Hi, I noticed you briefly mention the quintessence skate on the roller skating page, and I was hoping you could expand on its significance. To be honest, I first thought it may have been spam, but once I found out it was you who put the initial info in there (don't know about the link to the person's site though) I figured that wasn't the case, especially considering that I know little about skating besides how to use them (and not very well at that). Anyway, it could be interesting information to include so I thought I'd bring it up -- cheers. :) Justsomechick20:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, please do not engage in talk with him... he may be hopelessly biased and a troll, but he still knows some things. If you make mistakes in front of him you're not going to get out of it anytime soon.
For example, please refer to article atheism for why might be is also an atheist position.
It isn't my position to do it but I'd advise you to remove your comment on Talk:Theism together with his answer with diff comment "rv troll feeding"... No offense meant, but I think it would be more efficient here. See ya and thanks for the help in that battle against unilateralism. Jules LT22:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, sorry... I stopped at "To the atheist, deities are not (not "might be")", I hadn't seen that you later make the distinction... I'd still advise anything that can feed the troll. See ya Jules LT22:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Richardson
Michael, Mark Richardson is not Donald Alford, he is a long-time opponent of Donald Alford. When he learned to stop debating the troll and just ignore him, he added to his posts a signature line saying that he is a reformed debater of Donald Alford meaning he no longer debates him, on analogy with a reformed alcoholic. --Nate Ladd18:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir,
I do appreciate some of your comments regarding my case. It must be noted that Hungary was not and still isn't signficantly part of popular world intellectual culture awareness in Western Europe, The United States of America, The U.K. and Commonwealth countries (no thanks to Stalin and the Iron Curtain), and so it comes as no surprise that a name such as mine would have little or no relevance for much of the English-speaking world. Nevertheless, I would like to make the following perfectly clear: a) I am a philosopher is as much as I am a lover of knowledge and understanding, I have a number of things to say about the nature of life, existence, the universe (cosmological questions in particular) and in Hungary (primarily in the Hungarian language) more than a couple dozen write-ups, interviews and articles, not to mention several TV human interest stories and news reports, have been published about me and my ideas. That Hungary is a country of roughly 10 or 11 million is to be considered. b) I would very much appreciate it if you or one of your colleagues at Wikipedia would take the trouble of contacting Prof. Hernadi (Miklos) at priroda@office.mta.hu or by phone at (011-36-1) 302-5638 (if dialing from the Wash., D.C. area) OR if need be Prof. Howard M. Robinson at (011-36-1) 342-2307 (both people are phonable between 0900 and 1500 GMT...to be safe...and not on major holidays). Prof. Howard Robinson's info. can be found at www.ceu.hu/phil/robinson/index, he is the Head of the Dept. of Philosophy. c) Is there anybody else on the Internet or anywhere in English language world who has stated that the masses need to be made aware of the concept of infinity and its possible implications if we are to arrive at a state of true homosapiens and have sufficient wisdom to be able to make the world a better place through the tools of demcracy and freedom of expression??? Is anyone else claiming that no other concept than infinity has the ability to diminish ignorance (narrow-minded, short-term-oriented thinking)??? d) Finally, why don't you write me and ask my opinion on major philosophical issues concerning the nature of mind, thought, existence, metaphysics, epistemology, dualism, pantheism, atheism, theism, social-psychology, love, death, infinity??? See for yourself that just because many of my ideas are not yet avialable for publication in English that I have very serious and sometimes rather unique, original thoughts on these and other matters of consequence! I do admit that I resent the reference made by "Trovatore" using the term "homeless guy"... Such talk is not worthy of someone who thinks that they are sufficiently intellectual for the purposes of making decisions about who does and does not deserve a listing! Since I suppose you might be nearby you may want to visit my organization's web-site at www.infinitysociety.org and get my phone number... So many great thinkers were ignored, mocked or murdered in the course of human history, only for them to be praised later on... I am not a Professor at an institution, albeit I have an honorary degree, thus forgive me if I do not fit one's idea of an original intellectual thinker.
