User talk:Ke4roh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Ke4roh, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for all your contributions. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• MediaWiki User's Guide
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

—Noldoaran (Talk) 00:12, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Fair use

Thank you for the message about Image:Les Misérables program.jpg. I try give as much information as possible on image description pages. I've added the fair use message. Since this is a fairly low quality (and small) scan, I think it should be okay. --Minesweeper 12:48, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Burj al Arab

We indeed have permission to use both photographs on the Dubai article. WhisperToMe 02:55, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ansari X Prize

Duly moved, per request. Since it was just a plain redirect, you or anyone else could have taken care of it with the "move" command -- although I quite understand that you were leery if you've never done that kind of stuff before. Done, anyway. 73s, –Hajor 23:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I tried and got an oblique error message (which I didn't write down, of course). Likewise when I tried to move Estee Lauder, Inc. back to Estee Lauder some months ago, but everyone is happy with that redirect now. Thanks! -- ke4roh 23:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Olympic flame photo

Thanks for the inquiry about details for Image:Olympic flame.jpg. I've added the name of the specific Cincinnati suburb, North College Hill, since there's an article for it, and added the date, but I only remember that the runner's name was John.

I took the photo, so if I can tell you anything else, please let me know. Rdikeman 14:58, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Saturn diagram

I disagree. Those were original NASA diagrams from the time of the moon landing or before. I believe leaving them as they were gives a feeling of the time. Rusty 01:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The cleaned up drawings do look better. Linking to the original is also a very good idea. I like it. Carry on. :-) Rusty 14:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tower Bridge

Re: your comments on Image:Fog-towerbridge.700px.jpg. I've added that the photograph was taken looking south across Tower Bridge. It must have been at about 8pm, roughly. I'd finished work at 6pm, and because the weather was so atmospheric, went for a walk around the city on my way up to a party in Islington.

As for where the people were going, I really don't know. I seem to recall that most of the people out that night were tourists... but where they were planning to see in the New Year, I can't guess. London doesn't really have a formal New Year celebration - people often congregate in Trafalgar Square, but the Police don't much like it, and there's nothing to see there (though if you're in the centre of the square, you can just about see the Clock Tower that contains Big Ben). - MykReeve 16:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RFA

Hi, i've nominated you for an admin, you can accept it by going to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship --GeneralPatton 22:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, GeneralPatton, for your nomination. I'm honored to be nominated for adminship, though I think I'll have to agree with blankfaze's objection that I haven't been here quite long enough. So far, the only admin thing I've wanted to do is rename pages — I'm already on the lookout for vandalism that I can fix and image copyright problems. I'll be quite happy tinkering with captions and space articles for the next few months, and perhaps in December we can revisit the admin question. Again, many thanks. -- ke4roh 02:49, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Then, I look forward to nominating you again in a couple of months. I hope you shall carry on with your great editorial work.--GeneralPatton 13:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ke4roh, Are you formally withdrawing your nomination for now? I don't want to remove it unless you explicitely are. Thanks, -- Cecropia | Talk 15:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I removed it. Thanks for asking! -- ke4roh 16:56, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Howdy. blankfaze here. I don't want you to get discouraged because of my lack of support. A month or two and 750-1000 more edits and I'd very likely support you. Keep up your very good work.  :-) blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:08, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm not discouraged at all, just as busy as I can be (and then some) without extra powers and responsibilities, plus, I can see your argument and wouldn't want to be too bold with admin powers - I'm already rocking the boat enough with Wikipedia:Captions. (Hey - if you want to jump on that bandwagon, you're welcome! I'm planning to write up a Wiki project page for it and recruit people to write captions - but I have to stop writing captions for articles visible from the front page long enough to write it!) -- ke4roh 03:15, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Good. Keep up the good contributing. blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Captions

I replied to your comment on my talk page. Brian Kendig 04:02, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The photo of Asheville

(re: Asheville Photo) Hey man.  :) I went back to the archives and found that it was taken January 8th, 2003 at 11:39 am, which i've updated the photo info for. Hope this helps! zen 02:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Japanese funeral pictures

Hi. I added some more comments on the image pages. However, I am not japanese and can't read japanese, so i couldn't answer all of your questions. Hope the little info helps. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone

Nice job on the re-arrangement of the Rosetta Stone page. I stumbled across it and had to add some more history, you cleaned up the page. Wizzy 17:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Captions project

I've started a new project Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions, and I invite comment on it before linking to it from the usual places. -- ke4roh 05:31, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

It is a great idea, I’d be happy to support it. --GeneralPatton 05:36, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• A fine endeavour, my friend. I'm surprised we don't have something like that already. Glad to see you being bold and leading the charge. I think it's a great project and I might just join in myself sometime... if I ever have the time :-/... blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:39, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • I think Caption Project is a good idea and would be happy to join the effort.

