User talk:N2e/Archive 6

Active discussions
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

ENGVAR in Spaceflight articles

Hi, just to let you know I reverted this edit you made to International Space Station as it changed several words to US spellings whereas the article is not written in US English. I note that it was an AWB-assisted edit marked as cleanup, and I'm a little concerned as to how it got into your edit queue for AWB. Could I check what criteria you are using to select pages for these edits? Thanks. --W. D. Graham 22:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I will send you the link to the criteria shortly. In addition to the find and replace criteria, I've been looking manually for any Use British English or Use Indian English at the top of each article before I've saved an edit. N2e (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is the set of criteria I was using for the AWB task, with a manual check for the "Use XYZ English" template, Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Help_with_an_expression_related_to_the_.7B.7Bconvert.7D.7D_template
I would love to have your help on making this a better/more complete search to fix these updates; especially since I only learned about the |sp=us part for the {{convert}} template after you had dinged the B-class review of the SpaceX reusable launch system development program because it used non-US spellings on US English articles. Also, perhaps you can show me how to make the AWB message better. I clicked off the auto-msg because it was too long and had too much detail, most of which overflowed the edit summary box; I don't know how to specify a msg using AWB, but I was clearly attempting to use US-spelling only on US-spelled articles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that the use of {{Use British English}} and its companions isn't universal. Some pages have it at the top of the page, some have it at the bottom (I believe it was designed for bot usage, so visibility wasn't key). A lot of pages use a tag on the talk page instead, or in some rare cases such as the ISS, an editnotice. But most of the pages just aren't tagged with anything. I would suggest for now making the task opt-in insted of opt-out; sticking to pages which are already tagged as in US English, or unquestionably should be in it (such as NASA/US missions without participation from other English-speaking countries).
If you take your initial list and save it as a text file (right click the listbox and click save), then clear the list, add pages that transclude {{Use American English}} and {{American English}}, convert to article-namespace pages, you can find pages in both lists. With the second list open click filter, select intersection from the drop-down box and click open file to bring up the one you saved. If you click apply that will find pages which are already tagged as in AmE. It'll probably be quite a short list, but I'd suggest adding to that stuff like Apollo, Shuttle missions, US military satellites, US Astronauts and others were American English would be expected and uncontroversial. --W. D. Graham 22:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Will think about that. I didn't realize that the {Use Xyz English} was used so little. I will think about your idea.
In the meantime, since you are a Brit in good standing, and very knowledgeable about the whole ENGVAR thing in the Spaceflight article-set, what would you think of a AWB-project to go through the Spaceflight articles that you believe do have some sort of English standard in place, and see that we set the {Use Xyz English} flag on those articles, which would then (later on) help us do the tasks related to {{convert}}, etc. which cause a muddle of the ENGVAR spellings in any case.
My personal proclivity is to not care too much about it, except to the extent other editors do care about it. For example, I've probably added a thousand or so {{convert}} templates over the years, well aware that "metre", "kilometre", and "litre" would be the spellings, and never had any problem with it, until the time of the B-class review I mentioned above, which showed me that I've been "doing it wrong" in the eyes of some other editors; even though I kind of personally like "metre", "kilometre", and "litre", and would have no problem if English spellings evolved over time to accept those spellings in US English usage.
So what do you say about a project to get the Spaceflight project articles in the English Wikipedia to be specified as and if they have a specific English-spelling type in use? N2e (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I had a quick look back through the pages you changed which are not related directly to the United States. I'm going to revert Soyuz TMA-2 as I don't believe there is any history of American spelling in the article; Rocket, Valentina Tereshkova, Vostok 1 and List of spaceflight records have never been standardised and use both British and American spellings, so I would reccommend - but will not instigate without discussion - reverting edits to those four, establishing the original dialects they were written in, and standardising upon those. --W. D. Graham 00:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
That is fine for Soyuz TMA-2. On the others, since they use both US and British spellings, I would think we could just change them back if need be after the discussions you mention. I really don't have a good sense of how to tell which Spaceflight articles use one spelling of English, and which uses another. It's all Greek to me. I doubt I would even participate in the discussions as it is not a topic of much interest to me. But I'm happy to support whatever WP ENGVAR rulz and article consensus comes up with, as long as that is made clear to other editors who may happen upon that article in the future. N2e (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I replied to this yesterday, but it doesn't seem to have saved. To be honest I'm not really a fan of messing around with dialects either, unless I'm reviewing/cleaning-up spelling in an article or I happen to notice a change being made or proposed without any real need - which I tend to oppose/BRD in the interests of keeping the article stable. The problem with tagging as an AWB task is that, except for obvious cases such as US-only, UK-only and India-only missions, using a semi-automated tool to make potentially contentious edits could be an issue. That said, I'd be happy to go through and tag the obvious cases in the next couple of days. --W. D. Graham 09:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think the best guide here is to be bold and polite while we try to improve the articles involved in the Spaceflight WikiProject—getting the {Use Xyz English} templates added will really help the project—and then let folks BRD some small subset of articles that are or become controversial. No foul. If a BRD occurs on a few of the articles, then we can either get some more eyes on that subset of articles to resolve any issues, or just leave as they were before the {Use xyz English} change. Either way, the encyclopedia is improved by this process. N2e (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I think the logical next step would be to take this to WT:SPACEFLIGHT and draw up a list of uncontentious cases - spacecraft with direct ties to only one English-speaking country for example. --W. D. Graham 14:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year N2e!

