a photo that you uploaded for Featured Picture status. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tracy Caldwell Dyson in Cupola ISS --216.254.228.94 (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Transatracurium. You have new messages at WT:SPACEFLIGHT.
Message added 13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Interview request

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spaceflight for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview here. If you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, feel free to skip it. If you have any questions, you can drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Transatracurium. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight.
Message added 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You previously commented on the idea of new spacecraft templates. The discussion has reached a point where more review of the current (sandbox) draft Spacecraft missions and Spacecraft class templates would be helpful. Info and links are on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight page in the Infobox spaceflight section. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:58, 17 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 00:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

ISS Operations and Management Map

Hi,

More or less recently I saw the aforementioned map, and I thought it was a great job but there were spelling errors. You know, minor things, but that should definitely be amended. I realize now that you were the last person to edit the map, so I'll copy what I wrote in the author's talk page, verbatim:

I think it's worth noting that proper names not only do not need to be standardized, but they must not be standardized at all. It's like an American newspaper saying that the US Defense Secretary met with a representative from the Labor party in the UK. Or an Australian newspaper saying that the One World Trade Centre will house the Canadian Humour Association (which I just made up :D ). Neither is there such thing as a "Labor" party in the UK, nor is the soon-to-be tallest building in New York called "One World Trade Centre." The Defense Secretary met with a Labour rep and Canadian Humour will be located in the WT Center. Same here. There is no Ames Telescience Support "Centre" anywhere in the United States, just as well as there isn't an ESA European Space Research and Technology "Center". That's why the original map that NASA released, from which you got the information for your own map, spells "ESA European Space Research and Technology Centre" and "European Astronaut Centre" but it also spells "Ames Telescience Support Center" and "Glenn Telescience Support Center" and "Payload Operations Center." Of course, there are other stations with the word "center" that are direct translations from another language; those, of course, need not be either "centre" or "center," but the ones that do have the English word need to be spelled the way their name is officially spelled, regardless of what the chosen style for the rest of the article is. Like I said, I'm sure Brits don't take it very kindly when an American newspaper says that they have a "Labor party" in their country. Likewise, some people might not like the fact that the name of their workplace for has been altered in an encyclopedia. I'm not suggesting that you should make a new version of the map with the correct spelling, but I do ask that you take it into consideration if you're going to revise it any further in the future; if you're ever going to edit the map, you might as well make a couple more corrections. If that's not the case, I really think this is such a minor thing that you don't need to go out of your way to amend it.

[This all applies, of course, to any other article or any other graph on Wikipedia.]

My very best regards from Houston, TX, i.e., "Space City" :)

--AndresTM (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and fixed the US spellings, to please let me know if I've missed any. Colds7ream (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Beautifully done. Thanks! :)--AndresTM (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Pegasus

Could you possibly take a look at Pegasus satellite program and Pegasus (satellite). The direction of the merger needs to be reversed per the new naming guidelines, but without losing any of the content in the destination page's history. Since it is a merger not a cut-and-paste move I don't think histmerge is usable either. Can you look into it, thanks. --GW… 22:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

By the looks of it, Template:Copied is the best bet for use here? Colds7ream (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look over the relevant guidelines, and it seems the correct way to deal with this is to move the destination page into the talk namespace without redirection, and then move the source page normally. Since that requires admin powers, please can you do it. Thanks. --GW… 13:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, that is:

• Pegasus (satellite) to Talk:Pegasus (satellite)/Merged edits without redirect
• Pegasus satellite program to Pegasus (satellite) per WP:SPACENAME.

Thanks. --GW… 13:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. Colds7ream (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out. --GW… 14:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please move Xerus (spaceplane) to Xerus (spacecraft) using the same method. Thanks. --GW… 08:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Done sir. Say GW, have you thought at all about becoming an admin? There's a need for new ones at present, and I'd be happy to nominate you - the effort you put into the project is outstanding... Colds7ream (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

MBK suggested it a while back as well. I'll have a think and let you know. --GW… 20:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Downlink

The next issue of the Downlink was released over 24 hours ago, but has not yet been delivered. I seem to remember you saying that you had the power to check the delivery bot's queue and approve edits, could you please look into it. Thanks --GW… 08:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done sir! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 08:13, 3 March 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 09:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

A quick note

Hello James! How are you doing? I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgot about the Skylab diagram, it's 30% done and I'll try to finish it this week :-D. I've been busy at work the last month and had to tune down my editing and graphics work. However, now that I have more time I'll try to catch up with requests, starting with Skylab, of course! Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 02:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah cheers, Orionist! :-) There's a batch of us just waiting to see what this is going to look like; looking forward to it! Thanks! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Transatracurium. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight‎‎.
Message added 21:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of Mir

The article Mir you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Mir for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Manchester wikimeet - would you be interested?