I see you are also a member of the WikiProject Space Missions. Is that still an active project? I've been trying to update various space missions to reflect the project recommendations. If it is still active, I would like to join this project, also. Rusty 03:12, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Certainly! Just sign your name on the list of participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Missions and you're in. Then you can update that page to help track what needs help. -- ke4roh 04:16, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Caption issues

I had a look at the project page - good stuff. I'll keep an eye out for poorly-written captions and fix them as I edit articles. I do want to raise a couple of warning flags, however:

• Sometimes in turning a caption into a sentence, you introduce subtle meanings which weren't originally intended and which might not be correct. For example: "Stormtroopers on parade near X during Y" refers to the photo of that action, while "Stormtroopers parade near X during Y." has become an assertion, since the verb becomes an intransitive. In this particular example your assertion happens to be correct, but if the parading stormtroopers were not a recurring event, your edit would have introduced an inaccuracy. Another (hypothetical) example might be changing "Bob Hope appearing at the Academy Awards" to "Bob Hope appears at the Academy Awards" which can be misinterpreted as an untrue statement (he's no longer alive, so he doesn't still appear there).

• Some of the captions you've added, though friendly, sound a little like editorializing. For example, saying (in Epcot) that the giant golfball "welcomes" visitors, and (in Magic Kingdom) that the statues "greet" guests - neither technically true because they're inanimate objects. Welcoming is an active verb, so I was concerned that people might think the giant golfball somehow takes an active role in welcoming people in (no, it just sits there).

• Also, some of your captions make points which I feel would better have been made in the article itself. For example, in Wind turbine: Bigger is better. Construction and maintenance costs are similar for large and small turbines, so utility companies build the largest feasable turbines. That sentence doesn't describe the picture at all, and "bigger is better" sounds like an oversimplification of a more complex issue. Your caption on a line graph in Christianity is a nice succinct point which I feel belongs in the article itself.

I guess my own opinion is that captions should succinctly describe the images to which they're attached, and leave everything else to the article itself. I do approve of your effort to make the captions more detailed and put them into full sentences, and I'll help in that effort. Please don't be discouraged by my suggestions, I think you've got a terrific effort going in a great direction - just, don't go overboard! - Brian Kendig 15:58, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and comments! It looks like you've seen the worst of my captions — especially since I haven't been to Disney World in 10 years (I'll be there in 2 weeks, though!).

About things that belong in the article, we went 'round and 'round on Heavy metal umlaut about the Spinal Tap caption when I first moved the entire description from the article to the caption - not a good idea, then I kept trying to add something informative to the caption not in the article, and it kept finding its way back into the text. We decided that the caption shouldn't bring new information except in flushing out context for the picture, but it should lead the reader to the article. (The Spinal Tap picture doesn't lend itself to a good caption.) There is a bit in Wind turbine about the benefits of larger turbines (and limits thereto) which inspired my simplification special for the caption. I didn't read through the Christianity article to see if it contains that bit of information I contributed, though the ichthys article does include the details.

I don't worry too much about active verbs for inanimate objects - gargoyles guard, statues watch and greet, and buildings shelter. I'd think the special case of Disney Magic introduces some potential for confusion. -- ke4roh 16:38, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Ke4roh, you've made errors, of grammar and of fact, in editing a few captions. Please be more careful. 81.168.80.170 21:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. Yes, mistakes happen, especially when I tread into areas with which I am less familiar and try to craft a meaningful active caption where there was nothing. (It's worse with time pressures.) In fact, it was that process that started the now resolved row on Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, though I'm happy to report that my errors didn't last long and the captions look great now. -- ke4roh 22:41, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ke4roh, thanks for your comment on my talk page. A number of interesting points were raised above. Maybe we should move some of these discussions to the project talk page? Cheers, Deepak 16:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Atomic blast

Hi, I could not find the picture either :-(

My guess is that they have restructured their web site, and removed weapons-related issues. I could only find a black and white image of a bomb blast. As the source for that image appears to be gone, I'll check out DOD for a replacement. --Magnus Manske 09:38, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Update: I found "our" blast image here. Maybe they know the original source... --Magnus Manske 09:51, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Captions Project

Thank you for welcoming me to the Captions Project. After some reflection, it appears that complete sentences are in many (or even most) cases worthwhile. -- Emsworth 15:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rainbow image