With utmost confidence, Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, Philosopher 68.48.73.9321:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jean-Pierre, while I appreciate the thorough message, let me be clear -- your legitimacy as a philosopher is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not you are listed. Wikipedia has a policy that prohibits original research, the details of which can be found here. You wrote that "c) Is there anybody else on the Internet or anywhere in English language world who has stated that the masses need to be made aware of the concept of infinity and its possible implications..." and that "... I have very serious and sometimes rather unique, original thoughts [emphasis mine] on these and other matters of consequence!"
It is specifically these unique, original thoughts that are not permitted on Wikipedia until they are cited by several reputable sources. I have voted to keep the article, but solely on the condition that these sources (such as news articles, peer-reviewed journals, and other similar things) can be identified and cited. Wikipedia is a place for researchers to find sources, not to explore new ideas. While I'm sure you are a very learned philosopher and have many interesting ideas, the venue for introducing those ideas to the world can not be Wikipedia. I would suggest that you provide in the article or in the AfD discussion as much information as possible about the "couple dozen write-ups, interviews and articles, not to mention several TV human interest stories and news reports" Even if they are in Hungarian, we have many Wikipedians who are multilingual and will be able to judge their authenticity.
As an amateur philosopher, I look forward to reading about your ideas, but as a Wikipedian, I must insist that policy be followed. --Michael(talk)
REPUTABLE SOURCES! WHO DETERMINES THAT?? AND WHAT IF ALL THE SO-CALLED REPUTABLE SOURCES ARE OUT TO CONTROL AND LIMIT THE DIRECTION OF THE EVOLUTION OF COMMON HUMAN KNOWLEDGE??? NO...THAT IS NOT WHAT I THINK "JIMBO" WOULD AGREE WITH. AND AS FOR THE SEPARATION OF "FINDING SOURCES" AND "EXPLORING NEW IDEAS"...THAT JUST IMPOSSIBLE...THERE IS NO LOGICAL WAY YOU CAN REALLY SEPARATE THOSE TWO (!). HOW ARE YOU TO CONTROL WHAT NEW IDEAS ONE FINDS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF SEEKING "SOURCES"??? SURE, I'M NOT DENYING THAT THE ABILITY TO PUT THINGS INTO AN ABSTRACT DISCIPLINE ON WIKIPEDIA IS VERY CHALLENGING AND RATHER NECESSARY, BUT REST ASSURED THAT NOT ONLY WILL YOU FIND VERIFIABLE SOURCES FOR ME (WORTHY OF MENTION ON WIKIPEDIA), BUT YOU WILL SOON REALIZE, AT LEAST I HAVE SOME HOPE, THAT EDITING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA SO AS TO KEEP WITH THE STANDARDS IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT AND EASILY RISKS DISENFRANCHISING NOTABLES WHOSE ONLY SIN IS THAT THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO GET ATTENTION TO THEIR IDEAS IN THE MAINSTREAM...THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL CALL IT POPOPEDIA THE FREE SELF-LIMITING ENCYCLOPEDIA OF VETTED SOURCES!!!68.48.73.9304:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the community determines that, for the most part, following the guidelines located here. If eventually it is decided that the article does not deserve a listing, there are many avenues to follow for dispute resolution. The official policy on resolving disputes can be found here. As for all the reputable sources being "out to control and limit the direction ... of human knowledge" -- well, that would be regrettable, but again irrelevant. I don't make policy, I just follow it. If you have a problem with the policies of No Original Research or Verifiability, I would suggest you take it up with the admins and Jim himself. I agree with you that here on WIkipedia we run the risk of disenfranchising notables who can't afford other means of publication, but the policy is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Take a look at this quote from the policy page: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
Apology in order. We are probably within miles of one another, at least when you are at work in D.C., and so there is always the odd chance we might meet some day in person...my wife wonders about the eyes behind the sun-glasses...and it pains me that you have felt a personal attack on my part (an e-mail I sent earlier should have clarified that). Even "USER: Trovatore" has shown some sympathy. All I can say is that those of us who are dedicated to certain propositions concerning the rights of all humankind have a tendency to be over-sensitive and thus overreact to perceived attacks on our reputations. It reminds one of the bright young female university grad student who complains to her friend the following; "Life's not fair...the guys who are nice and considerate are way too sensitive and the guys who are brutish are the very opposite...why can't there be guys who are intelligent, understanding and affectionate with nerves of steel???" One who really thinks deeply is very likely to develop a significant level of neurosis (as is my case). Wise, humble and calm are what seem to be the characteristics of people like the Dalai Lama, but perhaps that is an illusion supported by a large entourage and plenty of funds to dip into to. So, please let me know that we might yet be friendly acquaintances over cyber-time-space.
Comment. It is to my inestimable fortune that I have contacted a number of "outside" parties and sources of information during the past day or so, many of whom are of the opinion that Wikipedia, based on more recent revelations, is no longer considered the benchmark of Internet encyclopedic reference sources (as it still should be...but, well, it is almost to be excpected that when a good idea gets to big really big the quality is evermoreso at risk). As I stated before (in different words), it will only be a loss to Wikipedia and its many fine USERs and visitors if my mention is deleted. For what it was all worth; at least I have found another threat to intellectual freedom and thus to the rights of all persons. Some of you seem to be fairly constructive sorts, but there are those of you who know next to nothing about real philosophers and what philosophy has always been about (at least this would seem to be the case; given that those in question seem to imply that a philosopher today has to be extensively published in academic journals and would therefor have to hold a PhD.). Last but not least, this obviously highly elitist prejudice against persons who sit out in public and engage people in philosophical discourse can only be the mark of someone who has yet to experience the real suffering of humanity (as I have). Again, some of you seem to be very well intended and to those persons I felt obliged to defend myself, my ideas and my noteworthyness. To those in the contrary probably anything I would try to communicate would be pointless (as it is the conclusion of several colleagues gathered around me at this table that such persons are by no means qualified to have been working on Wikipedia, in as much as Wikipedia is what it purports itself to be.) To Jimmy Wales, who may have a fair set of reasons for allegedly accepting resources from Bomis.com(which might be entirely legitimate and mind you I do not know to this be a fact conclusively nor would I necessarily consider this totally unnaceptable given the nature of information-control today), I wish only that he will find a way to better insure the reputability of his otherwise highly remarkable accomplishment. To MikeTwo I have a special addendum: be kind to those who have walked the road less travelled, for some day you will want to look back and know that IT was all very real, meaningful, and, last but not least, appreciated. So,I bid you all bon nuit et adieu. "Wikipedia...The Free Encyclopedia" (not the "PhD.s and other vetted persons" encyclopedia.). Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, Philosopher, Founder & Director of The Infinity Society, Washington, D.C., co-signed Colleagues of The Infinity Society (Andy E., Marianne, Joseph L.), Mrs. Katalin Fenyo.68.48.73.93 22:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Some editing problems occurred as I tried to enter my response earlier. Sorry but it was not my intention to repeat things. Any, as my ace up my sleeve I have asked USER: Teemeah, given her (his?) failure to make cautious inquiries, to contact in Budapest the people I listed, they are all really serious professionals and friends of mine and they will be quite unhappy to find out about the kind of insults and defamation of character taking place herein!
They will all attest to the fact that I am a philosopher, albeit not formally accredited, and that I have had my views as a philosopher published from time to time, and that my own book is quite serious in its own right. And they are people who are all listed in the top Hungarian Who's Who! Look, I understand how difficult your sitaution has been; not having the benefit of knowing Hungarian and having to rely on Hungarians who are half my age and who just got into college or university. My relative heyday in Hungary was during the late 90s and not much since 2002 (I had to lay low because of threats from anti-Semitic mobsters). How interesting it will be if you and Trovatore have to change back to KEEP! I wonder if USER: Teemeah will oblige or if any of you will oblige (like I said, each of these fine gentlemen, friends of mine, speak fluent English). 68.48.73.9313:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I have seen that you have managed to invite some other hungarians, who had (not so surprisingly) the same opinion as me, and also got insulted by Ady (I had a look at their Talk page). BTW, he called me an antisemite, which is funny, me being a jew. So please stop this nonsense, it has been going on for quite some time now. If you cannot do it for some reason, then please make a new AfD page, that is the exact copy of the original, without Ady's "comments" - they make the whole AfD totally unreadable. I can not think of any reasonable man looking through the opinions other than Ady's to decide for anything other than delete. Cheers! (and keep up the good work!)
Hi, I created the Philosophy (navigation) template, and I voted for saving it too (as an IP). However, when I duplicated the template to adopt a new tag name, Infinity0 had a cow. We've been in an edit war since I started the template, and we escalated our battle to TfD, which was a big mistake, for now the whole project (both templates) is at risk because some people are voting to delete both. Meanwhile Infinity0 and I are voting to delete each other's TfD candidates, ironically pushing the delete votes for both templates into the majority. We need your help. Neither of us want both templates to die.
Here are the reasons to choose the "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide" tag:
Both templates are identical, as changes are ported after each round of disputes, to keep them that way. We've nearly come to a compromise on the few edits that we are still at odds over, but Infinity0 is one stubborn kid. Our competition has improved the template continuously, which is a good thing.
The conversion of the old tag to the new tag is complete.
The new tag has placement in Wikipedia articles. It is hooked in to the top level of the Philosophy hierarchy, and then some.
The old tag has virtually no placement in any Wikipedia articles. It's discussion page link sits on a bunch of users' talk pages, and that's about it. And since I placed most of the old tags, it didn't seem out of place for me to upgrade them.
Since the content of the templates are identical, and the fact that jousting will continue on whichever template wins, it makes sense to vote for the one that maintains the project's presence on Wikipedia.
Please vote to save the template: click here.
For further discussions click here
Hi! Please put babel templates (see my user page for how) into your user page, so people will know who to contact in what language. Not having one on people's user page was one reason it was so hard to find someone Hungarian for the Ady contraversy. Máté Msoos
List of Aggressive Inline Skating Tricks - grinds
Hey,
I am new to this and was just wondering if I should add a list of inline skating grinds to either the current Aggressive Skating article, or create a new separate page for them all?
--Churchill16:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
check it out and clean it up i started it but its not the best my practice portal on my usr page sandbox is better. can you help me fix it and update it i think i really messed up. its the extremesports portal im sorry if this is hard to read im not a good typer.--Bwyard 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)--Bwyard16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Extremeaward.jpg
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:Extremeaward.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanztalk03:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that your image is of a very high quality that looks professional. Without a Description to give the background of "This was an image I created for a Wikiproject", it is hard to know that it is really PD. A similar image would be File:LRswitzerland.jpg, where the owner also claims to have created it themselves, but obviously it was taken from a website. Sorry for the inconvenience. MBisanztalk10:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there!
I'm thinking of starting a Wiki Project for Aggressive Skating, I've got a lot of people who are willing to contribute but we are in need of more experienced Wikians. Message me if you want to help out! Geosak (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger.
An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project.
User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation.
News from orbit
Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites.
A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space ShuttleDiscovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not.
Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed.
4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data Systemcommunications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew.
On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear.
Article news
Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities.
Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected.
It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user.
Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed.
A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy.
A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain.
A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions.
It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested.
Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list.
Editorial: Direction of the Project
Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project.
Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far.
Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks.
Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.
In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-)
The Charts
Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off.
Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it:
Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage.
The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects :
Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches
Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch
Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred
Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled
The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed.
”
The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Beach Drive in Rock Creek Park.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)12:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Miketwo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Miketwo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,
If it's your own work, please include {{own}}, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).
If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.
It would also be appreciated if you could "claim" or update the source and licensing on other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
:_File:Selfaward.jpg){kind=link}