Happy New Year!
Hello N2e:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Fotaun (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

A Tesla Roadster for you!

  A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for sticking up for me when I received personal attacks. You and other superior editors do that thing a lot, but I'd like to say thank you and present you with this barnstar. I hope that you enjoy it as well as the Tesla Roadster. Thanks for standing up for me and other registered Wikipedians. Gg53000 (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A New User!

I'd just like you to know that there is a new Wikipedia user named Ricky13051 and they deserve a warm welcome on their talk page. Start baking cookies, if you know what I mean! LOL!--Gg53000 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Thank you for your interest in our user study. Please email me at Wkmaster (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have emailed you to invite you to our user study. Wkmaster (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if you have received my email. Thank you! Wkmaster (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

  Thank you for the edits to the USS George Washington page. I'm working to update it & being able to look at your edits to see what you pinged on is a big help. Jacob.Allison (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, thank you, Jacob. That is a good project for you to undertake. The page has had a number of miscellaneous statements but has seemed to lack from reliable source citations to support the statements made about the ship. If you are able to locate some reliable sources, or even old archives of newspapers that no doubt discussed each sailing and each return to home port, that would go a long way to getting a start on the History section, for example.
If you would like some help with anything, feel free to ping me back and I will be happy to help guide you as you get started. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Falcon (rocket family) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"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:
  • SpaceX launched its first satellite to [[geostationary orbit]] in December 2013 ([[SES-8]]} and followed that a month later with its second, [[Thaicom 6]], beginning to offer competition to

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Two more new users!

I've got another user who deserves a warm welcome on their talk page! Their names are OllyC1 and Aragorn106. I hope you've still got some cookie dough! LOL!--Gg53000 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gg. How do you know OllyC1 and Aragorn10? Are they editing articles you are interested in? Have they made a particular series of edits you appreciate?
The reason I ask is that you can welcome them also. Wikipedia provides plenty of cookie dough for all. If you need any help on such things, I can help you get set up to bake cookies. N2e (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds great! If you can teach me the recipe, I'll be glad to oblige! Thanks!--Gg53000 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at your Wikipedia preferences. There is probably a selection near the top right of your page called "Preferences." Click on that. Then click on Gadgets. See if you have the checkbox available for "Twinkle". If so, click it.
After that, you'll have a new tab available when you edit pages, called "TW". This will allow you to easily welcome new users, and send cookies if you wish. Let me know how that goes for you. N2e (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It works perfectly! Even the cookies weren't burnt! Thank you for teaching me how to welcome new users! Happy editing!--Gg53000 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Great to hear. Good luck. N2e (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Audit of orbital spaceflights

