Welcome to twinme.com on July 6 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

User talk:Sdsds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Archived material from this page can be found here.

Contents


[edit] American pioneer comment

good point. i replied at the article talk page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for asteroid impact probability

OK, I found a very clear reference to why the probability goes up, then down, from Spaceguard UK. I've added it to the article. LouScheffer (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this reference is great! (sdsds - talk) 06:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Technology Barnstar

The Technology Barnstar
For your contributions to space-related articles, and the spaceflight portal. GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 00:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Wow, thank-you! (sdsds - talk) 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TOC on your sandbox

Hey see on my edit to your sandbox how I put that "__TOC__" in. Well that puts the Table of Contents to wherever you put the __TOC__ in the code. So if you have a page where the Table of Contents is somewhere unusual (like in the comments area on that template) then just use that word. —Zachary talk 07:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a great work-around for the problem! Ultimately a solution would somehow come from a change in the template, so that whenever a Comments subpage was modified to include section headings, the TOC of the Talk page continued to be in the correct place, without adding anything to the Talk page itself. But for now ... your suggestion works! Thanks again for suggesting it. (sdsds - talk) 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to WP:ROBO

NASA Spirit Rover Model

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STS-122 launch tag

Probably best if we use {{launching/STS}}, as this can be re-used more. Also, I forgot to send you a note about WikiProjects, so I've put that below. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 07:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human Spaceflight WikiProject

Hi, I noticed that you are a member of the Human Spaceflight WikiProject. A couple of weeks ago, I proposed that the Space missions and Space travellers projects, which both appear to be inactive be merged into the Human Spaceflight project. Whilst this is being done, the capitalisation of the Human spaceflight project's title would also be corrected (ie. Human Spaceflight → Human spaceflight). The projects are all doing the same/very similar things, and in my opinion, a single, larger, project would be more effective than three smaller, and somewhat inactive projects.. In light of very little response to messages on the project talk pages, I am now sending this message to all members of all three projects, inviting them to discuss the proposal on the Human Spaceflight project's talk page. I would appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 07:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] RE: Plan for Category:Space exploration articles by quality

Yes. We'll need to check at WP:SPACE. We'll also have to drag it through CFD as well, because we are moving categories. It would probably be a good idea to leave notes on the project talk page, and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team as well.
In reply to your comment at the CFD for the member category, I think the best way to minimise self-references would be to merge the members into the main project category, and Category:WikiProject Spaceflight seems the best place for this to go. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It's an option, but it could be seen as WP:CPM. I suppose we could try requesting a speedy move, or if we have any administrators in the project, asking for their help. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to WPSpace template

Hey SD, I saw you've made some edits to the WPSpace template, and I was wondering if you'd fancy adding an entry on it for WP Human Spaceflight? We could start doing some assessment within the project then - the banner that I made is a bit useless, as it doesn't go in the main template and won't allow for assessment of the articles. What do you reckon? All the best, Colds7ream (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! As it happens I was just thinking about that! But then I realized I didn't even understand the assessment process for WikiProject Spaceflight. What does it really mean to e.g. have Talk:Vostok 1 tagged "Importance to Spaceflight: High"? Are there any objective, written-down criteria for that? What does any "importance" rating (much less specifically the Spaceflight one) signify? I have looked at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic and at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects but I'm still not sure I understand (or maybe agree with) the intent. (It sure seems like there's work to be done on WikiProject Spaceflight article assessment! See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Category:Unknown-importance space exploration articles.) Short term, for work on human spaceflight, I'm wondering if all the articles related to the subject at least have the Category:Human spaceflight tag, or the tag of one of its sub-categories...? (sdsds - talk) 16:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Categorisation like that sounds like a grand idea, and I'll work on some draft importance criteria to put forward for everyone's dissection. Colds7ream (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Done - have a see what you think! Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Spaceflight/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance Colds7ream (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this is a great start! I've started a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Spaceflight/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance. (sdsds - talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Space law

Per Talk:Space_law#Re-organized, it looks a little different than when you saw it last. Let me know what you think. Franamax (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-insurgency

Many, many thanks for reading the article. As you may gather, it was something of a braindump when I needed to refer to FID in another article. Your point about improving the lead is well-taken, and your comment gives me encouragement to go back to work on the article. If you'd like to put it on your watchlist, you should see changes.

