User talk:N2e/Archive 4

Active discussions
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Wikipedia Ambassadors update

Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

Please do these steps as soon as possible

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

Communication and keeping up to date

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:

  1. The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
  2. The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
  3. If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors connect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.
Ambassador training and resources

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello, N2e. You have new messages at Wikipedical's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Wikipedical (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Robotics project


Just a quick note - the project is essentially slow, very slow.

There are around five regular editors, but most are on breaks or only edit in short spells. There are some experts who contribute also, but they are only available for short periods during school holidays and even then often only respond on log on every two or three months.

Why are you trying to find out the level of contribution? I have basically been running the organisational aspects and tidying up things on my own for the last two years since Jamieson stepped out after his MIT work increased. I did think of closing it down and moving it to a workgroup of technology last year, but we had some new members join so I was giving it some time to see what happened.

What is your long term goal here? I spent a whole year getting all the ??? articles assessed and working on a few other things, including sorting out the project pages and categories (with a few other editors). We had got it to the stage where all articles were assessed and we were ready to move on to the next stage in March. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you, want to see the robotics-related articles improved on Wikipedia. I'll address the more project-specific questions you asked over on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics Talk page so other interested editors can follow the discussion. N2e (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Jensharp comment re Ben Shapiro page

Hi N2e, Thank you for organizing Ben Shapiro's page. I have to say that I find your quotes and information about him very biased. I plan on adding information and quotes that are positive so that the page appears less one-sided. That way, a person can make an educated decision on whether he/she agrees or disagrees with Ben Shapiro's stances. Jensharp (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Jensharp

Jen, you are apparently confusing me with someone else. As far as I know, I've never made more than a single edit to the Ben Shapiro page, so certainly cannot be said to be "organizing" his page. And that edit that I did make—on 2013-02-26T01:21:03—had no real content decision-making in it at all; I merely reverted a large (unexplained and uncommented) deletion of text (of over 6500 characters of text, with no explanation in the comment summary, by you. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Help desk discussion about List of production battery electric vehicles

I just wanted to make aware that a matter in which you were involved is being discussed at the help desk and the Village Pump. I noticed that although your name is mentioned in the discussions, you were never notified. Regards. -- (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC) 18:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I will take a look. N2e (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, having looked over all of that, I don't think I have much to add. The bottom-up self-organizing group of Wikipedia editors who involved themselves in those two discussions seem to have done a fine job of talking about the specific article issues and policy issues involved, and it does appear that a consensus was articulated, sans my input. And it probably goes without saying that I would argue the same side, so I concur with the consensus.
While I would have a quibble or two about how the editor who initiated the two conversations represented my actions, I don't think it would be worth trying to remedy that unless an AN/I incident were lodged regarding me, which is plainly not what those two posts were about. And I of course, concur with your observation that no disruptive editing was done by me on this matter. Thanks for taking the time, and making the effort, to clarify that in those two conversations. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks like I was wrong. I think we all assumed that the matter was resolved and that Guy accepted the consensus of the many editors who provided their feedback at the Village Pump and help desk. However, User:Lexein posted a lengthy comment this evening in support of Guy, and Guy replied a short time ago. Apparently, Lexein's post is all it took for Guy to disregard the apparent resolution. Perhaps you want to comment now. :P In any case, we did our best to address the matter and prevent any future problems. (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Kanasnick re: Psychological and sociological issues affecting expeditionary space missions


Thank you for your response to my submission. I have found this to be a very frustrating experience. I have written a review paper summarizing the research from my lab and others on psychological issues in space. I keep getting accused of writing an essay, yet the last two versions of my article are fact and review based, not opinion based, with ample use of references to papers and books. Apparently this type of review (which is common in scientific journals and books) is not acceptable to some of the Wikipedia editors. So, this is where things stand at the moment. Kanasnick (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Kanasnick

Thank you for your response to my submission. I have found this to be a very frustrating experience. I have written a review paper summarizing the research from my lab and others on psychological issues in space. I keep getting accused of writing an essay, yet the last two versions of my manuscript are fact and review based, not opinion based, with ample use of references to papers and books. Apparently this type of review (which is common in scientific journals and books) is not acceptable to some of the Wikipedia editors, even though I have read similar accepted reviews in Wikipedia. An earlier version of my manuscript had some opinion, but this was deleted in the last two versions. However, I feel this submisson has been typecast somehow and that the changes have not been appreciated. I was encouraged to write this review by NASA, but it has been so frustrating and time consuming that I am thinking of submitting it to a journal instead.Kanasnick (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Kanasnick