Hey. I'm proposing a Manchester wikimeet on 24 April - would you be interested in coming along? Mike Peel (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike! Yep, I'd definitely be interested in coming along - it'll be nice to see everyone! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Transatracurium. You have new messages at Talk:Unmanned resupply spacecraft.
Message added 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would appreciate your opinion on a question I just put out. N2e (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Colds7ream, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Colds7ream/List of space stations. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Transatracurium. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight.
Message added 19:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Manchester wikimeet in June

Hello. The next Manchester wikimeet will be sometime in June (date TBD) - would you be interested in coming? See Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 8 for details. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike - apologies, but I'll be in full-on exam mode then, so won't be able to make it. Hope it goes well though! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award Colds7ream with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but what did I do to deserve it? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hi Colds7ream, thanks for your help fixing up the ISS page, can I bother you to help some more? The original lead is extremely old and obsolete information, Nasa has no mission in the works to go beyond earth orbit, however the paragraph gives the impression that they do, because it is such old information. I'm sure you don't mean to mislead anyone any more than I do, is there a way we can work together to improve and clarify that original objectives of the project have long since changed. Also Russia is a partner to the ISS, they do have mission objectives, some of the modules were to be used for MIR-2 and some will be used for OPSEK. OPSEK is still a funded russian project which is underway, That partners objectives for the ISS have no mention in the lead, which mentions NASA's objectives. All partners have made more recent joint statements. I'm certainly no wordsmith, I just want to help give people an accurate description that is not obsolete. I just want to assist students, of every race and region, to have an accurate source of current information. However, I am sure I can't do that alone.Penyulap (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Penyulap, sure, no worries - I've got a bunch of edits planned for the article, and I'll have a bash at sorting out the lead sometime this week. Colds7ream (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Birmingham Meet up

See here. Late notice I know, please make a note on that page not here. Please pass this on. This will happen. Victuallers (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

FA on space debris?

I was pointed to your page from the FA discussion area, they suggested I contact you for help. I'm trying to bring space debris to FA, but it got quick-closed, and a re-opened PR did the same (although that might be a bug). Is this something you might be able to help with? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Great work on the ISS article. You really made it all come together.

U5K0 (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Why, thank you! I shall call her MECO! :-D Colds7ream (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
LoL--U5K0 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Mir

Just a heads-up, I linked all of the Encyclopedia Astronautica (astronautix) references in the Mir article to archived web pages via the Wayback Machine and fixed a few typos along the way to aid in the effort to bring the article up to FA status. I will update the peer review accordingly. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed! :-) I don't suppose you'd fancy having a deadlink trawl over at International Space Station, would you? Colds7ream (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

More than happy to; I will take a look shortly. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done The links should be fine now. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Marvellous! You're a gentleman and a scholar, sir! :-D Colds7ream (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hi James !

I've been trying to get assistance to help me and Ckatz get along better, and I've tried opening an arbitration case as a kind of last resort sort of thing. The case isn't about you, but it does mention you in passing, so I'd like to make you aware of it, on the basis that it mentions you, and I hate talking about people behind their back. :D

It's here

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#International Space Station Penyulap _talk 18:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is another place you are mentioned in passing,..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Wikipedia:Randy_in_Boise_problem_on_the_ISS_page

But that one is about a problem concerning two other editors, not you or I.

Penyulap _talk 19:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated International Space Station for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Hi James ! I hope your exams went well ! Hope you still have some energy left from celebrating.