There is, incidentally, some related content I took out of the article and put in my userspace, although I'm embarrassed to say I have forgotten how to search in userspace and find the pages I've created. Hopefully, I'll remember in the next little while, or find it in the documentation. Anyway, there is an area that is clearly US-specific. It's entirely possible that it is too much OR for the mainspace, and can go into the Military History Project essay space. Essentially, it deals with several conflicts over the use of US special operations forces. The first article, which is not more developed than text yanked out of the FID article, deals with whether Special Operations forces, especially United States Army Special Forces, should principally be "door-kickers" doing special reconnaissance and direct action for counterterrorism, or whether the units that understand local language and training (primarily but not exclusively Army Special Forces) should have working with local countries, as in the FID mission, as their principal responsibility and other units, reinforced if necessary, should be door-kicking.

Thanks much for the interest.

Howard Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your quick response! Thank-you also for the work you have already done clarifying the lead of the foreign internal defense article. Also, I found User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-IntelOversight by using the Special:Prefixindex search function. Is that the page to which you refer above? (sdsds - talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Frustratingly, there's another page somewhere, I hope, in my userspace, which discusses the controversy in the US special operations community about misusing Special Forces people, qualified to teach in other cultures and languages, as "door-kickers" in direct action and special reconnaissance. Is there, perhaps, a text search that might come up with "kicker"? Perhaps if I go far enough back in the history on Foreign Internal Defense, I can find that text, which I removed as being to US-centric. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I was able to find the missing section, and have incorporated some of your suggestions into the lead. I'm starting to wonder about the proper relationships between the main counterinsurgency article, which I haven't looked at recently, and the FID article. FID is one way of carrying out counterinsurgency, and I wonder if some of the counterinsurgency models I have in the FID article belong elsewhere. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've responded at Talk:Foreign internal defense, trying to get at the question of what makes sense to include in the article. Do we want it to help the reader understand the theory behind the doctrine, or merely to understand what kinds of activities the doctrine expounds? (sdsds - talk) 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Launching template

I have decided to remove the "launching" template from the NASA page. If have had doubts about this usage in the past, and have only seem them grown. I'll explain my reasons, and perhaps you can comment with your ideas.

  1. NASA launches stuff every week. This opens a precedent to having the template included year round
  2. I can see the point in having the template on payloads, sattelites, the general "Space Shuttle" article, the mission article, because those are all search terms that might lead people to wikipedia looking for that information. In my eyes anyone that looks for a "launchschedule" on the NASA page is just not using google correctly.
  3. It needs and invites constent updating troughout the week simply to fix the "countdown" which really shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. We say "something happens within the next" week, but we should not be "counting down".
  4. Combined I think this is starting to violate WP:NOT in that wikipedia is not a TV guide, and it isn't a launchschedule or countdown either.

I'm interested what your opinion on this is, and what we should do address these concerns --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for leaving me a note about this here. I understand much of what you have written, but I am a bit confused by "NASA launches stuff every week." What do you mean by that? Would you like to discuss this here, or someplace more central? (sdsds - talk) 02:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to {{launching}}

Hi, I have made two major changes to Template:Launching (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Firstly, the launch information now uses the named variable "info" rather than the first unnamed variable. Secondly, the time to launch is not automatically calculated, using information entered in the format "DD|MM|YYYY|HH|MM" (separating each with a pipe (|) symbol) into the first five unnamed variables. This can be overridden using the named variable "time", but this should not be required. If you have any questions, please let me know. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Launching/GLONASS

A tag has been placed on Template:Launching/GLONASS requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And I have removed that tag as it is a template subpage used to enable correct and effective usage at a later date. As a subpage, not a template itself, I doubt if it meets the criteria anyway. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No, starting late this year, or early next, we are going to see GLONASS launches on Soyuz, and even a couple on a GSLV. There are four Proton pads, and Russian pad turnaround times are pretty fast, so it is not unusual to have two Protons going within the reccommended two week period for this template (Today's Proton launch, and the one on 28 January, for example). As for STS-400, I would advise not using a tag unless it is called up (by which time the main {{Launching/STS}} tag would have freed up. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, there are four Proton pads? So one re-used sub-template per launch system really won't work. I suppose we could get some re-use by standardizing on one sub-template per launch pad.... But I see your point: given that there will certainly be future GLONASS launches the GLONASS sub-template will potentially get re-used a number of times! And who knows what valuable reminders and hints can be stashed in the <noinclude> section of the sub-template between launches? (sdsds - talk) 15:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are four. Areas 81/23, 81/24, 200/39, and 200/40 at Baikonur. I think Soyuz has six or seven, two at Baikonur, one under construction at CSG, and the rest at Plesetsk. I think if we stick with the tags we've got for now, and create more when needed, that would be the best policy. I can't see any point in deleting used templates unless the rocket is retired, or in the case of satellite-specific tags like GLONASS, the last such satellite is launched.
On a different note, I was considering preloading some of the general information (timeline of spaceflight, spaceflight portal, etc) into the template, using a parser function to only display when in the template namespace. What do you think of that? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 16:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram

Done, with a slight contrast adjustment. Might I ask where you got the illustration? It would be better loaded as a .png, and I'm not sure that this is the original resolution; it looks upscaled. thegreen J Are you green? 01:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks great. Nicely done! (sdsds - talk) 21:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NRO L-21

Hi. I've proposed that the article you started, NRO L-21, be merged into USA 193. Both articles are about the same satellite, and the USA-193 one is more established, so I think merging that way would be a good idea. Do you have any comments? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the page; I believe USA 193 contains most of the same information. However, I'm seeking a good source for U.S. officials or NASA previously claiming that the satellite posed no danger. I'm sure this is the case but can't find a good source. Evercat (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for fixing this. FWIW, I chose to create "NRO L-21" only because that was the (red) link in the launch table of 2006 in spaceflight. Are we now consistently using "USA" designations for articles on individual NRO launched satellites? (sdsds - talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no policy that I know of, I just started the article at USA 193 some time ago. But if it's felt NROL-21 is a better title I'd be perfectly happy with a move. Evercat (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

L-21 is the launch designation, 193 is the satellite designation. The L-21 designation is technically and officially obsolete, but is just still used by a few people who got used to it. 193 is the official designation, and is the only official designation for the satellite itself. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Launching/SM}}

Please could you take a look at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Launching.2FSM. You would probably be better at explaining the core purpouse of these templates than me. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to explain them. Sometimes it is difficult to explain why something is a "good thing." (sdsds - talk) 06:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I realized today with the {{Launching/Sea Launch}} delay that we need never remove these templates from the articles once they have been added, but can instead merely put all the content into <noinclude> sections when it shouldn't appear on the article pages (as you have already done a few times and did again with the Sea Launch delay). This is great because there's no hit on the article history at all for each subsequent launch. Possibly even better, to the casual observer the template never appear to be unused! (sdsds - talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caesium v. Cesium

I totally agree that where, for example, the name of a Pop group is Cesium-137 then that remains as spelled. Similarly where publications are quoted in which the author spells the element Cesium then that too stands. However, when referring to Caesium clocks, it is indeed the element being referenced - what other sort of Caesium is there in this context? There is not a different Caesium for physics from that in Chemistry - just two properties of the same material - hence the appropriate change in spelling. Will you revert or shall I ? Velela (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC).

Hi again! I am perfectly happy discussing this here rather than on your talk page, if that is your preference. But maybe there's a better place to build a community-wide concensus? It might seem like that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals, but my concern would be the inherently biased sample of editors who would become aware of the discussion. The specific article in question, Global Positioning System, is not even claimed to be within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals! (And as you'll note, that's pretty much my entire point about why the policy you quote is not the spelling policy that is relevant to the GPS article.) So perhaps the best place is Talk:Global Positioning System? Shall we continue the discussion there? (sdsds - talk) 01:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the whole discussion there as suggested Velela (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewels

Thank you for beginning a list of companies that perform Jewels! Robert Greer (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandilism

Your page has been vandilised by 96.235.113.20 and reverted by Freshbakedpie (Wanna talk?) \'_'/ 22:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive

Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Neutral dialect

It is a similar issue to the Long March issue which we discussed last year (User_talk:GW_Simulations/Archive_2007#Variant_spellings). I have absolutely no problem with either dialect, but seeing as both are used, it sometimes looks a bit scrappy. It is always best to use a "neutral" dialect - ie. words which are spelled the same in both British and American dialect (your suggestion, I believe). I think that without realising it, I sometimes use words that are not in the American dialect, so if you notice any of those on the portal, feel free to change them to make them neutral. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinasat 9