I'm sorry, I know nothing about the image except that I originally found it on Wikipedia, and renamed it so as to avoid a clash with an image that I uploaded. It was originally titled: Rainbow.jpg, and was uploaded by some anonymous user on 20 July, 2002. On 19 January I uploaded a similarly-named file, unaware that it overwrote this one, and when I discovered that, I renamed it Rainbow1.jpb. As I am not the one who originally uploaded it, I cannot vouch for its PD-status. There is no information available with it, so I presume it to be PD. I'm sorry I can't give you any more help than that.David Cannon 01:22, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments on captions project

Hi, Noldoaran, thanks for your welcome some months back - the links have been useful. I thought I might ask you for feedback on Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions before I link to it from the usual places. I'd certainly appreciate your comments, and I'd be honored to have you as a participant if you're willing. Thanks for looking! -- ke4roh 05:26, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Very well done! I would be honored to be a participant. I know of some images that need better captions (a few of which are my own). —Noldoaran (Talk) 16:03, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

(BTW, I like to repost the comment I was repling to so people don't have to jump between talk pages to follow the conversation)

---

Thanks for your kind words about my caption on the Palm Sunday Tornado Outbreak. I'm not going to formally join the Wikiproject - I've already got too much to do! - but will be keeping an eye out and may dip into the project page from time to time to see what needs to be done. On that note, would you mind having a look at my caption for Rock, Paper, Scissors? I've marked it as done but now I'm not sure it's all that great. -- ALargeElk | Talk 10:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Captions on Opentask

Hi, I have restocked the standbys for Captions on Template:Opentask. My selections were random. Please feel free to re-stock to serve your Wikiproject's needs. Thanks. -- PFHLai 02:28, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Thanks! I pulled some off the list since they didn't have pictures or didn't need much help (in which case I just fixed them up as long as I was there). I don't suppose there's much use in keeping a long (>5) list of articles in the queue because the project is sufficiently dynamic and we only knock off one or two a week from opentask, anyway. -- ke4roh 03:32, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there is a reason to have a long list. I keep many standby items of various lengths (number of letters). With different replacements available, it's easier to keep the length of each line on the Template:Opentask more or less the same [for esthetics reason ....] :-)

I also try to have topics from different fields of study active at the same time.

-- PFHLai 10:10, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Image:TrangBang.jpg

Please go here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Image:TrangBang.jpg and add a comment if you could. I'm trying to get this out of wikipedia ASAP, and your comments would help. — マイケル ₪ 17:52, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Captions project

Thanks for the heads-up about Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions. I'll certainly give due consideration to the advice set out on those pages when captioning photos — and then maybe if I get into the swing of the thing I'll formally sign up. Here's an URL that you might find of use (largely oriented towards the newspaper industry, but there's some rescuable info there). Re your absence from Current events: hadn't noticed, I was away for most of last month (but Current events is def. a good place to take a break from if you don't want the stressometer rising too high). Got a heck of a Watchlist to work my way through... Best, –Hajor 03:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Captions on Opentask

Hi Ke4roh,

Many items on the Captions line at Template:Opentask have been there for many days already. I don't know which ones are done to your satisfaction, which ones need more help, etc. Shall I "refresh" the line ?

-- PFHLai 15:09, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

There's no magic to it. Just check if the captions are full sentences. If not, they need work. Only one of the articles (Foundation Series) had full-sentence captions, so I replaced it with another.

I wonder if we aren't getting more captioning activity from opentask because people think "1965 Ford Mustang" is a grand caption beneath a car of that type. Though if they read Wikipedia:Captions, they'll get ideas for more. Thoughts? -- ke4roh 17:06, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't much captioning activity from the Opentask. Perhaps it's the topics. I can refresh the line every now and then, and put in different topics taken from the list on your WikiProject page. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 17:49, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

I think you are right, people think captions should be id tags. I don't think the Wikipedia:Captions page is going to change their mind, as written. What really drives home what good captions do is Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions#Before and After. Perhaps this section should be moved to, or referenced from, the Wikipedia:Captions page. --Kop 21:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Emacs caption

Hi,

I saw you took emacs off the Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions list because you'd seen a caption the day before. I had just put emacs back on the list because I wrote the caption but it had since gotten moved into the article body. At least I think that's the order of events. Would you please take a look at the caption and re-do it if you think appropriate? I don't see anything wrong with leaving the text in the article body as well, but I'll leave that to you too. Thanks. --Kop 20:40, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I had a similar experience with heavy metal umlaut trying to caption the Spinal Tap logo picture. I'd put a bit of information in it and someone would move that information off to the article replacing the caption with something totally lame like "Spinal Tap" (which was obvious to all sighted people). I put a shorter version of your caption on Emacs just now. Hopefully something like it will stick. -- ke4roh 02:15, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good. I just corrected it to be more in line with typical computer jargonese.--Kop 02:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On another note, I tried tackling the Linux caption and got reverted there too, in the time it took for me to edit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions page, which I have not yet reverted. I'd appreate it if you took a look and tried to salvage my caption with some editing. --Kop 02:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've tried the Linux Tux caption again after tightening up the language considerably. We'll see if it sticks this time. (It urks me a bit that Darrien tagged the revert as minor, and that his replacement was not a complete sentence. Oh well. Meanwhile, is it good wikipedia ettiquite to notify a user's talk page when you reply to one of his comments on your talk page? I guess the alternative is to expect the original poster to add the page to his watch list. Any way to tell if your talk page is on somebody's else's watch list?)--Kop 08:00, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whenever I revert or make some other change that someone might be irked by, I try to explain it on the talk page for the article. That way, if we need to, we can have a conversation about it there. Otherwise, it makes my change that much more likely to stick because I've put my reasoning in writing.

It seems like you've got the system down. AFAIK, there's no way to see what's on someone else's watch list. -- ke4roh 11:34, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Well well. Just to keep you up-to-date the Linux caption got reverted back to a label with the comment that "information should not be in captions". So, I questioned this policy on the the user's talk page citing Wikipedia:Captions, rather than on the Linux talk page as it seems to be an issue with this one person. We'll see where it goes. I guess if it goes nowhere I'll take it to the Linux talk page. --Kop 14:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. You're doing just fine. It's not uncommon for people to think "Tux" is a suitable caption for a penguin picture, though my experience is that a gentle introduction to Wikipedia:Captions and a discussion of the merits of a detailed caption as opposed to a short one will clear things up. I put your caption back (as modified), though I might have also mentioned why on the talk page for the article (thereby recruiting more folks to the captions project). By the way, you should certainly sign up as a participant of Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions! There's a whole list of articles to check on there. -- ke4roh 16:04, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I just updated Wikipedia_talk:Captions#Short captions with some more info about why to write full sentences and a reference to a previous conversation similar to the Linux captioning conversation. -- ke4roh 19:28, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

My logic goes like:

• If the caption contains no additional information, nothing that's not obvious to anybody from the image, it shouldn't be there.
• If the caption merely names the image subject then it is obvious and boring to those who recognize the image. To those who don't recoginse the image or are unfamiliar with the article's subject such captions are:
  • virtually ignorable, when the object in the image is the subject of the article (e.g. "Freud" under picture of Freud in Freud article)
  • uninteresting minutia when the image subject is an example of a general class of things (e.g. "1965 Ford Mustang" under picutre of car in car article)
  • mysterious and confusing when the article is about something abstract that cannot be depicted (e.g. "Periodic Table of Elements" under table in atom theory article)
• So, the image caption should do more than label, it should be interesting, or make the article subject interesting. It should be a single thought, so as to be short. This means one complete sentence (by definition). However, writing sentences is hard so it's ok to punt and overflow your thought into more than one sentence to be collapsed later.

Which argument directly leads to these guidelines:

• When the image depicts the subject of the article (headshots, etc.) write an interesting thought about the subject.
• When the image depicts an example write a thought about what makes the example a good one.
• When the image instructs or illistrates, point out an instruction or illistruation that is non-obvious to the uninformed reader
• When the article is about something abstract that cannot be depicted, point out a connection between the image and the article that an uninformed reader would not otherwise know

In all cases you need not assume that the reader has read the article, in fact you may assume he has not.

(I'm not much for signing up for things, it was a strech to get a Wikipedia account. Captioning attracts as it's a, in theory, small quick task.)

--Kop 16:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty good summary. We can put that verbatim in Wikipedia_talk:Captions and refactor it into Wikipedia:Captions if there's a good place for it. I'm not so set on the idea of one sentence because two or even three might make a superb caption if other conditions are met. Be sure to take a look at Wikipedia:Captions#Criteria for a good caption. -- ke4roh 23:27, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Put on Wikipedia_talk:Captions. --Kop 08:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at User talk:Darrien#Linux caption, information in captions. An interesting point has come up regards image descriptions, captions, and alternative text that Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions should be aware of. (Sorry about all the dreck.) --Kop 08:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Caption on Exploding whale

I've restored your caption, but I don't like it because it's not direct enough. Basically, I changed it to my caption because it packs in more information, and still leads the reader into the story. Incidently, I couldn't work out who'd commented on my page because you didn't sign your comment - I had to go to the history to work this out. Signing who you are would be appreciated in future. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Airbag caption

Have a look at User talk:Arpingstone please - Adrian Pingstone 19:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Captions on Opentask

Hello. I just wanna say that adding the "Captions" line on "Opentask" was a great idea.
Cheers !  :-)
-- PFHLai 05:43, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)

RE: Huntsville, Alabama Vincity?

Yes I did mean "vincinty". User:Patricknoddy User talk:Patricknoddy 16:33 August 23, MMIV (EDT)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

rleigon section in Marshall, TX

you need to add a religion section in the Marshall, TX article. Its a joke that their isn't one now. I think it was diliberately excluded by the person that wrote it.

Adminship, maybe?

I'd like to offer to nominate you for adminship, if you want it and would accept. I think you've come a long ways since that last nomination of yours, and I think you'd make a good candidate. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'm flattered, though I think I'll have to decline as two months (!) have elapsed until I noticed your message since I've been busy with school and work. I'll be around, and if I find myself contributing regularly again, I might be able to sign up. -- ke4roh 01:20, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Tucson, Arizona

The talk pages or other sources indicate you have in the past participated in discussions regarding whether to put a Native American name translation in the introductory sentence of articles on Arizona cities. We are currently having a vote on this issue at Talk:Tucson, Arizona#VOTE HERE. Please come by and weigh in. Thanks. --Gary D 00:48, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Image:STS-1_flight_insignia.png and PNG transparency

Hi, I saw the image on the front page, and read your comments. Internet Explorer can show PNG transparency, but won't do it as other browsers do. So don't worry about fixing it for IE.

I would keep it as it is, i.e., just make sure it looks right on Moz/Konqueror, and either Microsoft will change IE7 to support png transparency in a 'normal' way, or, I guess, the guys who write MediaWiki will write a hack some time in the future. PNG is the best format for those smoothe edges.

Just my opinion and advice. JamesHoadley 06:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks! -- ke4roh 13:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Cary,_North_Carolina_Flag.png

Image deletion warning

Image:Cary,_North_Carolina_Flag.png has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to a search I did, there is another version of the Cary flag: Image:Cary,_North_Carolina_flag.png. This image is used on the Cary article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

STS-51 photo

Hi, I've listed the NASA image Image:STS-51-L-T 73.jpg, uploaded by you, for deletion as it seems to be orphaned and also a bit too messy to be used in any article. Hope this is OK. Mysid (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I cropped the new version of the photo (back then we didn't have the auto-thumbnailer) and copied over the relevant image description information to the replacement image, Image:Challenger_from_left_destruction.jpg. -- ke4roh 08:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous deletions

It would seem that various images I contributed a couple of years ago have been superceded by other versions of essentially the same picture. If this is the case, I certainly won't object to the deletion, provided that the image description page for the new image contains at least as much information as the one I worked on. -- ke4roh 08:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ham radio!

Please see the discussion at Category talk:Amateur Radio Operator for a discussion on how to identify Hams and Ham personalities on Wikipedia. Steve Kd4ttc 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:EF5_tornado_damage_example.jpg

I have commented on it. Good catch on the duplicate photo, but I will be uploading a new version of the file (hopefully) soon, since this one isn't very clear in what represents EF5 damage. Thanks for letting me know! Runningonbrains 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Typhoon Ma-on TRM 2004283.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Typhoon Ma-on TRM 2004283.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 18:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Amateur radio

Hello. I see that you have listed yourself as a licensed Amateur radio operator. Please consider taking a look at a proposal to setup a WikiProject Amatateur radio. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Crushing by elephant

Way back in August 2004 you voted to de-feature Crushing by elephant ([1]) due to a lack of sourcing. It's now been substantially rewritten and expanded with much new material, and I've proposed it for restoration to FA status - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crushing by elephant. I'd be interested to know what you think of the revised article. -- ChrisO 19:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done. -- ke4roh 14:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Untitled rant

DUDE. not quite sure who you are and what you have to do with this hooverwarrant image? I own the hard copy and uploaded with my housemate paul (P123). We didn't put the correct licensing onthere, so it was returned and then Paul, my housemate re-loaded it under his wiki id... THEN< WE decided that it should be under my wiki id for the purpose of authentication, since i own the actual 1961 document and my housemate does not have access unless i allow it, so we re-loaded the image under MY wiki name. What the hell does any of this have to do with you? You can't verify it... i own the hard copy.

so, i'll tell you what... if you're approached for authentication, you won't have access to my property. Nor have you ever seen this before you entered this page. In addition, if you want to upload gov't documents, get them from the FBI... not wiki re-loads from images that have already been uploaded by the owner of the authentic 1961 hard copy, me, sarah daugherty. got it? and p123, my houemate will tell you the same.

what was the point of THAT? -- SarahMdaugherty 15:28, January 23, 2007

________________________________________________________-------- OKOK. sorry. i see that the photo of the original fbi file is HUGE, and not the thumbnail i thought it was. Sigh. When my housemate comes home, i'll ask him to fixit. I'm not good at computers. I am very very sorry. It's just that i'm very attached to the "things" i collect, and was estatic that upon researching,that this FBI robert williams THING had significance to others. I'm sorry. We'll fix it. l, sarah m. daugherty thank you for trying to help. i'm new to wikipedia. sigh. not making friends with giant scanned THINGS and getting mad at ppl who try to help. sorry.--smd "ms. fixit." 01:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)SarahMdaugherty sorry.

No worries. Full reply on your talk page. -- ke4roh 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

;) again, my misunderstanding. i'm new and so is my housemate--we didn't know we hsd scanned and uploaded the document to be lifesize. thanks for your help, understanding and further wiki advicesmd "ms. fixit." 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)SarahMdaugherty --

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________thank you for fixing the image and adding the portrait near the title as well. :) it's beautifully done... and i'm not good at computers. so thank! sarah.

Your edit to Spasmodic dysphonia

Message posted on Friday, May 11, 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Spasmodic dysphonia. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13856 in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Spasmodic dysphonia with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Spasmodic dysphonia with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Spasmodic dysphonia saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Aarktica 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? That text was a work of the United States Government which means it's in the public domain, so it's not a copyvio. I even linked to the source in the edit summary when I added it to the page and made a similar, albeit shorthand, annotation about the PD status there. -- ke4roh 01:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My bad; I stand corrected. By the way, the situation was resolved on the talk page of the article. Cheers. --Aarktica 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:UAH logo.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:UAH logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale added, image improved to slightly higher resolution. - ke4roh 03:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania in Atlanta!

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Camden 28

Thanks for your note re: The Camden 28. There is a great deal more information that could be added. I say: Go For it!

If you haven't seen the POV documentary about it yet, please try to do so. It is EXCELLENT. It should still be playing on PBS' POV show off and on over the next few weeks/months.

Thanks again. --AStanhope 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ambient Devices logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Ambient Devices logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

ok - I wrote a rationale. -- ke4roh 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Teacher in Space Project McAuliffe and Morgan selected small.jpg

I like the work you did with Image:Teacher_in_Space_Project_McAuliffe_and_Morgan_selected_small.jpg (removing border and color balancing), but it would be better to only have the 640x480 image (minus the border, of course) because MediaWiki can do automatic resizing. There is a 640x480 at commons:Image:Teacher_in_Space_Project_McAuliffe_and_Morgan_selected_small.jpg (it's not actually small) but it's not cropped or color balanced. Would you be willing to upload a full size version with your fixes? Thanks very much. Superm401 - Talk 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Lockhart,_Alabama_post_office.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lockhart,_Alabama_post_office.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Space missions WikiProject

Hi, I noticed that you are a member of the Space missions WikiProject. A couple of weeks ago, I proposed that the Space missions and Space travellers projects, which both appear to be inactive be merged into the Human Spaceflight project. Whilst this is being done, the capitalisation of the Human spaceflight project's title would also be corrected (ie. Human Spaceflight → Human spaceflight). The projects are all doing the same/very similar things, and in my opinion, a single, larger, project would be more effective than three smaller, and somewhat inactive projects.. In light of very little response to messages on the project talk pages, I am now sending this message to all members of all three projects, inviting them to discuss the proposal on the Human Spaceflight project's talk page. I would appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Cary,_North_Carolina_flag.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cary,_North_Carolina_flag.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 04:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Doctorsonic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Doctorsonic.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International Space Station#The Failed FAC. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Biltmore House front.jpg

File:Biltmore House front.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Biltmore House front 1902.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Biltmore House front 1902.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Guion S. Bluford.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Guion S. Bluford.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ernesto Miranda and Clarence Earl Gideon

An article that you created or worked on has been nominated for deletion per WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NRVE . If you would like to participate in the discussion, it is consolidated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto Miranda.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Betty Ong

I have nominated Betty Ong, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Ong. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. raseaC^{talk to me} 02:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor sonic screwdriver.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor sonic screwdriver.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Lily Flagg.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lily Flagg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:26, 15 August 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 08:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Human spaceflight activity

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:08, 17 November 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 00:11, 6 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 16:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 1

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

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:46, 1 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 00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

SA-500F

Just wanted to let you know, I tweaked SA-500F a bit and have nominated it for DYK with you as sole creator. With any luck, in a week or so it will appear on the front page and shine a bit of well-deserved light on this key piece of space history. I rarely nominate articles by other editors but this one certainly caught my attention. - Dravecky (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I had not realized just how much of that text was spun out of Saturn V. With a heavy heart, I've withdrawn my nomination. - Dravecky (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ja. DYK is kinda funny that way. I wrote the article on Lily Flagg, but because it can't be more than 3 days old at the time of submission, it was too old by the time it was fit to publicize. I suppose I could write things in my user space and THEN put them out, but then I'd guarantee nobody would help me with it! -- ke4roh (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for SA-500D

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3

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

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Diaconia

I note your support offered on this user's talk page, and do not disagree with the view expressed. But it is better not to post unblock requests on behalf of another editor. (Although I have left it undisturbed). It is preferable to contact the blocking admin directly, perhaps advising the blocked user simultaneously. Best wishes. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I have left the requisite messages and undone the {{unblock}} -- ke4roh (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The user recently created an article which links to this website. I was about to leave it be until I looked closely at the edits and found it. That unfortunately makes it a violation of username policy. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. Thanks. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Rim map

You can try editing BlankMap-World-180E.svg but it's SVG. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ketchup

Hi! Regarding your edit summary here I would like to explain. First of all I rescued that paragraph from three months ago when it had been deleted. Nobody else seemed to have noticed it, but the wording of the second (then first) paragraph screamed to me that prior content was missing, so I went history hunting. Anyway, after restoring the content I did my usual check of that editor's history. I noted that he had made a post to the article's talk page. I realized he had a point; the first sentence says the sauce was made of fish, so why would they name it for tomatoes? Since there is no citation for the assertion, and since there seems to be some etymological debate further along in the article, I decided to simply remove the sentence because it did not follow the context of the previous sentence. In other words, it made "no sense" when taken together with the previous sentence- I never said it was "nonsense" which has a more negative shade of meaning. Hope this clears things up. I'm off to post some {{cn}} tags in the section because the lack of references is annoying me. Happy editing! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks for the detailed explanation. Sorry if my cursory change caused some frustration. -- ke4roh (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima

I endorse your nuanced comment here. In the context your diff creates, please review Fukushima Nuclear Accident Log, March 2011. Should the words "nuclear accident log" be lower-case? --Tenmei (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my writing is sometimes unclear. In the first sentence, I construed the "nuanced comment here" as the antecedent for "diff" in the second sentence. --Tenmei (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I was mostly confused by the long delay between the first sentence and the second one. Yes, those letters should be lower case. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It took some time for me to figure out how to respond to the problem and the opportunity Johnfos created -- see here.

Do you know this phrase: "You're either part of the problem or part of the solution." My first sentences endorses your talk page diff because it seemed constructive.

When I did try to be "bold", I sought your comments because we were, in a sense, already "on the same page." Also, this "heads up" was prudent and practical -- just in case my edits were perceived as controversial.

I see now that it would have been better to leave the first single sentence diff as it was; and then I should have added a second short sentence diff below it. --Tenmei (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:NCMLS logo.gif

Thank you for uploading File:NCMLS logo.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I added {{non-free logo}} to accompany the existing fair use rationale. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

RFA comment note

Hi, just to let you know, my strongest possible oppose comment at the mistakenly transcluded RFA in your name was nothing to do with your contributions, it was in reference to the nominator. I realize this whole thing had little to do with you and suggest you simply ignore it and take your time and apply when you feel ready or if someone you respect offers to nominate you, happy holidays and best regards, Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that, if you decide to go for adminship in the future, that you gain experience in these areas: WP:NPP (this area will allow you to gain experience with CSD tagging), WP:AIV, WP:RPP, and WP:ANI is always a good read.  :) If you would have accepted the nomination, I would have oppose based on your lack of experience in the admin related areas I noted. Oh, and Rob, I changed the subject from afd to RFA as I didn't think you meant afd.  :)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Adminship

I have nominated you to become an Administrator. You can find the page here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ke4roh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Who Am I Why Am I Here (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm honored. I am not hopeful for the nomination because I don't have enough edits, and it looks like that will continue because as I edit, they raise the bar ever faster. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You have no obligation to accept the RfA nomination. Assuming you accept it, you'll have to transclude it onto the main RfA page and sign the 'I accept line', Who Am I made some mistakes in the format, but it is all there now. If you don't accept it, I'd be willing to nominate you instead, or I could just delete the RfA page. Your choice. Assuming you do accept, you might want to add a bit more to the answers to the standard RfA questions. Prodego ^talk 17:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also given you both the 'rollbacker' and 'reviewer' rights, see WP:ROLL and WP:RG for more info on how to use them. Prodego ^talk 17:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for rollbacker and reviewer. I'll think on the RfA a bit more before addressing the standard questions again and putting it on the main RfA page. I wasn't expecting that. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you should acknowlege the nomination and accept and see what comes out of it. You have been editing for a lengthy period of time. I definitely know I would support if you accept. mauchoeagle 17:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You have 3800 edits and have been contributing since 2004, so I would support you. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you do go ahead, you might want to expand a bit on question 1: what exactly would you do as an admin to obstruct vandalism, and what experience (if any) do you have in the area? If you left it as it is, it could give the impression that you don't know what an admin does! A non-admin can obstruct vandalism - by reverting it, reporting them to AIV and if required requesting page protection. As an admin, what could/would you do that you couldn't do now? Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go through with this if I were you, especially not with that user as a nominator. Their only edit to a Wikipedia article is this [2] bit of vandalism. Also, during the time it was live I was reviewing your edits. You seem fine as a contributor of content, but I don't see any experience in administrative areas. No edits at all to WP:AIV, no speedy deletion nominations, no requests for page protection. I think you should just stay the course with what you have been doing. Not every user needs the admin toolset, and the community tends to be tough at RFA on users who don't have experience in admin areas. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded, and at least one user will !vote oppose based solely on the nominator. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, after looking through a few of Ke4roh's contribs I came to the conclusion that while not incredibly active and not incredibly involved in administrative areas, Ke4roh demonstrates an very clueful attitude - [3], [4], [5] all struck me particularly. I see nothing at all in Ke4roh's history that would at all raise even the slightest doubt in his trustworthiness. What causes you to believe he cannot be trusted with the admin tools? Prodego ^talk 18:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your comments Prodego but just look at the nominator. mauchoeagle 18:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to nominate instead. But RfAs are about the nominee, not the nominator, it shouldn't matter who nominates. Prodego ^talk 18:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wake up and smell the coffee Prodego. I agree RfAs should not be about the nominator however with the bureaucracy that has consumed the system; I think it would be best that you nominated him. mauchoeagle 18:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Adminship isn't just about being around long enough to prove you aren't a vandal, troll, or raving lunatic. Candidates are expected to have demonstrated that they would know when to use the tools, and when not to. Many users have complained of late that participants at RFA respond only to the answers to the questions at RFA and don't actually do the homework into the nominee's background. I have done that, and found it sorely lacking in any experience in administrative areas. That doesn't mean I don't value the Ke4roh's contributions to Wikipedia, which seem quite solid and clueful, it means that I see neither the need for nor the experience required to grant the admin toolset. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if he makes only a single administrative action then his having the tools is a net positive. You propose he not have them and not use them, I'd propose since I am certain he won't abuse them, he can have them such that if he needs to use them, he can. You don't need to have 1000 edits to ANI to block a vandal or delete vandalism. And after all, adminship isn't a big deal. Prodego ^talk 18:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How did Wikipedia come to converge on my talk page?!? Prodego, if your offer is still open to nominate, I'll take it. Let's be sure to preserve the Q&A section now that I've given some references to my relevant activities. I don't see the sense in having the baggage associated with the nominator. -- ke4roh (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll get around to writing that up. But remember that you will have to deal with the most obnoxious and rude people imaginable on RfA. If you think that is going to get to you, this won't be worth it. On the other hand, if it will not, by all means. Prodego ^talk 22:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Funny. The chief complaint I see so far is my lack of admin experience. Funny that! A non admin with little admin experience. Anyway, I have an idea for how I might address that programmatically, but it'll take a few weeks. I'll write a script to assess a page's history for vandalism and compare that to protection status. Find a baseline for what is typically (semi-)protected, and then look for pages which have enough vandalism to warrant protection but aren't yet protected, and then I can inundate WP:RFP with pages worthy of protection. :) -- ke4roh (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That is interesting, statistically, but keep in mind that only pages that have been recently attacked would normally be semi/protected (and usually by a number of different vandals, over some days). -- Mentifisto 01:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

On further consideration, I have decided against admin regardless of the nominator. Reasoning on my user page and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ke4roh. Thank you all for your support and/or comments. It's been a fun wiki weekend. -- ke4roh (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)