I've put the ISS up for review, to help jump start it's stagnating progress. Anyhow, I expect the process will go properly, that is, no delisting, but rather some actual improvements that nobody has been willing to discuss constructively so far. Penyulap _talk 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello James, I know we haven't spoken for ages, it was cool back in archive 8 where we discussed things like two ordinary editors. The good old days. I've been doing a LOT of thinking, trying to work out why I can't get you to talk to me about anything at all, and I came to a conclusion while cooking dinner that my intuition, putting myself in your shoes, has been woefully inadequate. I know you have been busy, and I should have been looking into that, rather than trying to find reasons for your not having time to talk to me or other editors (like the revert [3] that led to other editors being frustrated and warring within hours [4]) it was stuff that I just couldn't figure out properly. Until now. When I look into your daily schedule, I feel like the southbound end of a northbound Donkey. Actually, that doesn't cut it, screw policy, I feel like a fucking idiot right about now. I've been far too obsessed with editing bits and pieces on an article that doesn't matter out in the real world where hundreds of thousands of real people are dying in Africa right now. Plus, when I think of what you've been doing, and what the team working on me has been doing, my God I feel so ashamed. The thing that makes me feel like crap is getting in the way of an ambulance or a doctor or a fireman, (I still don't give a crap about cops after what I've seen btw, plus I have to keep my mind away from the politics of your employer). A simple, or complex, or penyulap-sized apology wouldn't cut it right now at all. I regret not seeing things from your situation. I regret not having enough empathy. I just wanted to get a fraction of that off my chest, and regardless of whether or not we can ever get back to sharing ideas about the article ( I don't care honestly, you have much more important things to get done, that should be your top priority ), I'd like to state and declare I'll never bring any action against you here on wiki regardless of what you do. The last thing you need on your mind when you are trying to help people to live better is a fucking idiot causing more stress for you. So I won't. End of story. (though not because your an admin, but because of your chosen profession) Penyulap _talk 12:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi James, it's nice to see you back editing again. I am wondering where the ISS article is going ? There are plenty of problems listed and unlisted on the talkpage and I am not willing to just go and fix the article up if you're going to roll it back again. So I would love to know if you want to fix any of the major problems with the article at least, it's way out of date and inaccurate, I saw 10 errors in the first two paragraphs, and there are plenty of them that are quite major. Are you on board with the ISS article, or don't have enough time ? please do let me know Penyulap _talk 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there - I'm currently swamped with final year medicine work, so I'm happy for you to go fix things. I would, however, be grateful if you could refrain from any major edits which rearrange the article or alter its overall structure and flow; it took THREE YEARS of work to get it to the point of passing FAC, and I'd like it to stay that way. Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi James, good to hear from you. I sincerely hope things are going really well in your studies. I'd love to help with the article, but I think it's the MAJOR improvements that are needed most. Previously, I was updating what was there mostly, as a prerequisite to 'major editing'. I liked seeing my work adapted and modified, and deleted by other editors when I could understand their point of view, but was too disappointed at other times when you and ckatz refused to explain what you were doing. I still don't get Microgravity, you just don't talk to me enough. I can leave a list of homework on the talkpage from time to time, and help with the occasional FAR as they come up, as I seem to have an 'above and beyond' eye for factual mistakes and currency. I'm not actually alone in thinking the article needs major work done. I can't see how I could possibly accommodate the call for a TOC overhaul and your 'refrain from any major edits' at the same time, you or someone else can tackle that one. Look, I think it comes down to this, you refuse to take seriously the idea that major improvements to the article are possible, and I expect you'll just return now and then to rollback to your 3 year old favorite version with a few dates changed. I'm happy for you to hold the article back that way, be my guest. I'm gearing up for a different project at the moment, for when I have some editing time to spare. I'll just put my editing work where it'll be of most use. It's kind of pointless working further on the ISS when half of my new sections, which other editors like, don't make your personal grade, and half do. I don't actually know what your criteria for choosing which is which is if you don't tell me. As far as I can tell, it's just overwhelmingly a matter of making the new material look exactly like the 3 year old stuff, down to the section names and all. So I can't see that I'm needed. You have the 3 year old version a few clicks away. (it was spooky for me when I looked at the old article, while considering what material you cut and what you left, recently.) Penyulap _talk 15:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi James, the ISS moved to FARC a few days ago, I see it moving out of FA for at least a year, probably longer. On the bright side, there is a lot of interesting material that can possibly be incorporated into the new article, if your willing to allow it. Penyulap _talk 23:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone's ongoing favourite, Eng:var.

Yep, it hasn't gone away, who'd have thought eh? The page got another programme edit the other day. Most things I ask you are rhetorical these days, but it never hurts to let you know what is going on. I'm asking for the edit notices to be unprotected and removed, on account of one went against the ENG:VAR guidelines for consensus 1st, and 'attitude' doesn't get hit anymore by using orientation or 'orientation(attitude)' instead. Penyulap _talk 05:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, to be honest, after so many debates over the topic, I'm beyond protesting if people want to change it to en-US; at least it'll keep it consistent and stop more hordes of Americans abusing us. Colds7ream (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In the end of course, the spelling in the article will be something or other, but the lack of any flag will bring peace. To be honest I'd no more like to see it as American as I would British because it could keep the war going, I'd just like to see it stop once and for all. Plus, I could put away the spiderman outfit :) I am tired of it.

Moreover, and I want to make this clear, I'm not trying to criticize YOU when I am getting stuck into the original decision, reading the guidelines I can see you did the right thing, to say the guidelines themselves are open to interpretation is the epitome of understatement. I'm just approaching the problem from the winning platform, that is, to align my arguments with existing rules and guidelines. As always I have more respect for people who have or do contribute, and you've done so much. The effort is what counts to me, screw the rest. Someone is sitting on the Tooth fairy article at the moment, and they are even more difficult than you and Ckatz combined ever were. But they don't contribute, and so they get out what they put in from me, which isn't much, as I can see that article is going nowhere at all fast.

Unless the article had a talkpage US flag before the change I can't see a path to changing it to US. It can't become US with a flag. That would need people who actually care, there would be some, plus it needs a proposal as well. There are a lot more american readers, but the "it's an international project" party would combine with the "all other spaceflight articles have no variant" party and block the proposal, even without a "British" party. British would never win again though, it's always been less than popular. No variant is the only one I can see winning out in the long run, it stops the bickering. It's also the only solution I can see a fast, easy path to. American needs an excuse, a reason, a proposal, and popular support. It can't get off the ground, if it was arbitrarily changed, it would face all the current problems. No variant doesn't need a proposal, it could be changed arbitrarily, on the grounds that there was no consensus originally, and who can argue with that ? It's a slam dunk. Even if it was disputed, it would still work, as calling for consensus on the issue as a response to any opposition would cement the change. So if you did an arbitrary change, on the grounds there 'is some question' and anyone questioned you, you could then propose putting it to a vote, end of story. In the end 3R and 3rd opinion would handle spelling arguments case by case, but this is not the freedom flotilla or 9/11, so they'd just go somewhere else. Peace will prevail quickly and painlessly, I can't see anyone else going spiderman whilst I'm around to help them look silly, can you ?

While I'm here, sorry for arguing over the media, I was wrong about the section, I was just casting a wide net. So many times I have gone out onto the internet studying the ISS, only to come back by a very long path, to wiki articles that already exist, like the Columbus (spacecraft) but fishing for UFO's ? O M G what was I thinking eh, and sorry about the overall mess the article is in too. Penyulap _talk 12:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Launch article guideline

I've started to implement the moves and mergers neccessary to bring the new guideline into effect. Could you possibly deal with the move of Ariane 5 Flight 501 to Cluster (spacecraft) since that requires the deletion of a redirect with history. Thanks --GW… 19:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have already been done! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:The Bushranger did it. Could you or he possibly do the same to move GSLV F04 to INSAT-4CR. I'll send him a talkback to this discussion incase he gets a chance to do it first. Thanks to both of you for your help. --GW… 21:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Done! :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment issue

I have tried to assess two articles today, and found an issue that requires some looking into. The problem is when I went to assess the articles (SSME and Mir Docking Module), the assessment that was shown was of a lower class. The articles, which meet B-class criteria, are being shown as C-class articles. I am unsure of how to fix it. If you could provide some guidance, that would be amazing!--NavyBlue84 14:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think what that is is the B-class criteria tags haven't been filled in - you have to put 'yes' for entries B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5 before the template will change. The template page has more instructions, I think? Thanks again, by the way! :-) SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A-ha! I got it now. Thank you for the instruction on how to get it done. At the top of the assessment page is a little tid bit of info I overlooked, that explains how to do it. It was my pleasure to do that. Now that I know how to do that, I will take that one and maybe try to get some more assessments done. It is fun doing it, I don't know why more people don't want to do it!--NavyBlue84 22:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and great news! Hopefully with a few more assessors we can really get that part of the project off the ground (if you'll excuse the pun...)! :-) SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just one more question for you. When an article is assessed should it be stroked off the list and left for awhile or just remove it altogether? I am not sure what to do about that. Wish I had thought of that pun!--NavyBlue84 16:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, good question - I've just been getting rid of them altogether, but I suppose we can decide when we've decided what to do with the page generally? SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will leave them for now just mark them as done.--NavyBlue84 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox rocket engine

Well, sorry for the delay, but I've cleaned up the code for {{Infobox rocket engine}}. I'm very tired, so I'm not sure my eye for its appearance is functioning all that well, so when you have some time, give it a once over (both the template and the /doc page) and see if anything needs to be changed, tweaked, added to, etc. It'll be much easier to do now. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Many, many thanks for that - it's looking so much better, and you've tidied up the code so much even I can understand it! :-D SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi James! How are you doing? I've been gradually finding more free time to contribute here, and it looks I might recover from my unplanned wikibreak soon. The Skylab diagram is still the way I left it many months ago. I'll look into it and hopefully restart working on it in the next few days. Meanwhile I'm glad to see you've got excellent help at the lab with the shuttle engine diagram. Hope you enjoyed your holidays, and happy new year! -- Orionist ★ talk 07:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, marvellous, thanks very much! :-) Yep, did a good job, didn't he? :-D Had a grand holiday period thanks, hope you did too! SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

SSME

Hi

I read through it once a couple of days ago, and some related material, and will start on it tonight. I will be posting any notes or queries on the article talk page. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed! :-) SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have done a little more, though still small steps as it is quite technical. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I was carrying on, but have left a note there as I am not sure about copyright and the source indicated on Information content from the NSTS Shuttle Reference Manual (1988)

Replied on the talk page. SalopianJames (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

EDS

It needs some modernisation, but we have Template:Infobox rocket stage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which might be better for cases like that rather than modifying {{Infobox rocket}}. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 13:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I know, its a bit of a shoehorning from a template point of view, but it doesn't offer any options in the event there is more than one version of the stage, hence the method I'm using. If we can get someone to sort that out I'd be thrilled! :-) SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll modify it when I have some time. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 13:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I used it on Delta Cryogenic Second Stage, too. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I need to rewrite the documentation, but it is otherwise done. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 19:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done, thanks again! Always nice to have up-to-date templates to work with, eh? :-) SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership: Tea

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea

Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 06:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your proposal very worthwhile. While it is unlikely I can be prevailed upon to take a role in advocating for it, I will certainly support it through reviews and submissions if you can find more people interested in participating. I'll go though it in detail in a day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I'll look forward to your feedback! :-) SalopianJames (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock of MSK

I don't know how much of that thread you read, but did you miss my comments here? This block was a reinstatement of her community ban as she violated the conditions of her provisional unbanning, and no admin therefore had the authority to remove this without discussion on a community forum. Please reinstate the block, and then, if you feel so strongly about it, seek a consensus at a suitable noticeboard to lift this. Courcelles 14:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to the thread where "her community ban" was decided in the first place? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - I find the whole original ban somewhat suspicious, to be honest, so a link to this 'community ban' would be very helpful. Furthermore, I can see no behaviour that is in violation of any unblocking - a bit of lack of awareness of current guidelines (which, following a 5-year break, is to be expected), but nothing meant with malice. SalopianJames (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I also see this user being deliberately targeted by a "comedian" and self-styled Defender of the Wiki™ in full knowledge that there would be people around to reblock. pablo 14:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a technical name for that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SalopianJames; I don't think that an indefinite block was really necessary, especially when Mistress Selina Kyle erred (a significant err, no doubt, but nothing that couldn't be handled reasonably) rather than did anything with bad intent: while posting to AN/I is very unwise, it isn't breaking any unblock terms per se, and she has been told to keep away from it in future (also, I do not see any consensus to reblock her). I believe that if the AN/I threads had immediately been closed, everything could have been resolved on her talk page, and the issue settled by now. Acalamari 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Acalamari. Nuff said, let's move on and deal with real vandals. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to requests to see where she was banned: discussion about Selina's ban was widespread. See, for instance, the eighth-most-recent entry in her block log, by Dominic (talk · contribs): "04:34, April 5, 2006 Dominic (talk | contribs | block) blocked Mistress Selina Kyle (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Recent reincarnation confirms this user will never be welcome here: disgusting attacks (ie, Talk:Wikipedia) and incivility, edit warring, and general trolling, see Special:Contributions/Bob,_just_Bob. Consider yourself community-banned.)" and the corresponding adding of her to the List of Banned Users. See also this ANI subpage centered around the last time she was unblocked, throughout which and at the conclusion of which she is acknowledged to have been community banned. This appears to have been an old-style community ban, enacted based on the fact that the community was not willing to see her unblocked. That ban was lifted in the recent ANI thread, provisionally, and was then reinstated by Courcelles yesterday based on her violating the provisions of her unban. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

She has not violated the provisions of the unban! Also, interesting quote from the page you linked: "Every admin has the authority to overturn a community ban. Community bans only last until an objection is raised." I have an objection to the ban - therefore rendering this community ban thing overturned, according to that discussion. SalopianJames (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, reading back, I may not have explained the timeline clearly. She was community-banned, as in "no admin willing to unblock" (cf block log). Then an admin unblocked her (cf cthe ANI subpage) and the community revolted and basically declared itself unwilling to see her unblocked, subsuming the previous "default" cban with a standard cban. She was then re-blocked based on that. Then, five years later, the community discussed and approved provisional lifting of her ban. The ban was lifted, then was reapplied based on her violating the provisions of her ban (it appears Courcelles made that decision based on her excessive postings on ANI and her refusal to drop the stick when asked), and then you unblocked her unilaterally. Speaking of which, it occurs to me to ask: how did you happen upon this case? She didn't have an unblock request up when you unblocked her, you don't seem to do a lot of blocks or unblocks, and it doesn't appear you frequent the noticeboards where Selina Kyle was being discussed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that seems like a fair summary. However, community lifting of the ban would seem to imply that it's no longer a community ban, IMHO. As for Courcelles' rationale, I simply don't agree with them and see no bad faith in any of her ANI posts. As to how I came across it, she kindly sent me a 'cup of tea and a biscuit', as you can see above, apparently regarding my voting on the current FAC-related RfC. After I thanked her on her talk page, she entered by watchlist, and when I saw the ban on that I did a bit of reading around. SalopianJames (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Irrespective of the merits of the original block, the unban, the re-block, or the unblock, an administrator should not be reversing the actions of another administrator without consulting him, or the wider community. James, unless I have missed some discussion where you consulted another editor, it was inappropriate to summarily reverse Courcelles. His block is no more or less valid than yours. AGK [•] 16:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe so, although there does indeed seem to be community support. Moreover, considering the block was invalid (reasons given were for a correct reporting of a legal challenge in the relevant place and a perfectly understandable response to personal attacks), and the apparent vendetta that ANI (the place where such a discussion would likely take place) has against the editor, there would seem to be a low chance for a fair and even-handed debate. SalopianJames (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think AGK's point was that the only evidence you have shown for the block being invalid or for Selina having not violated the conditions of her unblock is that you say they're true - what may seem painfully clear to you is not to anyone else, and from the outside what we see is you replacing the judgment of the community and the blocking admin with your own judgment, without even asking either party for an opinion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well - show me where the unblock conditions stated that she could not post to ANI, bring up a WP:LEGAL query in the correct place or inform the community of a violation of WP:PERSONAL and I'll put the block back on, no questions asked. SalopianJames (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the closing admin's comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Mistress_Selina_Kyle.27s_unblock_request. --Rschen7754 20:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi I just thought I should say if you want to maybe have a look at my talk page it might be helpful because a lot of the criticisms you have making I replied to before, they said that if I broke policy I would be reblocked but I was actually trying to follow policy as much as possible to try stop trouble it just had the opposite effect and I'm sorry about that, Newyorkbrad one of the arbitration committee has also made a complaint about the incivility on the boards too if that helps I don't know what else I could have done other than not get involved, so I am just steering clear from all that stuff now, if you take a look on my talk page a lot of this stuff is on there --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 20:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Admins are not holy cows, AGK, and can err. At the very least, the indef block was way out of proportions, particularly considering that the editor error (if there even was one, which I am not convinced there was) was good faithed, not malicious. James was completely within his rights to reduce or annul it, otherwise the entire unblock procedure becomes a joke if it is to hinge on the consent of the blocking admin (liberum veto, anyone)? And no, I don't support blocking till there is a community consensus to unblock (presumption of guilt). James did good. EOT, as far as I am concerned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to the comment regarding the closIng admin comments, I suspect what you're getting at here is point 4, which makes requirements about policies and behaviour. I maintain my above comments that no polices were broken here and no behavioural guidelines were intentionally broken (indeed none were broken at all until a barrage of personal attacks started heading her way), so will not be reblocking based on that. SalopianJames (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Policies were trampled over, she committed nearly all the personal attacks that were done, (being critical, even dismissive, ofsomeone's website is a far cry from attacking the person), and your attitude towards summarily reversing another admin is shocking. I was hoping, given you've not touched the block button in nearly two and a half years, that this was merely unfamiliarity with current practice that one admin does NOT unblock without a noticeboard discussion after a declined unblock request and opposition from the blocking admin. WP:BLOCK says "Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." (That this was a reinstatement of a suspended community ban makes he unilateral unblock more out of policy) Your actions were against both the spirit (and letter, since there was a declined unblock request) of WP:WHEEL. I'm asking you one more time, reinstate the block, and seek some consensus for the unblock. If you're right, it'll be easy to find. Courcelles 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you're a new Arbitrator. I should probably ask your colleague Jclemens to mentor you. His tried and true tactic when blocking someone controversial is to immediately put up a block review thread on ANI, where there will be "no consensus to unblock", ergo the block will stick. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You might also want to take a step back. Overturning a block of a Arbitrator is deliberately sticking a finger in the eye of those whose consensus gauging compass has been reviewed by much more than the DramaLamas at AN*. SalopianJames, Admins have been severely admonished (up to and including ArbCom disadminship) for overturning blocks on flimsy consensus. That you overturned a ArbCom member's block is enough to suggest that proceedings may commence in regard to you shortly. Hasteur (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect. There's nothing special about the status of Arbitrator that makes blocks by one of them - done individually, not as part of the committee - in any way "more important" or "unreversible" than blocks by regular administrators. Being an ArbCom member is not "adminship on steroids" (though there may be some people who think that, but people think all kinds of wrong stuff). The two roles are separate and more or less unrelated. This wasn't an Arb Committee block, it wasn't a case block, this was Courcelles block - and hence, perfectly fine to undo, just like in any ol' cases where there's obviously very little support for such an action.VolunteerMarek 08:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, this Policies were trampled over, she committed nearly all the personal attacks that were done, Courcelles, is ... I'm not sure how to put it, a blatantly false statement (to the extent it even makes grammatical sense - I'm guessing the meaning here). If there were policies trampled it wasn't by Selina but by the person who made legal threats. And the personal attacks where ALL made against her, not by her. Unless it says somewhere that being the subject of personal attacks is a bannable offense, there's no basis to your comment. You have not shown or supported the claim with any kind of evidence. And you are an Arbitrator!VolunteerMarek 08:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Findings unsupported by evidence? Who would've thought... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, fair enough. I'll put it back and attempt to gain some consensus on the issue, but hopefully the support it gained should mean that is gathered fairly quickly. SalopianJames (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was about to call you SJ but then realised how that's pronounced... so... James, are you planning to post a thread to AN(/I?) to assess community support for an unblocking? If so, please let me know when it's up, I'd like to voice my support. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reblock of User:Mistress Selina Kyle. SalopianJames (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

kittens absorb hate and turn it into more kittens, there was once a plan to put millions of iron kittens to swim in the ocean and absorb all the nastiness from big corporations, but they sanked :( this kitten is eating more grass because she was told by the mummy cat that it would make her into an iron kitten too

Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

good faith

While per policy the unblock was probably unwise, there are (and remain) only five pillars and you acted within those; so don't sweat the fact that there was a wp-this / wp-that you weren't aware of. Nobody Ent 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much - good to know there are still some editors left who are trying to improve the place rather than get policy on everyone's ass... SalopianJames (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

US Orbital Segment

Hey James, hope you are doing well! I have rewrote the article on the US Orbital Segment, and had it copy edited. I was wondering if you could take a look at it and asses it. It is at a stub level now, but is clearly not that.--NavyBlue84 14:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Sure, I'd be happy to - should hopefully get to it today, the weekend if not. :-) SalopianJames (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it. I am going to work some more on it and get it up to a B class article. Having had another look at it, I found a few more things I can expand.--NavyBlue84 13:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear SalopianJames,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"rogue" process

• User talk:Alarbus#Idea

You might be interested in this idea by Maunus. Alarbus (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Spaceflight

You and the other wikiproject participants probably don't know about Space Tourism Society (AfD discussion). Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited J-2 (rocket engine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aerospike (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) 10:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Illustration Req: Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster

Hey SalopianJames,

This is about your request in the Illustration Lab. I edited the mock-up awhile ago, and forgot to relay that to you; then real life interfered (in a good way). I got a new job, and with a few months before that starts, bought a flight to Jo'burg and will be making my way to Copenhagen.

What this means is that I would not be able to finish the request in the next while, but I will try to give it another shot when I come back. I've archived a copy of the Graphics Lab discussion in my user-space, and have placed myself a note in my talk-page to look at it again (likely late-May, but IDK yet). If you have comments about the mock-up, or other info that you come across which you think would be helpful in understanding how the booster is structured, feel free to send them my way. In the mean time, adios, and I'll "see" you in a few months' time!

Regards, Jon C (talk)

Replied on the page you linked, and thanks! SalopianJames (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Space Station Module

I like a new one. Morover it is not Used in ISS Modules.--Monareal (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't make a new one, improve the current one! If it's not used where it should be, insert it! There's no need for pointless duplication... SalopianJames (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My God!I just got mad of this.Oh!Now I must tell Penyulap!--Monareal (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Monareal, don't get mad. You can make a new one, but listen to James. Why not make the old one into a new one, then the places the old one is used will benefit from the new template as well. Tell James the things that you want in the new template, put it on the Wikiproject spaceflight discussion page, he might help you with it, he knows how to fix templates. Penyulap ☏ 00:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You penyulap, see Your talk page on 04:51 UTC.I have to adapt to some basis to cool down. I am at 3,971 degrees Celsies--Monareal (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, My idea of the infobox is in your talkpage . James you too are invited to see it.--Monareal (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Skype Interview

Hello, I'm a student in Jaobar's Wiki-Project Management Class. For our class, we are currently conducting interviews via Skype with various Administrators of Wikipedia. I'm curious if you would like to be involved in this project, and are willing to answer some questions about being a Wikipedia administrator. If you are not comfortable with conducting an interview via Skype, we can do the interview through email instead. Looking forward to hearing from you! Bramson (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Bramson, I'd be very happy to take part in an interview, however as I've just been deployed to RAF Akrotiri e-mail would be more convenient for me to be honest. Cheers, SalopianJames (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Space Shuttle Main Engine

The article Space Shuttle Main Engine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Space Shuttle Main Engine for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? GoP_T^C_N 10:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

talkback

you have talkback at wikiproject spaceflight. Penyulap ☏ 02:33, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Just a quick note to say I love your photos and I admire your work with the RAF, many thanks, Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.15.29 (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 3f78b8c0bc854bb945453cdc34f03f0b

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Talkback

Hello, Transatracurium. You have new messages at WT:SPACEFLIGHT.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--W. D. Graham 20:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Expert Barnstar

		The Expert Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Expert Barnstar for your outstanding contributions to spaceflight-related topics. This award is given to a few people who are regarded experts in one or several particular fields. Congrats and keep up your excellent work :)!--Tomcat (7) 21:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The Barnstar Barnstar

		The Barnstar Barnstar
		For introducing the The Space Barnstar! Fotaun (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Photographer's Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Awarded for contributing numerous photos. Fotaun (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Barnstar

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		Awarded for contributions to multiple WikiProjects Fotaun (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Transatracurium. You have new messages at Jayadevp13's talk page.
Message added 04:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Shuttle-Mir Patch (Small).jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Shuttle-Mir Patch (Small).jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Shuttle-Mir Patch (Small).jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Shuttle-Mir Patch (Small).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SalopianJames (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Are the Category:Wikipedians and its subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia

There is an ongoing RfC going on at Category talk:Wikipedians#RfC: Is this category and current subcategories appropriate for Wikipedia that you may be interested it. Technical 13 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing you

Hey SalopianJames. I just wanted to let you know that you are missed over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight. I was thinking I had not seen much out of you in a long time, and that your formerly thoughtful and helpful contributions were no longer occurring. I see that you have listed yourself as less active (semi retired) on Wikipedia on your userpage.

Anyway, hope all is well. And if you ever decide to get active once again, please say hi, and we'll love seeing you once again on the Spaceflight project. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey N2e, how's things? Thanks very much indeed for your kind words, its nice to know folks thought my contributions were useful! :-) I'm hoping to be able to get back to being a tad more involved from December when I rotate off ITU and onto a GP block, although I've been so out of the loop for so long I suspect I'll need a good briefing to get me back in the swing of things! Work is going well, poking many people with sharp pointy things and playing with machines that go 'beep' a lot, but boy does it keep me busy! Hope the project continued well? And yourself? :-) SalopianJames (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear it. Will look forward to seeing you back in some capacity, when you deem the time is right.

As for myself, still editing quite a bit. Fortunate to have sufficiently low opportunity cost to be able to do stuff I love, in addition to my remunerative pursuits. Still focusing on spaceflight, and especially NewSpace and the (burgeoning?) private aspects of spaceflight after the unfortunate path of a government monopoly on spaceflight during the early decades of orbital space endeavors, as well as general improvement of the encyclopedia through better referencing and citations. Say hi when you come back on, with fewer beeps and needle poking to do. N2e (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Human factors: poor design of medical equipment used in hospitals

BTW, given your background and employment, that made me think of something. Thought I might throw it out to you. The human factors engineering on many of those pieces of medical equipment you mentioned are simply awful. Very unfortunate that product development houses routinely bring these medical devices to market and let the engineers spec out the bells and whistles, without doing really good requirements engineering to figure out all the patient-related human factors. I'm thinking here mostly of the never-ending bells and beeps, incessant sounds that, it seems to me, adversely affect patient rest, and therefore health outcomes, when they frequently serve no useful purpose (e.g., when remote monitoring and remote alarms communicate patient alarms to the medical staff who need to observe/act on the alarm, and all of that could be done without "alarm"ing the patient).

Would be interesting to get your view on the matter. I've had some experience with human factors in product design, mostly through hiring a PhD cognitive psychologist and a Master in Human Factors Engineering folks, and then learning a great deal from them. The main thing I learned is that, although engineers are wonderful, and we couldn't get all the tech we get without them, never let an engineer design your human/machine interface, lest you get a mess like we have with unnecessarily noisy medical embedded systems medical devices. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year SalopianJames!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello SalopianJames: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Hope you have a great year on or off the wiki. Fotaun (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Orphaned non-free image File:Salyut7.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Salyut7.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Account flags

Enjoy your retirement! I've toggled off the advanced permissions on your account as you won't be monitoring it; should you return feel free to talk message me directly or post a note at WP:AN to have them reactivated. Best wishes, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for letting me know, and good call! SalopianJames (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight: Retirement of project member WD Graham

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight#Retirement of project member WD Graham. WD Graham, formerly operating under the editor name of GW Simulations, has retired from Wikipedia. Please pop on over to offer a remembrance, or thanks, or ... (...maybe talk him in to giving it another go.) Thanks. N2e (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:01, 28 March 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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What are the two objects in front of Zvezda?

Hello! I'm hoping to start contributing at WikiProject Spaceflight and noticed you are a member. I was wondering if you had any suggestions on where to begin or if you could point me to a few articles in need of work, and how I might be able to help out. Thanks in advance! --Aa2432a (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe SJ has been active on Wikipedia much in the past couple of years. He is (I seem to recall...) a very busy physician in the UK somewhere. And he lists himself as retired on his user page.

I'm a member of the same project, and quite active it seems. Depending on your spaceflight interests, I may be able to help. If so, ping me on my user page, and let me know what sort of editing you prefer to do. There is ALWAYS a LOT to do in improving Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File:ISS Configuration as of August 2016.svg

@SalopianJames: I've seen you've helped work on this. What are the two rectangular-like objects in front of Zvezda? They're unlabeled. Also, what mission were they sent up on? Not only that, but I've never seen any pictures of them, so, what part of the station are they currently located at? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)