Just to let you know, with regard to the launch date for Chinasat 9 (which you changed from 6 to 9 June in Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch), it is not clear whether this will occur on 6, 9, or 22 June. All three dates were mentioned at around the same time. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Space photos

Hey, thanks for the note. I'm pretty busy right now for photos (got a 49 megapixel panorama in front of me at the moment), but I should be able to do something with it in the next day or two. Just some preliminary notes: Part of the exhaust plume is blown, i.e., there's digital clipping, so there's not much I can do about that, but I will try to do what I can to remove the washed out look and clean up some scanned dust and scratches while I'm at it. Also, do you have an idea as to what you want for the crop? It looks like the photographer was trying to avoid cutting off the exhaust, but any cropping is going to do that, which could make the image look a little awkward. I was thinking of ending the crop just left of the smaller water tower and below the launch pad; does that sound okay? Thegreenj 02:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:STS31 carries Hubble to orbit edit.jpg. Sorry about the halos around the fumes and shuttles; someone's got there before me about sharpening and did a rather poor job, leaving artifacts all over the place. And I'm afraid I'm just no Monet—but that's not to say it's not possible! Thegreenj 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LOCAD Article

Hi there! I just saw your article on LOCAD. Were you part of the original group of researchers working on the PTS at MSFC? Dognap (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello -- I'm glad you found the article! I was very curious about the research topics the LOCAD work addresses, but don't have any affiliation with the people working on the project. All the content of the article came from the sources it references. If you know of any others, particularly anything more current, please don't hesitate to add them to the article! (sdsds - talk) 05:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final frontier

Nothing new I'm aware of; I lifted the templates trying to find something appropriate. (I wish, again, there weren't about 800 diff ones...) If they need changing, I'll leave off adding new ones, but there's a bunch of redlinked Mars projects that could use it (if I haven't already hit most of them...). TREKphiler 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zenit

Oh my God. That is... not intentional. I have to access to the Chinese Wikipedia through an IPv6 proxy server ( "sixxs.org" ), so when I jumped to the English version the system added "sixxs.org" to the images' URLs automatically. I have added the Chinese entry's link again, by normal IPv4 this time. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 09:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Editlink interaction with show in Template:Launching

  • Fixed. What do you think of the new feature I added to disable transclusion? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Conversation continued at User talk:GW_Simulations. (sdsds - talk) 03:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JDS Hyūga

[edit] March 2009 commissioning

As you may not know, the official commissioning of the JDS Hyūga on March 18, 2009 was widely reported:

A. RTTNews (link) noted interest in the event:

  • "Anticipating international concern over the launch of the mammoth destroyer, the Japanese government insisted the vessel would not carry fighter planes and that it was different from an aircraft carrier."

B. AvioNews (link) reports that Japan has commissioned the helicopter carrier Hyūga:

  • "The Ministry of Defense underlined that, even if it resembles a light aircraft carrier, the "Hyuga" is an helicopter carrier and respects the pacifist constitution imposed to Japan by the United States after World War II. The Country renounced to use force in international disputes, but anyway it has one of the best organized armies in the world."

C. The Straits Times (link) published an Agence France Presse (AFP) news story which explained that the Maritime Self Defense Force (MSDF) "stressed that the destroyer complies with the country's post-war pacifist constitution."

D. iStockAnalyst.com (link) posted a Kyodo News report mentioning "concerns about its resemblance to a light aircraft carrier":

  • "Despite the Hyuga's look and feel of a light aircraft carrier, the MSDF says it is anything but."
  • "'An aircraft carrier, I believe, has a fair degree of offensive functions. Based on that definition, this Hyuga falls a little bit outside of the frame,' MSDF Chief of Staff Adm. Keiji Akahoshi told a news conference on Tuesday."
  • "The acquisition of a destroyer that could project the force far from Japan's coast, however, raises concerns in Asia. It may even spur rivalry with countries like China, which is rumored to build an aircraft carrier of its own."
  • "Japan denies itself offensive capabilities under its war-renouncing Constitution. But the government interprets the supreme law to mean that it can possess the minimum level of armed force necessary for its self-defense."

I wonder if you might be willing to share some thoughts about how to go about incorporating this relevant information into an article -- Hyūga class helicopter destroyer -- which was the subject of controversy some months ago?