I seem to recall you enquiring about progress with the audit of orbital spaceflights a while ago. I thought you might be interested to know that the first complete report is now available (due to length, each year has its own subpage). The list will be updated by bot such that each article will be re-reviewed at least once every six weeks. --W. D. Graham 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I am interested in that. Looks like a very helpful tool for seeing work that could be done to improve the encyclopedia of spaceflight.
I'm a bit surprised at the large number of orbital launches in the recent past few years have redlink article names. I guess I'm just most familiar with a small subset of all launches, and tend to work more in some areas than others. Might be worth me looking at that sometime to see what could be done.
BTW, you might want to add a legend. I was good on most of the column headings but did not grok these: No OLBY, No LYC, C&P, No IB, Old IB, No ID, or No SCN. N2e (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll stick a key on it as soon as I get a chance; in the meantime, "No OLBY" means the Orbital Launches by year template (eg. Template:Orbital launches in 2014) is missing; "No LYC" refers to the launch year categories (Category:Spacecraft launched in 2014); "C&P" means the page is tagged as containing content copy-and-pasted from public domain sources; "No IB" means the page doesn't have a recognised infobox while "Old IB" means it has one, but it is one of the ones we are looking to retire. "No ID" and "No SCN" mean the infobox is lacking an International Designator and a Satellite Catalog Number respectively (I'm currently working on a way to prevent the inclusion of failed launches in the last two fields). --W. D. Graham 13:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Super. That answers all my questions. Happy to have this resource. N2e (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis

Please remember that you can develop a separate section for Davis' early life biography controversy.--NK (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

SpaceX reusable launch system development program

Thanks. Great to have the help. I'll get over there soon and take a look, and keep an eye on the technical correctness and matching the source claims. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
No worries; I'm doing my best not to alter the technical details but please let me know if you find any problems. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Cool. I started a section on the article Talk page for dialogue on various details and (hopefully, quite) minor errata. N2e (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As an editor of the Propellant article

You may be interested in a proposal to include that article among the 1,000 Wikipedia:Vital articles. The discussion is here. Thewellman (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Blue Steel

1720 is just a model of modern hobby sail boat, Blue Steel is just one of them so, yeah, not notable.

I don't doubt though that Blue Steel is a name of a pose in Zoolander, which if true would be a reference to the tempered metal. Notable? The pose is not notable, but that the color is referenced suports the notability of the color and the practice of referencing the color/metal. Blue steel is not only a color, but also a metaphor, with a steely blue stare ... IveGoneAway (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty is that neither of these is shown as notable and verifiable within Wikipedia. Since a Disambig page need not have sources, it is important that links in disambig pages only go to, or assert, clearly sourced and notable statements. N2e (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The boat is not notable anywhere, but the Zoolander pose gets >1M hits, with instructional videos; but I get your point, no one has made a Blue Steel heading in the Zoolander article, I know how I would do it (list poses and their roles as plot devices), but very low on the to do's. Thank you for the thoughts. IveGoneAway (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I have just found that Wafulz made a Blue Steel Pose redirect in 2007. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Sunstorm (novel)

Regarding this edit, I would recommend Being bold and removing the unsupported content. Plot summaries are constantly under revision, and that particular article hasn't had significant changes to the plot since 2011/2012. Moreover, most of it was written in 2006, so hasn't received serious overhaul by a second set of eyes in a while, and there has been very little discussion on it's talk page. Any edits would likely be uncontroversial. In the future, I would recommend relying on the WP:Be Bold policy when working with articles that are underdeveloped or have serious problems. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I generally am—but I've rarely worked on any plot summaries in fiction. When I finish reading the entire book, I'll try to get back there and see if I can't clean up the plot summary a bit. N2e (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  Done. I slightly updated the plot summary to better reflect the book's plot with respect to the aliens that are occasionally mentioned. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have seen your experience through the edit count, giving advice on being bold :P Generally, with fiction, the plot summaries are the most fluid part: shrinking and expanding as editors refine the language and communication of the plot. Plots are hard to summarize because readers often have radically different experiences of the narrative, Sadads (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Interested in Energy and Economics?

Hi, after reading about you I thought you might like to have a look at the work a few of us have been doing at List of largest power stations in the world?...I am trying to understand how and why the economies of the world invest in energy infrastructure. You seem to have some wiki smarts and street cred so your help in generating interest among the Wikipedia:Energy community would be great!--Graham Proud (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Yes, I'm interested in both energy and economics. I've put the article on my watchlist. With a quick scan, I'm happy to see that many of the statements are sourced, as poor sourcing is a significant problem in "List of ..." articles on Wikipedia. I'll try to get over there sometime to spend a bit of time and see what improvements might be helpful. N2e (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SpaceX reusable launch system development program

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SpaceX reusable launch system development program you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks very much for the notice. I'll do my best to monitor the talk page you set up for the GA1 review, and respond expeditiously to comments and suggestions for improvement. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, N2e/Archive 6. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Anon126 (talk - contribs) 17:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
Regarding on-demand archiving, if you know how to add links to your browser's bookmark toolbar, I have several javascriptlets that let you just click to archive whatever page you are currently viewing.
For Internet Archive: javascript:location.href=''+document.location.href;
For WebCitation: javascript:void(location.href=''+escape(location.href))
For javascript:void(open(''+encodeURIComponent(document.location)))
If you need any help, just let me know. Huntster (t @ c) 09:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 9 March

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your endorsement!

Hi N2e. Just wanted to swing by and express my thanks for taking the time to read over and endorse our our Reimagining Mentorship proposal. We have a solid team who wants to help better reach out to those who want to learn to be better editors, and your support in this early stage is much appreciated. Take care, I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SpaceX reusable launch system development program

The article SpaceX reusable launch system development program you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:SpaceX reusable launch system development program for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That's great!
Thank you Jamesx12345 for all your time and effort on completing the review, and taking the improvement of that article so seriously! From the point of view of the upcoming flight test mission, we achieved that mark with the article over ten days prior to the booster controlled-descent test through the atmosphere where, if successful, SpaceX will both obtain a large amount of test data and also recover a liquid-fueled booster rocket (for the first time) from the ocean for post flight analysis. Should get a fair amount of press in the mainstream media, so the article can be expected to get a lot of extra attention then. N2e (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm really happy with how the article has shaped up. I imagine there will be a dramatic spike in the view counter, but my main concern is that the title isn't very Googleable (according to the spellcheck in Chrome, that is a word.) A few more redirects (here is the list of existing ones) and prominent links in all the obvious articles would hopefully let a few more people find it. Jamesx12345 10:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey, thanks. That is a very good idea. I will work on that in the next week or so before the launch of the next Falcon 9 v1.1 mission and see what I can do to improve searchability and googleability. N2e (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  Done@Jamesx12345:: I have added a few redirects that have shorter names, and added links to serveral more of the relevant articles. That should help traffic for those who want to learn about this interesting tech development program.
(FYI, there was a fire in one of the USAF radar range faciliites so all launches from the east coast of Florida got put on hold for a few weeks. The next test flight is now scheduled for no earlier than 14 April, but that is dependent on a national security payload launch from another US launch service provider going off tomorrow (10 April) with no delays. Either way; we now expect the next test of the booster controlled descent profile to occur in the coming weeks.) N2e (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


Colonization of Mars is now longer than ever before. Love it! -- (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 23 April

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

When you re-formatted the reference you removed the </ref> tag at its end. As a consequence, everything afterwards, including multiple sections and the list of references itself, were interpreted as parts of one never-ending footnote and were not displayed correctly. I have fixed that and am rather surprised that even at a second look you didn't notice you had effectively blanked half the article. The big red error message at the bottom of the page also seems hard to miss. Huon (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I was blind but now I see.
Don't really understand why I didn't see that? N2e (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39

The fourth paragraph of the lead appears to be outdated as SpaceX are unlikely to use the LCC. Would reword myself but unsure of the details. Are you able to resolve it? -Arb. (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Have seen no source that indicates they will use the LCC, and have seen no source that definitively says they will not. But I very much doubt it too.
I'll take a look at the article and see if we might not find a way to update the prose while working within what we have sources for. N2e (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to VTVL 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:
  • SpaceX [[F9R Dev|Falcon 9 Reusable Development Vehicle]], of which two test vehicles will be built ([[F9R Dev1]] and [[F9R Dev2]], is approximately 50 feet longer than Grasshopper, and is built on a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello, N2e. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 24.
Message added 07:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 07:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

SpaceX images

Hey, just an update. Steve Jurvetson is helping me interface with SpaceX, and assuming they don't mind using the OTRS process, we might be receiving some images in the near future. I know this is one of them. Huntster (t @ c) 01:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Huntster: : That's great that Steve J. is helping you with that. His photos are awesome, and released with wiki-usable licenses. But of the myriad SpaceX-released-to-the-media photos, we have a very paltry showing on Wikipedia.
I look forward to when the Wikimedia server has a good representative cross-section of SpaceX content media! N2e (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
@Huntster: : I very much hope you are successful in getting SpaceX to release to Wikimedia one of the pics, or the video, from the descending rocket that flew on Friday. SpaceX just released a single photo (via Twitter) about 6 hours ago; and they are promising to release some video tomorrow. My understanding is that SpaceX are deliberately releasing an only partially-cleaned up video (bad telemetry and data drops apparently caused a bunch of data drops) and are explicitly asking for help (crowdsourcing) additional cleanup etc. from the many folks qualified to do so out on the intertubz. Maybe that video will have the sort of permissive license that makes Wikipedian editors who deal in photos and video very happy. I hope so. :) N2e (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Note left on 31 March 2014

What article does this refer to? Goustien (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  "Hello, I'm N2e. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 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 need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. N2e (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)"

Hmmm. Odd. It appears I failed to leave a specific article with that Twinkle note. Sorry about that.
Well, that's over a month old, so I can't be sure. But it looks like it might have been your edit here diff]. It appears you must have noted it at the time as shortly thereafter you endeavored to remedy it by readding the material, and including a source for most of it. So would appear all is okay now. N2e (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

SSME title change

For various reasons this move poll is being redone, and I'm notifying anyone that voted or commented since then. Please could you !vote again at Talk:Space_Shuttle_main_engine#Requested_move2? Many thanks.GliderMaven (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for SpaceX reusable launch system development program

Thanks for helping Victuallers (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


Dear N2e - I need your help please.

We talked a few years ago and you helped clear up a lot of wikipedia battling going on. Since then I have been traveling and not keeping up with the original "Santur" page. I tried to search the word Santur today and found a bunch of forwarded loops going thru the Hammered Dulcimer page which ended up going to the Iraqi Santur page which is the root of this problem like last time.

Problem is there are 3 different spellings for the same instrument. But each culture took a certain spelling and that is widely used in Universities around the globe.

Santur - is the spelling for the original Persian or Iranian Santur as well as the Iraqi and other Arabic versions of the same instrument.

Santoor - is the spelling of the Indian Santoor (although it has also been used by others as well) - but again it is mainly reverenced by the Indian Santoor players as the correct spelling of their instrument

Santour - is used by both

In the process the Indian Santoor page was deleted and moved.

I tried to restore both pages back to their original edits when it was healthier and I hope my changes are correct and can be continued like before.

can you help me clean up what I tried to fix? I'm not really a good Wikipedia editor as you can see....


User:Santurman — Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Santurman: I took a look at the Santur page, and made a few edits to start cleaning it up, and request a few clarifications as well as request a number of citations to support various statements in the article. I did not take the time to research the history of the work that may have led to the various article moves and additions of redirects that led to the article state before your recent recreation of the separate Santur article. Those changes may have occurred as a result of consensus, and if so, your recreation of the article may run into some challenges from other editors in the future.
If you want the article to have the best chance to remain as a separate English-language Wikipedia article, then I would recommend that you add good reliable sources for each of the challenged statements, and note that Wikipedia does not consider a reference to another Wikipedia article as a reliable source. For example, if the professor's article that was referred to previously has a good source, that source should be added to the Santur article. If not, then a reliable source should be found to support each challenged statement; perhaps the professor has published some papers or books that might be used as reliable sources.
Hope this information is helpful to you in improving the English Wikipedia in general, and the information on Santurs in particular. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey N2E,

long time no talk. thank you for helping. well I'm cool with your edits, but when I didn't hear back from you, I forced myself to keep digging in deeper and try to fix stuff myself. I didn't want two different Santur pages. The one you edited I believe it the new one. This all getting so confusing. Can you look at the original one and combine them into one page? As you know there has been warring going on in the past and keeps happening every few months. when I came back on here last week, the picture of the Persian Santur had been removed *(for no reason). and like I said: everything was in the abyss pointing to nowhere....

Shouldn't we just use the old one and delete the new one I created by mistake?

I thought I was renaming the old page and it created a 2nd copy..... so I just figured I'd fill it up and put it back the way it used to look.... - that's the original one - picture at the top missing/ and map of santurs from around the world disappeared..... (this is the new one you just edited)

can you just combine them into one?

and then here's the Iraqi page:

which you put "Citations needed" on the list of Notable musicians & other's have tried to at least make the data look normal, in the Talk page the warring is noticed by others....

The Notable musician's list was removed and replaced a few times by others and someone keeps editing this page with incorrect information and then the same editor comes on to the Santur page and starts eliminating everything they can to make it unsearchable etc...

if you make any changes to their page: it will take a minute, but they will come back and erase everything you do.

thank you for your time.

Santurman (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dan Shechtman 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:
  • The Nobel prize was 10 million [[Swedish krona]] (approximately {{USD|1.5 million}}.<ref name="reuters20111005" />

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  Fixed N2e (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • ]; initail reports indicate that all 49 Ukranian service personnel on board were killed.<ref>] Ukraine crisis: Military plane shot down in Luhansk]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


As a significant contributor to that article, you are invited to participate in a discussion about its title. All input welcome. Thank you, walk victor falk talk 14:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Air conditioning

Hello, I noted your "thanks" for cleaning up air conditioning. Thanks a lot, glad I could help! You mentioned a "messy merge", however. Were you referring to my (numerous) edits? Should I have done that in a different way? I divided the work into several steps because doing everything in one big edit wasn't feasible for me. Noggo (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all. The messy merge occurred back in 2012, about the time both of the article-level cleanup tags got slapped on the article. Lots was never really cleaned up well after that.
Your recent copyediting was a big improvement, so much so that I even removed one of the two article-level cleanup tags. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying :-) Noggo (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin Noticeboard

  This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

(N2e: manually archived on 27 Sep 2014; since no date, the archive bot will not do it automagically.)

Government of Colorado

I don't mean to scare you off. I take your comment to mean you are dissatisfied with the government of Colorado article as is. Do you disagree with my response? Do you still hold your original opinion?

Would a wikitable of offices and a short description be a good alternative to a gallery? I am open to getting some new ideas, and I don't want to shut out other opinions or ideas by dominating too much. Int21h (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll respond on the GOC Talk page, to keep all conversation localized. N2e (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy?

Do you know anything about this launch? It claims on that page that it's scheduled for launch on a Falcon Heavy, but I don't see any evidence of that. — Gopher65talk 17:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gopher65: I don't know too much off the top of my head, but I recalled (as I read your question) that I had seen that before, and may have even been the one to first add that to the article.
So I just clicked on the sources provided, the NASA one (currently citation no. 2) has a link to a pdf that says this: "The Green Propellant Infusion Mission is scheduled to launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket in late 2015." However, I note that source is dated 2013, so it might be more correct to refer to it in the past tense, something like, "as of 2013, the Green Propellant Infusion Mission was scheduled to launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket in late 2015." — and then, perhaps, follow it with an Update after template to signal that the claim is a bit out of date. Maybe that (now, historical) statement should be cited with the pdf, rather than the NASA page, as perhaps the NASA page has changed since it was added to the FH article as a source.
I don't have any idea if it is still scheduled to launch on a Falcon Heavy, nor if 2015 is still correct. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty unlikely that the second FH launch will happen in 2015, given that the first FH flight is NET second quarter 2015. So the past tense is probably appropriate in this case. — Gopher65talk 02:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
@Gopher65: I edited the article to reflect the time context of when the plan was correct as to a "late 2015" mission. Take a look and see what you think. N2e (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bolivarian Navy of Venezuela 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:
  • The Naval Operations Command is commanded by the Chief of Naval Operations, {{as}2014|lc=y}}, Vice Admiral Antonio Díaz Clemente.<ref></ref>{{full}} This

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Merlin 1D ISP

I came across this today:

Don't know if it's accurate or not. — Gopher65talk 00:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, me neither; it's Reddit. But if someone knows where any particular Wikipedia page makes a claim on Isp for the Merlin 1D that is incorrect, in that it disagrees with the spec as published by the manufacturer, then that claim ought to be corrected forthwith, and a source citation left. N2e (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Space debris and spaceflight

There might be something in User:Robertinventor/subpages beneficial to your interest in space debris or to your more general interest in spaceflight.
Wavelength (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. And as I find items for potential synergy with the Environment WikiProject, I'll put something on that Talk page. N2e (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


I noticed you were in the past an active contributor to WP:ECONOMICS. At the moment it seems rather inactive. Would you want to help me to make it more active again? NotYetAnotherEconomist (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@NotYetAnotherEconomist:Willing to help, on some articles and topics; i.e., on some tributaries in the great wide river of Economics. I don't seem to find myself checking in over there very often, perhaps because so much in econ nowadays is economists writing paid policy briefs for political entities that want their issue to be provided some facade of economic cover. But I'll take a look. N2e (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


FYI, I have recreated the EADS article based on the last revision before the move, as (IMO) "No Consensus" should default to "Keep" (the original article). --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely concur. That article was an important article on a major spaceflight-related company that existed for over a decade. The article should never have simply been renamed, as I argued at the time of the move. Happy to see you set it right. N2e (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Reply - Then I invite you to comment once again at Talk:EADS#New_article_for_EADS. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi N2e you left a message which has since disappeared about you archiving an edit that I didn't make by an IP address that isn't usually mine (might be a shared one when I'm not logged in? I dunno!) on a page /article that I've never even visited. Something about 2010-19 Launches of something or other. Whatever. Anyway your message was on my Samsbanned user page and I'm not logged in now as I send this because I don't know how to reply there to it sorry (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure you provided sufficient actionable information for me to know what to think. It does not appear that I've ever commented on any page named Samsbanned, User or otherwise.
I did revert an edit a couple of weeks ago where a sourced statement was removed from an article with no explanation in the edit summary. Here the diff. Perhaps that's the one you meant? Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

CCtCap award breakdown

Hi N2e! Please see Talk:Commercial Crew Development#Number of operation flights covered by the award for a discussion related to material you added back in September. Cheers! -- ToE 14:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay,   Done. I've left a comment. N2e (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Having dug up NASA's FY 2015 budget request and the OIG report, both of which Foust used to construct the breakdown, I believe that his analysis is spot on and that it should remain in our article as is. I still haven't found any other source that picked up on Foust's analysis, but I don't think that matters. Besides, NASA will publicly release the contract details eventually. Thanks for the quick response. -- ToE 18:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks for the update. N2e (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

VSS Enterprise and VMS Eve articles need tidying up - you appear to be interested

Hi N2e.

I came on Wikipedia to read up on the 2014 Virgin Galactic crash. I found a couple of articles (VSS Enterprise and VMS Eve that were useful, but which need a bit of attention.

You previously wrote on the talk page of the VMS Eve article, that you thought there might be too much detail about the test flight program. I do not personally agree with that position, but it was clear that you edit Wikipedia in good faith and also clear that you are knowledgeable on the subject.

With this in the news, I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight called VSS Enterprise explosion - article and VMS Eve article could do with some help.

As you are clearly someone who is interested in improving Wikipedia, I thought it would be good to get your input. Big Mac (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


While you are working on it, this article could also use a mention.--v/r - TP 20:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, probably so. But I'm pretty sure that the flight today did NOT include a RocketMotorTwo, as that formulation used in RM2 (rubber and nitrous) has been retired, and they switched to a new/different motor, the new one still uses nitrous oxide as the oxidizer, but totally changed the fuel formulation in the hybrid motor, had to modify the SpaceShipTwo vehicle for the new motor, etc. N2e (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
User:TParis, I've made a bunch of edits, added a source, etc. to bring the article more up to date. Still needs more work, but its on the whole correct now. See what you think.
Only thing is, it is unclear to me if VG is continuing to use the moniker RocketMotorTwo for their second-generation, developed in-house engine. My guess, but I don't have any source for it, based on the new statement released by SNC today, is that SNC has probably been under some sort of contractual/legal obligation to say very little about the change up to this point—but with the SpaceShipTwo fatal accident and vehicle destruction today, and with SNC having certain US obligations to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission re company shares, etc.—SNC probably had to now make a statement indicating the clear separation of the earlier rubber-fueled engine from them, and the newer plastic-fueled engine from Virgin Galactic. We'll see as the Accident Investigation proceeds; I expect a LOT more public information, eventually.
But if VG is (or wants to) keep using the RM2 moniker for their new/different engine, then the existing SNC-based RM2 article probably needs to be renamed. What do you think? N2e (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
User:TParis — the question about the RM2 term got resolved. Although the article, per sources, had been mostly/nearly exclusively about the SNC-developed engine, another editor came and added quite a bit on the Virgin Galactic-developed second-gen engine. So it is now explicitly about both.
Therefore, I've gone back and further edited the article to make it hang together for the new wider scope now. N2e (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


I saw and appreciate your thanks for my edit. It looks as if we have some common interests; I invite you to drop me a note at == Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Charlie (Colorado). Seeing this today, on 22 Oct, I'm not clear on whether I wrote you back on this or not. I think perhaps not. But I didn't mean to be rude and do that.
Are you still interested in receiving an email from me? Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


Please be careful in using the automatic revert function, since this removes all changes. In restoring the content I removed from the Falcon 9 article, the revert also undid several other, completely unrelated changes. If an edit or series of edits removes content that should have remained, adding it back in from a previous version with a partial-revert avoids this problem. Cheers! A(Ch) 16:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a source to support the statement (new date, I believe) that you had previously added to that article. I only challenged the lack of a source, and there was enough complexity in the previous set of otherwise helpful edits you had made that it appeared best to leave it to you, as the original editor, to clarify what you thought could stay in and what not if, for example, you did not find a source to support the date change. N2e (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Autonomous spaceport drone ship at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoops; missed that step. I've taken care of it now. N2e (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

SpaceX barge citation thing

I saw that you added a hidden note for the Thrustmaster information. There is an archived version of that website at https://archive(dot)today/x5xD6, but certain elements of Wikipedia have it in for that website's owner and have set a filter disallowing its links in articles. If you don't mind, I'll set a commented-out archive link within the citation so folks can access it, and that should relieve the need for a long explanatory comment. Huntster (t @ c) 15:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Huntster -- No, don't mind at all. In fact, if I'd known there was an archive link, I would have used it and that would have avoided the need for the long comment I left. Glad you fixed the situation. (but I haven't had the time to go to that article and look yet; just know you did it well!) Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

admin proposal comments

Just wanted to say that I found your comments in response to the proposal to automatically grant admin tools to be refreshing. Cheers! Azx2 19:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Autonomous spaceport drone ship

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "N2e/Archive 6".