Hi Kanasnick. I'm quite sorry for your frustration in getting this article going. I really think this article needs to be in Wikipedia, but I also think that it is okay that we'll have to work on it a bit and take some time to get it there. I did some edits to a single paragraph of the article, hopefully serving as a bit of an example of some of the kinds of things that might be needed. If we get the citations fixed in that particular paragraph, and the other paragraphs copyedited, linked and sourced in a somewhat similar fashion, I think you'll find the article will be accepted for Wikipedia.
I'm happy to help, but will have to do it on a rather slow and deliberate way as my two real jobs intervene, and I have a lot of Wikipedia areas I like to work on.
Also, I suggest you not think of the "essay-like" descriptive comments as personal accusations. I looked over many of the comments, and I think you are merely getting responses from various editors about the article content, not about you personally. I certainly meant my comments in good faith and to be constructive, with the aim of getting the article developed sufficiently so it can join the large body of WP:Spaceflight-related articles.
See if the stuff I did in that one paragraph might help you see a bit of an example of some things that other editors are likely to look for in getting away from the "essay-like" criticism. N2e (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I took a look at the article and saw some changes that I presume you made. Specifically, you made some links (which I don't know how to do), and you took away the names of some investigators and put the sentence in the passive tense and alluded to the investigators by a reference. You also added places for references, but I note that most of these are from the same source. Do you intend to just repeat the reference numbers over and over? In scientific writing for review articles, once you mention someone at the beginning of a paragraph, it is assumed that the rest of the paragraph is from the same work. Anyway, I think I see what you are doing. Feel free to continue at you own pace. Let me know when you want me to review or do anything. Since I have a book to write and other projects to do, I will be checking this article irregularly--if you want, I don't mind your contacting me via email since I check that every day (and frankly I am more comfortable with that system than with the Wikipedia format, although I am slowly learning the latter). My email is: Thanks for your help and sticking with me on this. Kanasnick (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Kanasnick
Hi Kanasnick. Thanks for the note.
I am not really looking to rewrite that article for the encyclopedia; I'm much more willing to help "teach a man to fish, ..." But I did try to do a bit of cleanup on two places in the article back on 13 Jan, hopefully to serve as a potential example for you, or whomever else might want to improve that proposed article. As I recall, I only rewrote the first paragraph of the last section of the article for that purpose, and then I also added wikilinks to a number of key concepts in the article introduction, and slightly copyedited that introduction to make it a bit less essay-like. You should probably also take a look at the comments I added for each edit (they are permanently kept with the article, and are visible if you look at the article History page, to see what I mean here; one can go through each individual edit any editor makes, and see just that change, as well as any comment they added about the edit.
I think a slow pace for any changes you make is probably a pretty good idea. That way you can learn one or two things, work on that, and then get feedback before doing too much work that might just be redone by other editors. So I'll just comment on a couple of things right now.
  1. In Wikipedia, the convention tends to be to add the citation at the end of the paragraph, if everything in the paragraph is tightly related and all explicitly supported by the same source. Quotations should of course be cited at the end of the quote. Sometimes, for a particularly strong or important claim, or because another editor requests a citation, you may add a citation to some assertion at the sentence level, or even at the phrase level.
  2. However, if you name a citation, like I just went in and did with a couple of refs in the article, then you may reuse the citation multiple times in the article. In this case, if the ref starts out like this: <ref name=kanas2008> ... </ref> then the same citation may be reused, without all the "... </ref> metadata, simply by slightly changing the syntax to this <ref name=kanas2008/> and then skipping the metadata entirely the second, third, etc. time the citation is used in the article. As an example, I have reused the kanas2008 citation once, just to illustrate. Take a look at the references section, and you will see that Reference has two superscripted latin letters (a, b, etc.) by it. Each of those superscripts are hotlinks to the part of the article where that citation was used.
Hope this is helpful to you. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  DoneArticle is now created! — After I never heard back from you on my comment of 20 Jan 2013, I did nothing on the draft article for a long time. However, with the recent announcement of 501-day Mars flyby mission in the news, and also a recent noteworthy asteroid visit to Earth, I decided to work on it on my own: I have now created an article on the topic you proposed. See it here: Psychological and sociological issues affecting space travel

It still needs a lot of work, but now that it is out in the article mainspace, you'll find that many more editors will find, and at the margins, begin to improve the article. Out of all this, and over time, we can expect to see a good and useful article emerge. I look forward to your help in improving the article, but do recommend you look over WP:COI and self-disclose who you are and your authorship of many of the sources on the article Talk page before you do much editing. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Awarded for many years of contributions and improvements. Congratulations! Fotaun (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Fotaun! N2e (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Chelyabinsk meteor

I am happy with and prefer the current text, as you can see here. If it is important, I have little problem with the "superbolide meteor" text you want, so long as it says asteroid entered, the Earth's atmosphere, and is all one sentence with a semicolon replacing the period, as I specified in my talk page edit. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Russian roulette in popular culture

Regarding your recent revert of my edit to Russian roulette in popular culture. I know the event happened in the comic book, as I have read it myself (I think I have read every Lucky Luke comic ever published in Finland). But even after extensive Google searching for "Le Grand Duc" "Lucky Luke" I found no online sources depicting or mentioning the event. However, the last remaining item in the "comic books" section seems to source an appearance of Russian roulette in the Batman comic books to the comic book itself. Would such a source suffice for the Lucky Luke comic book as well? JIP | Talk 20:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, speaking only for myself, I'm okay if you use a primary source to provide a citation for that sort of edit. I would ask that you ensure you add a "Full" citation and not leave a bare URL, as those are subject to linkrot. Help on that, and a good template for the citation, is provided on Template:Cite comic
It may very well be the case then, that after you add the citation, I or another editor might tag that citation {{primary source}}; but as I indicated, I would leave the citation and the claim it supports in the article with that much effort on your part. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi N2e! I've followed this AfC on the above article. I'm curious why you "created" the article instead of moving the one from AfC (as it normally works). Doesn't that disconnect the article from its history? heather walls (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for asking. I created the article because I thought it was ready to go into the mainspace after a couple of months. Nick Kanasnick (see section above on my Talk page) wrote the early draft and provided the many references, but then seemed unwilling to work on the article to improve it (despite my "teach a man to fish" attempt with him). Since I had been the only one working on improving the article in the AfC space, both in January and again in early March, and because the topic became even more notable in the past two months with a couple of new commercial human exploration missions announced, I finally figured it was "good enough" to be created, and slathered notes about what I did every place I could think of (article page, Talk page, on kanasnicks page, etc.) in order to inform others that the article had been created.
I see from your comment that this apparently should have been done via a move. I did not know that. As far as I know, this is the first article I've ever edited in the AfC space (I was invited over from a post on WikiProject Spaceflight, I believe.) So I just edited and edited it, and then created it when I thought it was ready, and that the encyclopedia would be improved with the addition of this article. I'm not a big new-article creator either: just a few tens of them in maybe 16,000 edits to date. So I'm not an expert on the matter, and especially not on the distinction between ordinary creation and AfC creation. But thanks to you, now I know the process.
I would have no problem doing it as a move in the future; just didn't know that was what one did to get rid of all the AfC-related comments and evaluative stuff that was on the draft article. Quite honestly, it didn't even occur to me. Hope that explanation is helpful. N2e (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Yes, you generally move the page to the new name and then just delete the templates. If you use Wikipedia:Twinkle, it does those things for you I think. We maybe should mention this article to an admin and see if we can get the histories merged. :) heather walls (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Cool. That is another thing I didn't know could be done. Where would one go to request such of an Administrator? I'm willing to do that work, since I goofed up the (unknown to me) process. Where does one put such requests? N2e (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits, N2e. It wasn't that I wasn't willing to learn--it is just that the Wikipedia system is not very user-friendly, even to me (a professor type with over 200 publications who is fairly computer literate, but not a person who can devote hours and hours to learn this system when there are so many other pressing issues. I note that even you, who is probably very computer literate, didn't understand all the ins and outs, so you can imagine novices to the system like me being a bit flustered. Nevertheless, I do know how to make corrections to established artices, and I will get to your edited version with some updates as soon as I come back form my meetings overseas (probably sometime in Apri). Thanks again for your help! Kvetching aside, I do appreciate your taking the time. Kanasnick (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Kanasnick

Robotics project


I forgot to give you the link to the page I use to keep track of active editors etc. It is here (down the right hand side) - feel free to add any you find :¬)

I am not really around for the next three days, but should be on by the weekend and will try and collate and email some other editors to try and get them to respond. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I just found this from the 2010 attempt at rallying the troops - I am a little embarrassed I didn't realise it was there.
Also - the Robotics portal page is part of our remit, I last updated it live (news) while I was watching the last Mars landing in Aug, so will be doing a new update over the next week or so. Anything you want to include? Chaosdruid (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Great. Since you're out of town, I'll probably wait a few days before getting back there and getting involved in seeing what we can do to get it figured out who are the active editors still interested in the project. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

SpaceX CRS-3

Hi, I've taken the information of the delay of the launch date from the same source, so I didn't added any further reference. :) However, excuse my delay in responding...