A constructive step might be to re-post what I've written here -- perhaps just after this now-timely diff or this diff which were contributed by Nick Dowling on the Hyūga talk page?--Tenmei (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Tenmei. You're correct: I hadn't been following the Hyuga news. Thanks for pointing it out to me! (sdsds - talk) 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The implied question in the last paragraph of my post above? What if I were to re-post what I've written here after this talk page diff or this alternate talk page diff? My intention is to avoid controversy by beginning to move forward constructively on the talk page?
In preparation for this inquiry I created Takes two to tango (idiom). --Tenmei (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ESRO

Hi, I just started a new article: ESRO. There's a tonne of stuf that needs to be done on it that I don't know exactly how to do (and what exactly to do). Could you take alook and help me out?

Thank you. U5K0 (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this was great work -- thank-you! I wasn't familiar with the history of European space exploration organizations, so reading through your article was very helpful to me. After I read it again in more depth, I'll leave comments on the article's talk page. Thanks again for making such a great start on this article! (sdsds - talk) 23:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Somewhat urgently, please see Talk:ESRO#Source_of_the_article_text. (sdsds - talk) 00:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Robotics July Newsletter

Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics/Outreach/Newsletter July 2008

[edit] date-autoformatting

Hi Sd

In response to your request at MOSNUM talk, one of the pages that may interest you is the two-and-a-half-year-old saga at Bugzilla. (You'll need to register and log in if you want to comment.) Despite the 88-person petition about halfway through, the discussion has gone around in circles and has shown that developers, particularly volunteers with little direction from atop, are generally unwilling to make major technical changes, particularly if the way to do it is unclear. You'll see that there are quite a few suggestions as to the syntax and programming method, despite my plea to keep it as simple as possible and to let the developers do it as they saw best. The whole thing wasn't helped by the fact that Brion Vibber has never really been onside, and that WP is only one of a huge number of sites that uses WikiMedia's system. How to avoid syntax, programming, that doesn't conflict with all of those environments?

We gave up some time ago. In the meantime, the community appears to have gradually evolved a more skeptical attitude to the blueing of dates and date fragements. The argument over 1989, 1960s, 19th century and other absurdities is largely over. The numerous disadvantages of DA, and the utter triviality of the differences it purports to iron out, are now the motivation to get rid of it, or at least to empower editors with the right not to use it.

I hope to convince you to support moves to see DA in a different light. Tony (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Thanks for your response! The transcript for bug 4582 does indeed make good background reading for this topic.
Of course the "right" solution long-term will be a move to wiki software that supports an "autoformat" markup syntax that doesn't overload the syntax for wikilink markup. (That is, the <<angle brackets>> suggested early in bug 4582, rather than the [[square brackets]] currently in use.) But moving in that direction, as you suggest, is almost impossibly difficult. The question we should ask for MOSNUM is, "What's the best suggestion we can give today to editors who are creating or modifying articles?"
The best solution available today is also mentioned in bug 4582 -- markup using the <span> mechanism, simplified for editors by wrapping it in template syntax like {{Date}}. The difficulty with this might be explaining it to editors who frankly "don't want to know" about the ugly details. Or is there some other difficulty I don't yet see?
The major trouble with your idea of allowing editors to do no markup of dates whatsoever, is that we will lose valuable meta-information when they unlink dates without using markup that allows that text to be later identified as dates that could be formatted according to per-user preferences (or per-article settings, or whatever).
Without any major change to wikimedia software, enwiki could impose arbitrary date formatting for readers who don't set a preference, including all anon-IP readers. (Note that if anon readers dislike the arbitrarily imposed format we can tell them, "One advantage of creating and logging into an account is that you can select your own preference for this.") This proposal could be implemented in days (minutes really, eh?) and would immediately alleviate one of the major concerns driving this, i.e. the anon-IP readers seeing inconsistently formatted wikilinked dates. But by encouraging unwikilinked dates this immediately avaliable solution is being made less valuable! (sdsds - talk) 06:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sd—Sorry, I didn't watch your page (got a bloated watchlist already, as I'm sure you do too). Can you buzz if you reply here further? To take your points para by para:

Well, my overriding reaction is: do you really think it's worth bothering with? The order of month and day seems as trivial as the or/our spelling, or the traveling/travellling couplet. All very recognisable by all anglophones. My own daily newspaper uses [month day, year], when the prevailing format in my country is the international: I suspect that few readers have consciously notice it, and indeed I didn't myself until I had to grapple with the fuss at WP! The US military sector uses international, and many Canadians do. Doesn't seem to be an issue to me. I suppose if I were a computer programmer I might be motivated by the technical challenge of "fixing up" the function, but it would be such a tangled business to make it flexible (date ranges too, please) as well as devising the right syntax to render it plain black. Someone will always have a better way at Bugzilla pages, you've noticed too. That makes developers wary and turns them off, typically. A "right" solution needs a "right" problem, which is missing.
"Some other difficulty?"—removing the ungainly square brackets and avoiding them when first writing an article is simple in concept: everyone can understand it, including newbies. Yes, it's harder to get people to substitute another syntax (although, to argue your case, a script could easily be written to change them over and/or add them). Apart from getting people to agree on a new syntax—no easy thing—remember that WikiMedia software is used by a huge number of sites worldwide. Any new syntax proposal has to avoid interfering with locally registered syntaxes and local usage. We'd need to be sure that no one was using <blah> with functional meaning in their text. Someone objected early on to <blah>, didn't they?
Losing valuable meta-information. I'm not even a script-writer, let alone a programmer, but I can see how dates can easily be identified in a text by a simple script, if required in the future (in fact, a script that picked up faulty and inconsistent date formats would be easy to write, too, I suspect—that could be done at the same time. The loss of square brackets appears to be inconsequential in that respect.
Arbitrary formatting imposed on IP users: I think many users and readers would object, just as they would to a dictum that only British spelling is to be used on WP. The binary spelling and date-formatting arrangement does two good things: it's the minimum that will calm ruffled feathers across the Atlantic; and (2) it's simple enough to manage.

I still think simple wins out: remove it, since it's a solution chasing a non-problem. Let me know of any further thoughts you have. Tony (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Shavit 2

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Shavit 2, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ooops!

I think I overlooked this :/ Did you get any answer to this from anyone else? I'll have a look if you like, but it's totally not my area of expertise ... - Alison ❤ 06:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries! I know there are mechanisms (email, irc, bug databases, etc.) to which some members of the community have access off-wiki where they can request server software configuration changes. I wish a similar mechanism existed within the wiki, but if it doesn't, I won't champion the crusade to create one. (That is, I wish the English language Wikipedia were a democracy, yet recognize it is instead controlled by a fearsome cabal. ;-) (sdsds - talk) 06:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My edit here expresses my sentiment about this. (sdsds - talk) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

I'm unsure why you're going to ANI. You did put your case, but people generally didn't agree with it. Given that there is overwhelming support for the deprecation of DA, what do you hope to achieve by posting a note there? I can't really see how I can participate there at the moment—nothing substantive to defend or comment on. Tony (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you as an active participant in the debate attempted to close the debate and assert there was consensus. This is not in keeping with Wikipedia convention for closing debates. (sdsds - talk) 11:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You make it seem like a one-person campaign. Yet the most substantial changes came today and were not my doing. Aren't you flogging a dead horse? The consensus was overwhelming and you don't agree with it, that's all. It's not as though people didn't engage with your point of view; look at my effort on your talk page. And please do not post negative comments—any comments—within someone else's post, as you've done at GA talk. I've relocated it to where it belongs chronologically, with a note in square brackets. Tony (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Sd, for you note on my talk page; however, in the spirit of collaboration and consensus, I'm still keen to know whether you feel differently after a few months or so. Do keep in touch. Tony (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
My note at AN/I was directed at anybody who could explain exactly what the thread was intended to achieve. I still don't understand why this discussion of a minor disagreement over date formatting has been posted on a noticeboard used for requests for urgent admin intervention. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Craters and spaceflight

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#Craters_and_spaceflight. (sdsds - talk) 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SIM PlanetQuest

I wanted to alert you to my comments here. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes

You had participated back in February in this CfD regarding the Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes, which ended in no consensus. A new proposal has been made to eliminate this category and merge its contents to Category:War documentaries which is now going on at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 24#Category:Documentaries alleging war crimes. You are encouraged to reconsider the original CfD, revisit your opinion in that discussion and participate again in this latest CfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feitian spacesuit

Hey, just a heads-up, I moved your new article Feitian space suit over to Feitian spacesuit, as that is a more common spelling. So you might want to add the new one to your watchlist as well. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 02:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh...whoops. I didn't think to look at those. I guess they are pretty interchangeable, and if "Space suit" is the de facto standard for WP articles, I can see why it would be better to keep things that way for consistency. If you want, you can move the new article back to its original location; personally, I don't really have a preference. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I just moved it back. As far as I know, moving over a redirect page works the same as moving to any other pages. Let me know if you see anything in the article that's gotten messed up through the moving back & forth. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 03:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem! Sorry I jumped the gun with the first move. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 03:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gerard K. O'Neill

