JHelzer

Account moved from Jared.h.wood to JHelzer

I changed my username and moved my talk history here.

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FDW777 (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

FDW777 Thanks for the reminder. I will review the guidance. I have no intention of creating inappropriate edits on article or talk pages.

"Thinking errors" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Thinking errors. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 3#Thinking errors until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some help in article expansions

Greetings,

Since I stumbled upon related sources I initiated an article draft Draft:Irrational beliefs. I am looking for some help in article expansion. Please do visit the draft, and help expand if feel interested in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

United States Capital Attack

In hopes of not doing another move request after yours is done, I wanted to see what you thought of my suggestion of United States Capital Attack in your move request. Casprings (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Casprings. Thanks for reaching out. I am not opposed to "Capitol attack". Some of the people stormed, some rioted, some attacked, and some intended insurrection. I'm good with any of these terms and I think they are all explained well in the body of the article. I am just advocating for a title that best fulfills the Wikipedia guidelines and can make consensus. I'm afraid that if I had typed in "2021 United States Capitol attack" we would see people opposing that for what ever reasons. Sigh.... Anyway, I chose riot over attack because I thought that it had the better chance of consensus based on comments from the last move request. Also because riot is found more often in the article. Wikipedians can't always get their way. We'll see what happens. Cheers. JaredHWood💬 00:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sincere Apologies

What a mess the Requested Move has been. I sincerely apologize for my part in the confusion at Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#Requested_move_23_January_2021. Along with dozens of opinions about the title, I also was influenced by several people making requests or giving conflicting advice. I recognize that my inexperience combined with this situation led to some rash updates to the process and I apologize for that. Please know that my attempts to improve the situation were made in good faith and seemed good at the time. Well, I have learned lessons from this. I hope they are the right lessons. JaredHWood💬 20:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The only small mistake you did is retroactively infusing "attack" in the request (after people have !voted). That was immediately fixed, and really everything else is okay. Business as usual. Imagine but for you RM what other much more stupid RM would have been started and snowed and ad nauseam — Alalch Emis 20:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! No big deal. I never thought that your addition of another title option was meant in bad faith. Not at all. We all make mistakes. Other editors went ahead and removed the new option pretty soon after, so not much harm done. Happy editing! — Chrisahn (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Jared.h.wood as long as you're aware and learning (which you are), it's all good ---- the discussion is now on track, we just need editors to practice patience with the process. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Man, don't worry about it. People take stuff too seriously. We should just talk about it until we have a title that has consensus. Full stop. Hopefully the RFC speeds it up a bit.Casprings (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the team working on improving spaceflight articles!

Thanks for your well-contextualized introduction on my Talk page!

AND

Welcome to the team working on improving spaceflight articles!

Very glad to have you join the effort. There are always thousands of edits that might be made, and hundreds are every day. Hope to see you in WikiProject Spaceflight as well. I'll respond to the details on the specific article you mentioned over on my Talk page; but just wanted you to feel a good strong welcome to the more major effort we've got going on improving articles related to spaceflight. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome! If you have any interest in early satellites, I'd love to work with you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Detail in Starship TSTO main article

Hi Jared. I said what I had to say to your question over on the Starship Talk page a couple of days ago. But I've been thinking further along those lines, and that has to do with learning and a bit of WP philosophy, some of mine anyway, which you mentioned on my Talk page recently. If you'd like to engage, and have a chat; I think that could be productive. We could just continue on here if you want to do it. Let me know and I'll kick it off with some thoughs. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

N2e Go for it. I'm listening and eager to learn. I am not in a rush to do the restructure over on the SpaceX Starship page. I am just exploring and learning through a combination of reading policies, trying things out, and being corrected. I would love to get some tutoring. As an aside; I fixed those citation-needed tags and they look good to me. Maybe you could take a look and make sure they are what is expected. JaredHWood💬 17:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The reality is that that particular page, on the two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) launch vehicle is not only kind of a mess; it is destined to be so as it exists now. Why? SpaceX and this rocket has a very high level of interest, and a lot of ppl, even many new to WP, want to contribute stuff, and they don't know just how to do it, so they contribute there. So several things result. At least three of those are way too much detail gets added to this article (when, at minimum, details of testing should go in the more detailed history article. Secondly, lots of unsourced stuff gets added; and it takes aware editors doing constant duty to both remove that stuff, but assume good faith and help teach/bring along new editors. Thirdly, the article gets too big for a reg WP article; I don't know the current guideline, but we used to begin to think about splitting an article when it approached 100k bytes (characters), and Starship is nearly 130k now.

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, I pretty much decided early this morning that I would probably propose soon some more explicit guidelines on what should be, and should not be, in the main TSTO article. I suspect if I do that, we would develop some consensus on the matter in time. That consensus is quite likely, in my view, to say "not this article" to a number of the topics that are currently covered in the article in gory detail.

There are a couple of things that would happen after that; but let's hold off on that for now.

I'll just stop here and see if you are tracking with me so far? Have any questions? Push back? to this point? N2e (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

N2e It sounds like you are saying: don't invest too much energy in to this article at this time because it is perpetually unstable while development of Starship is popular and ongoing. Bringing the article to better order now would be an interesting effort but we should remember that entropy is inevitable. Additionally, it might be worth it to close the discussion I started, and create some guidelines for the whole article instead. Also, there is a general need for good standards for articles like this to be developed and accepted by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight community and it would be effort well spent to work on that. I think I'm with you. JaredHWood💬 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't, for the most part where I was going, even though some of it is fairly true. I'm def NOT saying don't invest time in this topic...

I was just going to say that, it might be prudent for us to discuss something where--IF my assessment is (somewhat) correct up above where I started this--THEN it might be better/more productive to do some of that work you are envisioning in some other article. But NOT the main TSTO Starship article. Especially if I actually follow through on my idea of seeing about gaining a Talk page consensus on some stuff that does not really fit there. I.e., if you do the quality work elsewhere; then it is les stuff that need be moved out later on following consensus. And the post-consensus splits are often not done very well ... for several reasons, but one is many editors don't really possess good copyditing skills, so its challenging to do the removes and integrate the material well in other articles.

So the next question might be: where would it be fruitful to explicate this lower-level of detail on tests, and prototypes, and such like where there are sources, and there are editors who seem to desire to explicate the stuff?

I'd offer a couple of thoughts. 1) obviously there is the Starship Development History article; but even that one is gonna get too big for so much detail eventually. But it still might be a good place for now. And it def would be a better place than the main TSTO Starship system article, in my view.

Secondly, if you are interested in the topic, we could begin to think on and discuss some other options. Some of them come to mind when I see that the orginal circa 1960 Saturn V rocket has full-blown Wikipedia articles on each of its three stages. And Starship 2nd stage/spaceship is gonna have vastly more news coverage than any single stage of Saturn V ever did. So there might be some ideas we could explore off of that. I'll stop here and see if this is making any sense to you. N2e (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I am already with you on this. My interest in the topic is not in adding new current events as they happen, but in filling in missing notable details that are timeless (as in they are important today and will be important in 20 years). For example, I added a paragraph on ambient, cryogenic and static fire testing. My intention wasn't to add instances of those test on specific iterations of starship, it was to give information that applies to Starship. All the dates of every cryo test isn't important to the main article, but the fact that every Starship does a cryo test is. That is what I was thinking anyway. And that is the direction I am trying to go with my Prototype section restructure.

I think right now the article lends itself to adding new news as it happens and I got caught in that with my original suggestion. After your comment I studied the more mature Space Shuttle page and I think the newer proposal I made is more in line with your concerns and my desire to create content for Starship instead of content for all the Starships. I think that if we can restructure the sections so each one can eventually become it's own article we will be in a good place. JaredHWood💬 01:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That's cool. A neat thing about Wikipedia is as volunteers we get to focus on any particular thing we want, and won't have much trouble if we treat others well and endeavor to stay inside the guidelines/policy on content; which you do.

One way to focus on the big picture and summary detail in the main TSTO Starship article is to move out, to the detail article, the stuff that you see is excessively detailed when you are copyediting to write that better high-level summary. Your call, but that is one way to do it. For my part, I'm still thinking of making a proposal to see if we might build consensus on making certain in-scope/out-of-scope info more clear. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sweet. When you make your proposal, I definitely want to help out. I'm having a ton of fun with the SpaceFlight Task list. Thanks for all the tips. JaredHWood💬 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

N2e It was fun to be here during the SN9 flight test and experience for myself what you have called "enthusiastic editors" on the Starship pages. JaredHWood💬 21:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Heh heh. Indeed. A massive amount of stuff to watch over; and like everyone, I'm short of time for the hundreds of things I enjoy doing in my life.  :) N2e (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

N2e, I saw your citation needed notes on Starship prototypes section. Will you do me a favor and double-check my latest edit to make sure it complies? I think the sources cover the reorganized content but I am too close to it now and can't be sure. JaredHWood💬 03:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Detail in Starship development history article

After I wrote that an hour ago, I stumbled upon a fresh look at the Starship development history article. The arcane detail has definitely gone over the top, in my view. I have started a discussion over there, and tagged the article as well. FYI. N2e (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Jared.h.wood! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Adding quotes to sources, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Flat Earth

Hello Jared. Please don't think I'm unnecessarily targeting you by reverting several of your connected edits. There really is nothing wrong with Flat Earth Society, except perhaps that there might be a permanent topic, but that's not a reason to redirect it to a page that will not help readers searching for other items. What about moving it to Flat Earth Society (disambiguation) and then redirecting Flat Earth Society to Modern flat Earth beliefs as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I could do that if you agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Shhhnotsoloud No worries. Thank you very much for the note. I was just doing what made sense to me. I'll share my thinking over on the main article talk page and see if I can convince you to restore them. If what I'm saying over there doesn't make sense, I'll leave your reverts in place. JaredHWood💬 15:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Project Spaceflight!

		The SPFLT Achievement Patch
		Thank you for your edits on spaceflight-related articles! Neopeius (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have an interest in early satellites, I've got tons of resources to share. :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much Neopeius. I am super glad to be here. I am working on the merge requests on the project task list. Just finished Spacecraft propulsion. Thanks for the welcome! Jared.h.wood _{is now} JHelzer💬 04:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Very nice! Certainly important work. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way, you are welcome and encouraged to join us at our Discord server. That's where I do much of my correspondence and I can easily transfer articles there:

WP Discord Server

Go to the WPSPACEFLIGHT channel.

--Neopeius (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

​I have a discord account but when I attempt to add the server using the url above, it says the invitation is invalid or expired. Let's try again. Jared.h.wood → JHelzer💬 21:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Try it now. :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

​I'm in! Jared.h.wood → JHelzer💬 05:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Your edit to Starlink has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Acknowledged. I will take care to do better in the future. Jared.h.wood → JHelzer💬 18:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

A lot of people don't know this rule. Sorry to have used a template; trying to cut down on my editing time today! — Diannaa (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Gravity battery

Thanks for the tweak; it's better--217.155.32.221 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. This note was very nice. Thank you as well. JHelzer💬 22:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)