I'm reapplying the edit for now, if there are other issues remove it and let me know! :) --Andrea And (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Andrea. But your changes to the article were still not quite correct. However, now that I know on what basis you intended to support the claim, I've gone in and made the changes in the SpaceX CRS-3 article to make the citation correct for your recent access of the SpaceFlightNow website.
It is not possible for the old citation to support the new information. Why? Because the old citation specifically says that the source was accessed last November, many months before your more recent look at that source, and the source now says that it was last updated on March 16, 2013. Here is the old citation that was in the article: <ref name=sfn_wls20121122> {{cite web |url= |title=Worldwide launch schedule |date=22 November 2012 |publisher=Spaceflightnow |accessdate=25 November 2012}}</ref>
I've now put in two citations: one from whichever editor looked at that source last November, and one to represent your more recent look at a quite different set of source information on the same website, but on the 16th of March 2013. Hope this is helpful in explaining why your edit was removed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Systemic gutting of articles? NOT!!!

Just so you know—and I realize that this is a major part of your work here—I think your systemic gutting of articles over several years, like Minor Humans in Shannara, is reprehensible. While I agree that the page is non-notable and have PRODed it as such, there is no consensus that uncontentious yet unreferenced information needs to be removed from articles, {{cn}} or not. Challenging every word without a reference is not in the spirit of WP:V, "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", though I fully realize it's within the letter of the policy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought my statement was clear, but alright. The post above is entirely about you and the practice of {{cn}}'ing uncontentious material for the express purpose of removing hurts the encyclopedia (as a whole) more than it helps, contrary to what you think. This isn't a content discussion, nor is it meant as such. I also don't see why we can't have a civil discussion about this. I stand by my statement above, which refers to your practices and not you. I have no doubt that you are a great guy; I just have serious doubts about your editing and mass removals of content. See also WP:PRESERVE. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
To User:The ed17:We are either talking about content, or we are talking about editor behavior. I won't have a discussion with you about improving the encyclopedia while you are being WP:UNCIVIL to me. That you and I have different opinions about improving the encyclopedia is obvious. I assume good motive on your part, and suspect you believe that your massive addition of unsourced information is consistent with policy. I certainly believe that the slow and deliberate removal of unsourced content—after considerable time has elapsed where editors do not choose to find reliable sources to support the challenged statements—is consistent with WP policy, and I wish you would assume good faith on my part as well.
Your accusation of "reprehensible" behavior, even after I politely asked you, on your Talk page, to reconsider and remove the accusation is, in my mind, assuming bad faith. Moreover, you have used similar ways of discussing editor behavior in several of your recent article edit summaries where I was involved in the content editing—both on my Talk page, and on other pages in the encyclopedia—rather than merely addressing improvement of the encyclopedia article content. As far as I know, most of those personal attack-related comments cannot easily be removed and cleaned up, so I'm stuck with them in the History of the Wikipedia.
I think you should cut out the incivility so that we could have a meaningful discussion. If you find my editor behavior to be inconsistent with Wikipedia behavior standards for editors, please open a case on me to request outside review of my behavior. N2e (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
To all other editors who might ever read this Talk page: (not The ed17) DISCLAIMER: I'm not discussing article content with The ed17 until he cleans up/removes/remedies the comments that indicate a a failure to assume good faith. I notified TheEd17 of this on his Talk page a day or so ago. However, for any other editor who reads this page, I will add one further comment on the content dispute part of what The ed17 is concerned about: Any removal of information I did on the pages The ed17 is referring to was removal of unsourced information per WP:V that had been unsourced for a long period of time. In each case the information was removed only after requests for citations had been made, so that the information might be verified in reliable secondary sources, and only after the information had gone unsourced for at least a couple of months. In many cases it was six or more months. To Administrators or others: I will be happy to have content-level discussions on improving the encyclopedia with The ed17 once again after he cleans up the comments that demonstrate a lack of good faith that we are, both of us, trying to improve the encyclopedia, and also attempts to clean up the edit comments that have similar implications. N2e (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I have opened a request for outside review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and have notfied the affected editor, User:The ed17, on his Talk page. N2e (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The ANI incident was left open for only a few hours, much less than 24 hours. Of the few editors who weighed in, the consensus was that referring to editor behavior as "reprehensible" is not WP:UNCIVIL. News to me. But then I guess social and cultural norms vary rather widely. I will accept that as the WP consensus at this point in time, and read that as a community standard that accusations of reprehensible behavior are not considered uncivil.
However, at a personal level, I consider the behavior uncivil, so will politely ask User:The ed17 to make no more comments on my Talk page, which is (as I understand it) a behavioral request that should be honored per WP policy. I will also delete this entire "uncivil" conversation from my Talk page, which also is apparently a policy-given right, in another day or so. Cheers. 20:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that the editor behavioral issues and civility policy issues have been hashed out in other forums, I'll leave a note on the content dispute. The uncivil behavior concern I had about The ed17 was not shared by more than one of the four or so other editors who commented in the (very) briefly-open (less than 12 hours open) ANI incident I filed. I did, however, choose to exercise the option that the ANI informed me of and ask User:The ed17 to stay away from my Talk page. Finally, although The ed17 has leveled accusations against me here on this Talk page, he has not chosen to open up an editor behavior charge or content dispute charge against me where I could get this straightened out, despite my encouraging him to do so if he felt he had a case.

On the content dispute related to my actions on improving articles over the past several years. I emphatically disagree with The ed17 's assertion that this was "systemic gutting of articles over several years." My actions were merely to identify and challenge large amounts of unsourced material in many articles—which politely allows significant time for any editors who wish to remedy the problem(s) and source the claim(s) to bring the article(s) up to current standards—and then, after considerable time (typically a couple of months at the low end), I have often temporarily removed the unsourced/challenged content, per ordinary WP:V core policy, until such time as an editor could or would restore it with citations. This is encyclopedia improvement, not systematic gutting of articles. Many articles are improved as the weak areas of unsourced material may become sourced, and as potential original research is sometimes shown to be based on a reliable secondary source outside of Wikipedia or shown to not merely have emerged from the heads of Wikipedia editors. In other cases, a poor article might become a much smaller article when only the sourced portions remain, but that outcome is an emergent one and is not some predetermined outcome of me, or any single editor's, actions.

It appears, however, that I wandered into a hornet's nest where two circumstances have come together in an unpleasant way. 1) many (though not all) of the topic-related articles are largely or significantly fancruft, and 2) The ed17 was an early and diligent editor of many of those articles in the years 2005-2008. This, unfortunately, leaves a situation ripe for misunderstanding, especially when The ed17 engages in discourse that I took to be WP:UNCIVIL, and still do consider to be personally uncivil, which is why I have banned him from my Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that a full week has passed since The ed17 's outburst, I have recently re-initiated an attempt at civil dialogue with the subject editor, The ed17, on an article Talk page, about article content and improvement of Wikipedia.
(I have been informed that the civility standards are higher on article Talk pages than they are on User Talk pages.)
Specifically, I'm looking for a dialogue over article content in that same Shannara-related genre of fiction-related Wikipedia articles that The ed17 cares so much about. This time, I very carefully removed only a single unsourced section of a large and totally unsourced article, most of which has been challenged for many months. That article is Talk:List of Shannara artifacts. We'll see how that conversation goes. In the meantime, best to anyone who happens by to read this, and especially to The ed17 who, while he may not Talk here, may very well read my Talk page anytime if he wishes. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been a silent spectator in this, but since you ask for outside input, I may as well put in my perspective. The reason your talkpage is on my list is that some time ago I objected to your adding {cn} tags to a perfectly obvious piece of information about bismuth. That objection is back in your TALK archive 3 here: [1]. I tried to tell you that not every single last separate fact on WP needs its own cite, and that to do that would make this a very unwieldy work, even if the cites were available, which often they are not. A certain amount of uncontroversial WP is not cited and probably won't ever be, as it's watched by knowledgable editors who would object to a bad fact or an outrageous assumption. Yes, I know that's not per letter-of-the-law on WP:V, but that's how WP actually works. We have lots of time to find all the cites for uncontroversial stuff in some compact form that wouldn't overwhelm the work. Meanwhile, we remove only the controversial stuff or the stuff that one editor is pretty sure is wrong. Other editors besides myself and user:The ed17 (who by the way, I do not know) have told you the same: your tolerance for uncited material is less than the community's average: here's user:LouShieffer telling you that: [2] And here is you and Mlm42 having essentially the same argument about the issue of whether putting [citation needed] tags on things you really don't have doubts about, really improves WP very much: [3]. That's three of us besides The ed17 who think you are overobscessive on this issue. Now, you may disagree with all of us. Fine. But you did ask, and that's my opinion. SBHarris 00:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad to have you over here, Sbharris. I would say that we agree that Wikipedia need not have a citation on every uncontroversial fact, everything that is "sky is blue" true. But that doesn't extend necessarily to leaving challenged material that remains unsourced for many months in the encyclopedia indefinitely. It is also quite appropriate to remove some of that information until such time as a source is found. Standard WP:V stuff. To the extent you don't think so, then I don't suspect anything I could say would change your mind, nor anything you say change mine.
On the specific Bismuth example you pointed to, it would not seem to me that a specific technical claim such as "It would be more difficult to find an alternative to bismuth oxychloride in cosmetics to give the pearlescent effect." is 'sky is blue' true. It was challenged, and then much later removed. Per WP:BRD, someone, perhaps you, added it back in to the article. But now, a year and a half on, the cosmetic use of "bismuth oxychloride in cosmetics" seems to be well cited in that article. So I'd say the emergent improvement process is working. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy and Merlin D

Here are the Isp for the Merlin D: As used on the Merlin Merlin_(rocket_engine) page. Right now what is being cited for Isp on the Falcon Heavy page is the merlin C Isp: BerserkerBen (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Change it, or not, I'm not touching it again.


Hello, N2e. You have new messages at Tom Morris's talk page.
Message added 07:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tom Morris (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tom! N2e (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi N2e. You would definitely qualify for an account, but we're currently out of them. Would you sign up at WP:CREDO in case we get more/more become available? Cheers :)

Ocaasi t | c 00:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, N2e. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
  Done N2e (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A favor -Environmental law articles ready for preliminary review

Hi N2e! I see that you're an online ambassador. I'm the Professor for Aaron Frank's environmental law class, and while you're not signed up for my course, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at any or all of the articles my students are working on. One of the aspects of this sort of course is that students understand that they are putting their work out before the wikipedia community for review. In the past, there hasn't been that much activity on their pages as they were working on them. I was hoping that if you get a chance you can take a look.

The students now have draft articles in mainspace and are starting to review each other's articles, and they could also use a preliminary review by an experienced Wikipedian in this area. If you get a chance, ideally sometime before Thursday or so, please take a look at the following list of articles and leave feedback on the talk page:

Thank you! Aarf613 (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi N2e,

I see you've visited some of our pages from Environmental Law. Thanks for helping out! (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. If I have time, may try to get over there again. N2e (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Brackets, parentheses, and such

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boeing Small Launch Vehicle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  Done Well, thanks for noticing. That's a good bot! I've fixed it now. N2e (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Nice idea, starting the article Defense Distributed. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Cirt. It seemed like a notable group when I ran into a couple of articles in both the the tech and biz press. And I've noticed it seems to have received a large amount of notable coverage in national media in recent months. N2e (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

While You're At it

Please remove every other every other engine example on the Gas Generator cycle page since only 1 has an actual citation. If you're going to be a dick and not even bother to click the link and read how example in question works then you might as well spread your laziness equally. BTW if you do not apply the same criteria to ever engine cited on that page I will hit them all with citation needed markers or simply remove them using your same rationale. Two can play at your little game.Sturmovik (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith. I did click that link; I did search for descriptive text in the linked article that referred to that engine as a gas generator. Moreover, your change was a recent/new change, from an experienced Wikipedia editor; I did not remove all the older claims because many went into article in the early years of Wikipedia before the WP:V standards and citation policies were what they are today. Having said that, if you don't cease immediately from the uncivil discussion, I will not then discuss this with you further here. N2e (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
FOR THE RECORD: Here was my civil request on the Talk page of User:Sturmovik a couple of hours ago:

Hello, I'm N2e. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gas-generator cycle (rocket), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Needs an inline citation that the engine you added is a gas-generator cycle engine. N2e (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Have fun with collecting all the citations for the other listed engines. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.Sturmovik (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I found citations for all the engines in just few minutes. Just type '<engine type> "gas generator" ' into google and you'll find a bunch of references for every one, on the very first page of results. In fact, for the energy you spent arguing, either of you could easily have fixed the problem completely. I did not change RD-107 since it appears to use a different fuel for the turbine of the pump, so I'm not sure it qualifies. LouScheffer (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
And of course, thank you for improving the encyclopedia with sourcing more info in that article per WP:V. Note, however, that you did so at the request of Sturmovik; I did not add those cn tags into that article. I merely removed a single recently added unsourced claim, one that was not supported with a citation by the experienced editor who added the claim, politely asked the editor to add a citation if s/he had one. None was forthcoming. But the editor did come to my Talk page with uncivil comments; I called him/her on it. End of story. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
There was no problem, blurbs like that shouldn't need references as the referenced material should be clear on the linked page. That someone would raise a stink due to the lack of a source when nothing else had a source indicates selfish motivations and I refuse to participate in any page that comes with such a "minder".Sturmovik (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Back contamination concerns for a Mars sample return

I welcome your comments, the draft is here: User:Robertinventor/Back_contamination_concerns_for_a_Mars_sample_return

Please discuss on the talk page Talk:Mars_sample_return_mission#Back_contamination_concerns_for_a_Mars_sample_return so that everyone can join in the same discussion. Thanks Robert Walker (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made a first pass of some edits. Many more are needed. Hope this is helpful. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Concerns for an early Mars sample return for deletion


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Warren Platts (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Warren. I'll take a look. I think I made a few edits on that article when it was new.
If I have nothing to say on the deletion discussion, I won't make any comment at all. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
N2e, just to say thanks for your keep on the AfD discussion page, and for showing support despite your distaste for the page. Am of course sad to see it is going to be deleted but appreciate what you did standing up for me. Robert Walker (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure, Robert! I think we will have a better encyclopedia when editors are civil with one another, even when rather stridently disagreeing on article content. Moreover, to the extent such behavior is the norm rather than the exception, we'll have happier editors who are more willing, at the margin, to volunteer their time to make more contributions to improving this encyclopedia. I also think, as I said on the AfD page, that we should not censor minority views, even viewpoints that express rational skepticism about the "mainstream knowledge" and point-of-view in any scientific area. Hope you will keep on editing in other areas. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I totally agree. civil is vital and whatever happens I will do my best to keep to it. And totally agree on minority views.
You might like to know that Warren has decided to remove all my edits from the Mars Project, has worked back through my history and removed every contribution I made to the project, except, curiously, for the ICAMSR page (perhaps he just hasn't got around to it yet). I tried a revert of the most bold of these but he immediately undid it again as expected.
As a result I plan to stop editing the Mars project though I will continue to edit wikipedia on topics to do with maths and music, and other areas of science. I will probably steer clear of anything to do with Mars and especially related in any way to human spaceflight to Mars. On those, I feel my efforts are better spent on my column. I would however return to editing this project if there was another editor who felt that any of these topics Warren and BatteryIncluded deleted - on backwards and forwards contamination of Mars, telerobotic exploration of Mars by humans in orbit around the planet, and present day habitability of the surface of Mars - should be covered in wikipedia. User talk:Robertinventor#Other sections deleted by the opposing editor Robert Walker (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Typo in SpaceX private launch site article

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SpaceX private launch site may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • deal-with-3586606.php |accessdate=2012-05-27 |newspaper=Houston Chronicle |date=2012-05-25 }}</ref>{{update after]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks BB. Fixed now. N2e (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

  Thanks for the cookies! Here's a traditional-turned-popular drink originating from my region, you should really try some, you'll like it, I promise! 天佑吾國 (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Fuelled vs Fueled

Just to let you know, I reverted your move of Comparison of solid-fuelled orbital launch systems to Comparison of solid-fueled orbital launch systems. "Fuelled" is not a misspelling, it is the correct spelling in several of the national variations of English - for example it is the correct spelling in the UK. --W. D. Graham 08:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea that fueled was spelled fuelled in UK English. Well then, I guess, with Wikipedia multi-English-variant spelling rulz it ought to stay "fuelled", even though that looks like fuel-led to me. :) N2e (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger Proposed

Hello N2e! I am here to tell you that it has been formally proposed to merge the articles Satish Dhawan Space Centre Third Launch Pad, Satish Dhawan Space Centre Second Launch Pad and Satish Dhawan Space Centre First Launch Pad into Satish Dhawan Space Centre by RadioFan. You can see the the ongoing discussion here. Your comment into the proposal would be highly appreciated. Regards. - Jayadevp13 05:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Bigelow Aerospace Space Station

I've been following Wikipedia for their newest updates, and it seems to me that they keep on cancelling station modules. Are they ever going to actually build a space station? It just feels like they aren't that much committed than previously thought. I hope this doesn't turn out to be one of those projects that is promising but ultimately failed. (Btw, I am 天佑吾國, with a new username) Ki Chjang (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors, all we can do is to report what knowledge/information we can discern and support with reliable source citations.
The story with Bigelow Aerospace, as I understand it, is that they are pretty much ready to go to full production with the BA-330, but they obviously need working commercial space transportion for humans to low-Earth orbit destinations; else they'll just have costs and no revenue. A losing business proposition, I'm sure you would agree.
  • They cancelled one of the scaled down test flight units (Galaxy) after they got more and better quality long-term test data from their two Genesis small-scale flight tests, although I think they did build that size module and ran extensive ground tests on it; after all, why pay millions of dollars for an orbital launch if the benefit in additional test data won't outweigh the costs.
  • As for the Sundancer module, that was never intended as purely a test module, it was to be a production module of a smaller size. I think their potential customers did not demonstrate sufficient demand for the sub-BA330 size, so Bigelow cancelled production plans. Ordinary business planning as far as I can tell.
And they are building the BEAM module to attach to the ISS under a purely governmental contract for NASA. So the go-forward items for Bigelow right now are BA-330 and BEAM. We'll see by 2016/2017 whether there is meat in their plans and they can get additional functional modules in orbit. They certainly have the budget for it. We'll have to see if Bigelow and his team can execute on the plan and get these habitable units flying. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Minor syntax fix

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jefferson County, Alabama may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • be noted that the state of Alabama sales tax is 4% and Jefferson County's is 2% in total.{when}} Municipal sales taxes go as high as 4%.{{cn}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks for the notice BB. N2e (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Revert on Comparison of orbital launch systems

You reverted my edit to Comparison of orbital launch systems, but I'm not sure why. The old page didn't contain a source named SXFH, so I used that name. I didn't touch the Chinese source (which wasn't called SXFH). Denvercoder9 (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. You made a fairly complex set of changes, most quite useful I'm sure. I just noticed that one of them was to change the name of a Chinese language source to ref name=SXFH, and I happened to note that that ref name had been used by you for another citation as well, that one from SpaceX for their Falcon Heavy. So I just pointed it out so you could try to clean it up, as all the edits made in that one change were more than I could easily sort through. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. However, as far as I can see, I didn't change the name of the Chinese language source. I just added an additional reference to the SXFH source before it. Cheers. Denvercoder9 (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the note. I'll try to get over there and check that again, soon. I was pretty sure the diff showed that a citation was named SXFH (over whatever it had been named) by your edit to that article. N2e (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


You recently edited the article wood: "Editor's summary: /* Structure */ ring-porous vs. diffuse-porous wood seems like an important distinction, but we really need a reliable source citation to keep this in Wikipedia long term"

Your views are appreciated, however, if you are making changes of this order then please record your rationale for doing so on the Talk Page of the article concerned.

FWIW, IMHO your summary/comment sounded high-handed. For instance, the information you "questioned" seems non-contentious and sources to verify it are readily locatable. The option would then have either been for you to do that leg work or make a simple inline request for references. If you wanted to expand on that simple request you could also have then done this on the Talk Page. No offence, but your editor's summary makes you sound as if you are issuing an edict on behalf of the Wikipedia community. I am an editor and consider myself a part of this but I am not a part of this "we" you refer to, who "really" needed a citation for this section.

LookingGlass (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC) (if you wish to reply for any reason please do so on my Talk Page, thank you)

I added a source for that distinction, a few hours later, to the very article where I had left the citation needed tag earlier in the day. The {{citation needed}} tag exists of course to remind any of us who may edit articles where an addition source might be needed to make Wikipedia a really good encyclopedia. Things that might be rather obviously "sky is blue" true to botanists and tree experts, are not at all in that category to the typical reader of Wikipedia. Thus, that hardwoods may be either "ring-porous" or "diffuse-porous" or inbetween is certainly in the category where it is appropriate to have the statement followed by an appropriate inline citation. After all, Wikipedia is for the readers, not the subject experts. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of aircraft (M) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, in this case, I had fixed one instance of a double paren, prior to the "J" in "James Vernon...". But you have correctly identified two additional instances of screwed up parens and brackets in that article section. I will fix it. N2e (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • E. Vandenbosch. 2007. ''Nuclear waste stalemate''. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 111).</ref>
  • {{cite news |last=Daly|first=Matthew |title=Home> Politics Appeals Court: Obama Violating Law on Nuke Site |url=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoops. Fixed. Thanks for the autobot note. N2e (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


Hello I'm Maverick8393 I am new to this, and possibly could use some pointers but I am the credible source for the information that you removed from the BK Racing page earlier. I am trying to figure the process out of editing and updating a wiki page. Maverick8393 (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maverick. I'll be glad to help you move from Wikipedia novice to the point where you are a little more comfortable editing.
To start with, take a quick read of a few of the core items that the Welcome I left on your page will point you to, especially the Five Pillars and the pillar on nuetral point of view, which will mention sources, and editor's personal experiences. I'll have more to say and help you with later, but that is probably a good first start.
Once you get a few of the basics down, we should be able to help improve that article, if you are willing to take it slow (so you learn as you go, and do just a little at a time and you'll only have to learn a bit at a time too) and do some work related to article improvement. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "N2e/Archive 4".