Thanks for assessing Gerard K. O'Neill. It help me to improve the article if you could let me know which of the B-class criteria the article did not meet. Wronkiew (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for spending the time to reassess the article. Wronkiew (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Range

Hi - the article starts out with: "The Eastern Range (ER) is a rocket range that supports missile and rocket launches from the two major launch heads..." -- The term "launch head" is not used anywhere else in the article, and is not defined. Could we Wiki link to a (new) article, simply defining what a launch head is, or perhaps even listing some? 63.75.83.149 (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't logged in when I posted the above comment -- MithrasPriest (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Talk:International Space Station/Comments

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Talk:International Space Station/Comments|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Colds7ream (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage Privatization DRV

In view of your edits at Marriage, please consider commenting at Marriage Privatization DRV. If you know where in Wikipedia that the idea of marriage privatization is covered, please post that in the DRV as well. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 17:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:HSF Taskforces Proposal

Hey Sdsds, just a quick request - I've put up a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Human spaceflight/Taskforce proposal as to as possible structure for some taskforces for WP:HSF. If you could take a look and see what you think, I'd very much appreciate some feedback! :-) Thanks in advance! Colds7ream (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays!

A special message, just for you! → → → →


[edit] Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox and other stuff

Hope you don't mind, but I borrowed one of your userboxes.

On another note, about your comment on spacewalks lists with templates, have you tried making these templates? And can references be linked through the templates to a reference list at the bottom of an article? Thanks,WVhybrid (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you find the userbox is useful! As regards the spacewalk lists -- I pretty much agree with the opinion you expressed on the article talk page, i.e. other efforts (like getting to featured-list quality) are probably better uses of time/energy. Indeed, using the template mechanism to generate sub-lists based on selectors may always be "too complex" for any real uses. (sdsds - talk) 09:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International Space Station#The Failed FAC. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Launch Windows

Sdsds, I've made a schedules of launch windows of Hohmann orbits from various departure planets to various destination planets. They may be found at http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/sched.html . Also on the page is the spreadsheet (downloadable) that calculates the schedules, delta vee, trip times and more. Would this resource be a good link for your Launch Windows article? Thanks for your time, Hop David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.34.250 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


You have new messages
Hello, Sdsds. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/Launch tags.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK004 21:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hyuga

Thanks for thinking of me. I'm extremely intrigued about these vessels and will certainly have a look and do some investigating on my own, but in the mean time I've placed a notice for extra comment from WP:SHIPS here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Eyes_requested_on_a_controversial_ship_class_article. Hopefully some good ideas will come from this. -MBK004 17:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NowCommons: File:SRST Figure1.jpg

File:SRST Figure1.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:TacSat-1.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:TacSat-1.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Currently in space category

Thanks for you comments at my page—I had overlooked my reference to WP:USELESS, as I was just focusing on my initial nominating statement. I hope it's alright with you, but I've quoted you at the nomination—the part about the category not being neglected by any lack of updates. The obvious enthusiasm for the category that you've pointed out has somewhat dampened my conviction that deletion is the correct choice with this category. For now I'll keep the nomination open and see what others think. I'm sorry if you've felt the space categories are under assault lately—pretty much coincidence of an ongoing interest at CfD, I suppose, but nothing coordinated between editors. At least not with me .... Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tenmei

User:Tenmei has filed an ArbCom case against me and I have done a little research on Tenmei and noted you have interacted with this user. Can you help provide an opinion about him? Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty/Evidence

[edit] Talkback

You have new messages
Hello, Sdsds. You have new messages at Talk:Comparison of heavy lift launch systems.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 07:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Am I funny?

Do you think im funny? 99.29.236.85 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Some shameless thankspam!

I'd like to thank everyone who took part in my RfA, which closed 79/3/6, so I'm now another proud bearer of the mop-and-bucket - hopefully I'll wield them with success! I'd also like to say that I found the process to be welcoming, friendly and supportive, with the support comments encouraging and the oppose and neutral comments offering good feedback, so I had a very positive experience, despite the fact that, from all the comments and discussions, I was expecting something much more negative - thanks for helping to make it a worthwile experience!

Many thanks once again,
Colds7ream (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback

You have new messages
Hello, Sdsds. You have new messages at Template talk:TLS-M.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 06:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Launch Windows

I notice one of the articles you've worked on is Launch Windows. My page lists various Hohmann Launch Windows. From this page you can also download a spreadsheet where you can type in departure and destination planets. You can also type in periapsis and apoapsis altitudes for the orbit you're departing from/arriving at.

The sheet returns launch windows, trip times, arrival dates, and delta vees.

The schedule and spreadsheet may be found at: http://www.clowder.net/hop/railroad/sched.html

Thank you,

Hop David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.34.250 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hydyne article appreciated

Thanks for doing the Hydyne article. I noticed you're also an economics literate contributor: if by chance you have a hankering to assist in the prevention of environmental degradation, kindly contribute to Environmental tariff. There's a fair amount of literature readily available, and what's been created on the article so far doesn't do the concept justice. Tnx --HarryZilber (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


from SDSDS: ....These stages get dropped, still containing residual fuel, somewhere in the middle of Kazakstan! In regards you other comment, I wonder if an environmental tariff approach would hasten Russian conversion to less toxic propellants?


I've heard/read about the problem with unspent propellants still residing in components that survived reentry -there are probably relatively easy engineering solutions to it, perhaps for example, by including destruct charges that automatically fire during reentry, attached to each toxic fuel tank. As general threats to humankind go, however, that problem is way, way down near the very bottom i.m.h.o. (famous last words -watch a fuel tank crash into the downtown core of a metropolis next week).

The most severe threats to human societies can be divided into two general categories: those of human origin (nuclear Armageddon + nuclear winter, global warming, etc....), and those of non-human origin (mega-tsunamis, asteroidal impacts, etc...).

Threat Response
Mega-tsunamis Non-human origin

Preparations have included sophisticated oceanic monitoring networks that can automatically trigger warning alarms to affected coastlines. Pre-planned mass evacuation routes away from the coastlines, etc... Further countermeasures are probably highly warranted.

Cost/benefit analysis: low cost to extremely high value.
Asteroidal/cometary impacts Non-human origin

Even twenty meter dia. strikes can cause significant damage, and another Tunguska event in central Europe or the populated regions of North America today would likely change human societies significantly. Preparations can include a significantly expanded spaceguard effort, plus deep-space observatories looking for the same. The best response is obviously a course change in deep space which results in a complete miss in lieu of an impact, which would require extremely expensive hardware pre-positioned in deep space. Other response options should be researched and pursued as well -what we don't know can hurt us very badly. Not paying attention to this threat will never reduce the probabilities.

Cost/benefit analysis: extremely high cost to mega-high value. There is obviously a very long lead time effort required to provide effective countermeasures, and it needs joint actions at an international level to be effective.
Environmental degradation

Global warming

 Human origin.

This is highly controllable and mitigation/reduction efforts should be rapidly ramped up. The denialists need to get out of the way or be beaten into the ground with the abundant data already available. Here you can see rapid results in numerous areas if political pressures are brought to bear on the causal factors. Hopefully Obama will yield significant positive changes in both the medium and the long term; perhaps by creating a cabinet level post for someone like Al Gore. These efforts need to be coordinated at the scientific levels, however I view environmental tariffs as a highly effective political tool to obtain immediate cooperation at the international level. Not to beat something to death, but the international pollution control index as mentioned in the proposed law was also inspirational.

Cost/benefit analysis: very high cost to mega-high value.

Nuclear armageddon has been left off because the causes/countermeasures are self-evident and are already being addressed at almost all levels on an on-going basis. For the other major human-origin item shown above, the response and countermeasures to global warming and environmental degradation can likely be dealt with fairly quick.

Positioning cometary movers and the like in deep space will likely take decades to achieve for an unknown, but real risk (and which needs to be done). However global warming, despite all the winter-related humor from the pundits, is here and its here now. Removing harmful types of manufacturing, energy production, and fuels from use world-wide will take significant efforts at very high costs, but those large scale efforts need to be started immediately. Even simpler: helping the politicos by encouraging them to use good tools such as environmental tariffs is a quick way to introduce positive changes, which is why a polished, detailed expansion of that article, plus translations, needs to be implemented. Your help in putting this suggestion forward to the WikiProject Economics group would be appreciated. --HarryZilber (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sdsds"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs