User talk:WDGraham/Archive 2006

About aircraft-stub template

Yes, deleting the template would un-categorize all the articles we worked hard to categorize. Which would be unfortunate. I voted "keep" on the deletion page as well. -- WB 19:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's implicit in the deletion nomination that after deletion, the malformed stub type would be replaced by appropriate stub templates for each of the appropriate size. Lest this not be the case, I shall make this explicit. I'm boggled that people are trotting out to vote keep on these grounds. Alai 01:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were hundreds, probably thousands of articles. It would probably take a very long time to get through them all. I've asked the user who did most of the recategorisation itself for his opinion on it. --GW_Simulations 21:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from RockinRob

Hi, I'm the one one who put the comment on the spacecraft Talk Page. I suppose it was a bad idea to respond to the guy who replaced the phrase "steer the spacecraft", but I was just really frustrated by that. I'm sure you know that there is enough to edit on Wikipedia without having to undo the work of vandals. Anyway, sorry if you were offended. Rob 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not here to cause controversy. I'd like to ask your opinion. I've been making edits to spacecraft, but I just found Spacecraft design, and I think what I'm trying to accomplish would be better in that article. I wanted to create a page that would have material similar to what might be presented in a spacecraft design course, minus a lot of the math. There seems to be a lot of articles already that could be linked to from such an article for more rigorous details. But I think spacecraft could exist for a more general audience. You seem to have a lot of expereince with spacecraft, I thought your opinion would be helpful. Rob 02:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would probably be better off in Spacecraft Design. If it is a more professional article, eg. a course, then it would probably be better to aim for the more select audience. I've added a link to it at the bottom of spacecraft anyway. --GW_Simulations 19:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space shuttles

could you please tell me where I could find the information that the 2 shuttles aren't grounded? American Patriot 1776 14:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

I'm actually in the process of replying to him... it looks fine, but thanks for being alert. Shimgray | talk | 20:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martian Geography

I have joined the new prroject called martian geography. General Eisenhower (talk · contribs)

List of scheduled rocket launches

Per my desire to create articles that don't need constant maintenance, would you have much of an objection to just moving it straight over to List of spaceflights (2006) or something similar? That way we could just leave already launched missions on the list and keep them around for reference. Night Gyr 20:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


198.203.102.6 (Apollo 11)

FWIW, I'd already blocked 198.203.102.6 over those Apollo 11 edits. I was just very slow in getting their talk page updated because I was reorganizing it, as is my wont. BTW, if you regularly revert vandalism, you might take a look at my warning toolbox. Thanks for your help. --Kbh3rdtalk 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to List of spaceflights (2006)

Thanks for catching that, and for bringing it to my attention. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Censored

Check again. I realized that also - I was sifting through RC feeds and I automatically reverted it, but it has been corrected. --Jay(Reply) 13:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice username

I really like it. ILovePlankton 20:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a pseudonim that I have used for the last few years. It comes from my initials, and the fact that I produce addons for Flight Simulators. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't get it from here? Are you sure? :P ILovePlankton 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No - absolute coincidence. Never even heard of that before - Don't even have a Playstation (I don't do much in the way of games). I have been using the pseudonim for longer than it has been released! --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I guess I will believe you... you aren't trying to filter everthing on the internet are you? (I understand if you don't get it) :P. ILovePlankton 00:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:inuse vs. Template:underconstruction

Hi, I noticed you left {{inuse}} up for a couple days on a number of "List of spaceflights (year)" articles. This template is intended to prevent [[Help:Edit conflict|edit conflicts], and states that people should not edit the article while the template is up, discouraging contributions. Thus, it should only be used if you currently have an edit box open, and are making a major edit. I believe, however, that the template you want is {{underconstruction}}, which states that although the article is undergoing major revamping, contributors are welcome to help. I believe this is what you are interested in, as it would be consistent with the "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." note you have on the pages.

Upon reading the message you left on my talk page, it seems you may have a cause for the template. However, would it be possible for you to just work on one page at a time? Also, I don't know your technical situation, but is there a reason this can't be done in a number of smaller edits, updating the page as you make your changes? Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 21:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see. I've restored the inuse templates with a more descriptive message approximating how long, describing the purpose, and suggesting that users note changes they would like made to the article on the talk page (thus encouraging their contributions). I'm not sure if it's a touchy subject for you, but including a description of your technical situation on the talk pages, and/or an invisible comment after the inuse template, might help avoid concern over the amount of time the inuse templates are being left up. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, GW Simulations! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. - Glen Stollery 15:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: tags

No, the inuse tag is just for short edit sessions to avoid edit conflicts. At a glance, the articles in question were not being editted at all, so edit conflicts seem very unlikely. Just make the edits you want without the inuse tag, it's completly possible. Using the inuse tag to "reserve" articles for prolonged periods of time, has been deteremined by consensus to be unacceptable. Thanks. --W.marsh 18:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot all be done in one go, due to the length of time required. It is boring work, so I do most of it when I've nothing better to do. This often involves a computer that has no internet access, so I have to do them in batches because I cannot always just "go and get" the next one when I need it. This is why the inuse tags were in place. (There's nothing worse than doing several hours of editing, only to get an edit conflict. See above. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's just not what the inuse template is really for. I'm sympathetic to your situation, but I don't think edit conflicts are really likely. You might check to see if you're going to get one before saving, and integrate the changes made into your edit. I really doubt it would take more than a minute or two. It's worth that so we can keep the article open and freely edittable, in other words. Just try it and see if it works. --W.marsh 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy Collaboration of the Week

Mars is now this week's collaboration of the week. --Volcanopele 18:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:

Is it really that impossible to integrate a 1-letter change [1] into your upcoming edit, rather than tell people not to edit the article for 5 days? --W.marsh 20:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is possible, but I have found in the past that there are often a few of these edits together. I am using the tag to stop these. Also, 5 days is the maximum downtime. I am predicting that 1960 will be done tomorrow, and 1961 by Monday. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you can't just integrate whatever edits have been made. Wikipedia:Edit lock was never intended to be used for more than 3 hours. --W.marsh 20:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the formats are incompatible. For example:
Launch Date/Time Launch Vehicle Launch
Site 		Launch Contractor Payload Operator Orbit Mission/
Function 		Re-Entry/
Destruction 		Outcome Remarks
January 19
19:00 GMT 		Lockheed Martin Atlas V (551) LC-41 Cape Canaveral ILS New Horizons NASA N/A Flyby of Pluto and KBOs N/A Successful so far First probe to visit Pluto
Atlas D January 7, 1960 01:40 GMT (none) Cape Canaveral US Air Force ICBM Research and Development Successful
Launch Vehicle Date Time Payload Launch Site Space Agency Mission Objectives Remarks
Atlas D January 7, 1960 01:40 GMT (none) Cape Canaveral US Air Force ICBM Research and Development Successful
January 19
19:00 GMT 		Lockheed Martin Atlas V (551) LC-41 Cape Canaveral ILS New Horizons NASA N/A Flyby of Pluto and KBOs N/A Successful so far First probe to visit Pluto
GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US aircraft navbox

It's a good idea, but it's the same idea as a category while taking more space. If you've looked at C-130 Hercules in the last week, it had no less than five navboxes - active US, active Canada, active UK, some ridiculous Lockheed products one, and the standard WP:Air {{Aviation lists}}. It was a mess, and it was taking up about 1/5 of the total page length. That's where navboxes become a problem - they're okay individually, but not compatible with others. ericg ✈ 21:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lockheed one is also in my sights. There's already an extensive list of Lockheed aircraft. If you'd like to give a hand with the UK one, all I'm doing is moving the template transclusion code into the |lists= portion of {{aircontent}}. ericg ✈ 21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks for understanding the reasoning behind this change! :) ericg ✈ 21:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nice!

Excellent work with the Selected Aircraft! It's good to see some enthusiasm at the Portal. Sometimes it's hard to know if people really are using it and if all my work is worthwile, but this really lifts my spirits. If you have ideas for any other part of it I'd love to hear from you. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Could an admin please move this.

Lunar Surface Access Module (Project Constellation) has been listed at WP:RM for a while now, and no objections have been raised to it's move to Lunar Surface Access Module. Please could an admin carry this out, as the destination has a page history, so I cannot do so myself. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 19:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


GA template

See Wikipedia:Deletion_review for 8 July. Rlevse 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{MarsGeo-Crater}}

Do you know if there is any way to avoid the picture line showing up on pages that don't have one? Marskell 17:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good work. See here for it in use. Now we just have to create the hundreds and hundreds of crater articles... Marskell 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes (heads up)

Your userpage has too many userboxes, you may find your page out of style in the near future. --NEMT 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nonsense

Actually I edited out the nonsense that had been added to the Space Shuttle Atlantis page, so don't lecture about the etiquitte of using the sandbox. 216.176.105.92 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
I, DarthVader, award you the original barnstar for the hard work that you have put into wikipedia, particularly your contributions to articles to do with space flight. You have put a lot of effort into the articles related to the spaceflights by year WikiProject and it is very much appreciated. DarthVader 12:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expandable Launch Vehicle

I regard to you suggestion to change/move ELV to LV. I thin i would be a better idea to just mae one for RLV and PRLV - partially reusble launch vehicle. other wise just leave it the way it is.--aceslead 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hello there, I was wondering if you would please modify your signature to conform to the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. The general guidelines are that signatures shouldn't contain images, they shouldn't contain unnecessary internal links or any external links, and they shouldn't be unnecessarily long in Wiki source. The reasoning for this final bit is that overly long signatures tend to overwhelm the actual comments in edit mode, making it hard to track down and respond to specific comments. You can fix your signature by removing any images and external links, any unnecessary links (like links to Wikipedian organizations, articles, or subpages in userspace), and removing excessive color, font, and formatting code. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 19:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

Hello, (CSD14) criteria 14 means images with no copyright information times seven days.. Images must have copyright information or they are deleted in seven days. The must have source also.--Dakota 01:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I could only see them going up to nine. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NASA Nomenclature

OK I'm a little off on how the name is choosen or what it the offical name. I've seen Project Gemini called The Gemini Project, The Gemini Program. Which one is the proper one to use? and why does it vari throughout Wikipedia? Shouldn't we just sellect one and stick to it?--aceslead 17:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the best way is to use "Project ***", as this appears to be in most common usage. The excepteion is the Space Shuttle.

Each case should be treated differently however. If you want to start disscussion, try placing some that you think are incorrectly named at WP:RM. GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of spaceflights

Hello, GW Simulations. I reached your page from List of spaceflights (2006) and List of spaceflights (2007), where you made many interesting contributions. If you don't mind me asking, where do you read about these things (for example, the NRO launches)? Can you recommend a source? Thanks! (vedantm 05:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have listed all sources at the bottom of every page. I have found that the following four websites are the most useful:
Spaceflight Now is most useful for current spaceflight, Astronautix is most useful for historical, and also sub-orbital flights, NASA & JSR are good for both. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 18:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Pontes

Regarding the naming of this person as either an "astronaut" or a "cosmonaut", there is a discussion going in the article's talk page where the consensus forming indicates that the term "astronaut" should be preferred. Your changes in the article in that regard have now been reverted for a second time (the first had an edit summary urging you to visit the talk page). I recommend that you do not edit this specific aspect of that article again without first engaging the discussion on the talk page and gaining support to your view. Please notice that continuing to revert the changes while ignoring an ongoing discussion about which you've been made aware of is considered disruption, and reverting frequently may be defined as edit warring. Any of those could cause you to be blocked from editing temporarily (please see our Blocking Policy). Thank you, Redux 03:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake. I was just going through Category:Out-of-date Astronaut Infoboxes and carrying out updates based on the missions that they had flown. There were over 400, so I did not have time to view each case individually. Please remember to WP:AGF, if you had taken a look at my Contributions, you would have seen this was the case. I am insulted by your allegations. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that there really was no issue in that article. I'm sorry, but you seem to be the one who failed to assume good faith. In fact, my post in your talk page exists exactly because I was assuming good faith in your actions. If you look into that discussion I mentioned, you'll see that someone had already started calling your 2nd changing of the wording "vandalism", and they were already calling for a block. I was the one to say that you should be contacted first, since it could well be the case that you might just be unaware of the ongoing discussion. Hence my post above. You see, a "heads up" is a token of good faith, or at least it is when I give them out. You failed to assume good faith when you assumed that this had been meant as an accusation, when in fact it was a "heads up". Regards, Redux 19:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Image

It's been changed already by another admin. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did i do this right?

I have removed the proposed merges of SDLV, Shuttle-C, and Ares (rocket). sense they were just sitting there and you were the only person to really comment, and the only one who gave a valid opinion, mine not included. If did it wrong you need to correct it. Thanks--aceslead 18:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag from Ares (rocket), but apart from this you were fine. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Ok this just gulls me. I took a look at the article uranium and i saw a number of claims (claims may not be the best word to use) that i feel needed sources so i added them. One such case was the statement "Uranium itself is not a chemical carcinogen," now i could care less if this was true or not, BUT that isn't a basic fact. I haven't seen a reseach on that nor do i know what the source is. My philosophy on information particularly information on uranium could come into dispute is "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE." any claim is invalid with out evidence to support it. Well let me get to the point my adding of the [citation needed] was revert by User:Fastfission his/her response to by [citation needed] seemed a bit WRONG. Could you mediate this and determine if some if not all of the [citation needed] were warranted. I put one next any assertion that i believed need evidence. And maybe you should look at that response i got too.--aceslead 02:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases there is no need to cite, however the statement "Uranium itself is not a chemical carcinogen", in my opinion, should be. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstart

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your many contributions to Wikipedia, especially to the Space exploration articles.. well done! :) Mlm42 23:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Help

I find myself in a conflict over weather PHOTONS, which make up the electromagnetic spectrum aka electromagnetic radiation, are particle or not. they keep being listed in the particle radiation article. I need mediation.--aceslead 17:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that a photon isn't a particle, heres the tricky part, no one nows exactly what a photon is. OFFICALLY photons are described as being a 'wave/particle' because they act like particles is some of the experiments and like waves in other experiments, experiments which were conducted in physics. The particle radiation article is about particle radiation NOT electromagnetic radiation. Photons ARE electromangetic radiation. one major ditiction is that particle radiation 'contaminates material it lands on. Electromagnetic radiation doesn't.--aceslead 20:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Personal Attack?

OK I’ve given up on the whole photon particle or not thing. But a comment by another editor was left on the talk page for Particle Radiation. If felt very personal, could I have your opinion on how to INDIRECTLY address this. At the very least it is incivility, would it fall under personal attack? Sense it focuses some of it on me.--aceslead 23:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there’s more, before you replied to my message, I went ahead and JUST deleted the comment that he posted, in the summary I put “removed personal attack.” I labeled it that way because it ‘rubbed’ me the wrong, I really don’t understand the technical Wiki boundary between uncivil and personal. Sometime after I deleted it, user: Strait put the comment back, added an additional comment and then copied the whole thing to my Talk page. I saw this, this morning and I deleted it off my talk page and the talk: particle radiation. Now my understanding is that your not suppose to comment on editors, there misgivings, errors, etc. If he keeps reposting the comments he made that were directed AT me. What should I do? Other than talking to user: Strait, I really don’t want to talk to him/her. I just want user: Strait to leave me along.--aceslead 00:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Space exploration vs. Portal:Spaceflight

hello, i was wondering your thoughts on these two portals.. i see you created the Portal:Spaceflight, and a few weeks ago the Portal:Space exploration one was created by someone who didn't notice yours. It seems clear that there shouldn't be both, due to the huge overlap (and almost confusing distinction); what do you think about the idea to merge them into Portal:Space exploration? or perhaps a renaming of Portal:Spaceflight to Portal:Spacecraft would be more appropriate? Mlm42 11:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page of Portal:Spaceflight. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uuo

See Talk:Ununoctium#Bohr; these diagrams were also found of little usefulness in earlier talk at WikiProject Elements. Femto 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

{{MartianStubs}}

Wouldn't it be easier to create subcategories inside the Martian-stub stubs? That is under Martian-stubs there would be subcategories of stubs, such as, MarsCrater-stubs, MarsMountian-stubs, etc. I think this would even help those who are sorting Martian stubs inside the Crater-stub, Mountain-stub, and etc. because then they would know where that Crater or Mountain is.--aceslead 22:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Do we have enough stubs to meet the requirements at WP:WSS/P? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There definitly are plenty of stubs, however i don't know what the general requirements for new stubs are.--aceslead 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s what I’m thinking of, let take the {{Mars-stub}} & the {{crater-stub}} in the article stub Airy (Martian crater), this stub is listed under both Category:Astrogeology stubs & Category:Martian stubs. What I am proposing is that a Subcategory be inserted into both Astrogeology stubs & Martian stubs which I propose calling Martian crater stubs. This is also the suggested format for mountains, canyons, hills, & etc. This categorizing can be easily adopted for other planet stubs like Venus-stub, Mercury-stub, etc. I’m saying this to you first because one: the stub coding isn’t something I’m all that familiar with, & two: I don’t want to screw it up, I seem to be doing that a little too much recently. In other words I have a hard time with the stub system.--aceslead 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Stub Problem

OK I have a technical problem. I changed some 20 to 30 tags for Martian craters. But the stubs haven’t moved from the Martian stubs to Craters on Mars Stubs. It’s like I never changed the stub tags. Could you figure out what I did wrong?--aceslead 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

RE: Edits to User:Kelly Martin

Hi there GW Simulations! I was actually asked the very same question by Newyorkbrad yesterday, so I'll just copy and paste my response to him; the redirect is just a bit 'o wit, really, stemming from a discussion I was having with Sean Black and Kelly Martin, among others. The discussion basically started in regards to the correct way to deal with paraphrased copyvio's and disintegrated into deciding to redirect that page to a different silly dinosaur-type things each day. The bit about MOS is apparently a failed attempt at irony, in that the manual of style discourages cross-space redirects. I hope this helps and apologies if it doesn't (feel free to follow up). Cheers! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no big deal. In fact, it was quite appropriate on your part to revert what you perceived as vandalism, as large edits to other users talk page often are. Thanks for getting in touch! Cheers hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page NEEDS to be split

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types is the largest page I've seen at Wikipedia. Is SO huge it actually started to crash my computer (I have a Pentium 3). Could someone split it up.--aceslead 00:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you attention is needed at this page(Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types) very quickly. theres bad language and threats of reverts.--aceslead 17:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change any thing and i did propose a change. Perhaps you should take a closer look?--aceslead 21:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas V

Just wanted to drop a note, thanks for the great update to the Atlas 5. What a difference!Fl295 02:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

question

am i allowed to use test5 tags in response to repeated acts of vandalism?--aceslead 05:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Delta SSBN merge

Thanks. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Angara

Howdy! I zapped the future spaceflight template you put on the Angara page. Since the first Angara launch is pretty far off, I think the template should be reserved until much closer to any prospective date, as the wording seems to suggest that it's a sort of rocket specific 'current news event' tag. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

GPS, a current spaceflight?

I can understand the tag if there is a believe that information will be rapidly changing in a short time frame, but is that the case right now with the satellite launch? It's going to be in checkout for a while; information on the new space vehicle probably won't change quickly or frequently.

Can you post some thoughts on why it should be flagged?Davandron | Talk 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my edit summary, I mentioned that it was tagged for the duration of the recent launch of the GPS 2R-M3 satellite. I simply forgot to remove the tag afterwards. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GW, this is the second time you've been prompted about use of these templates. Please talk with us, I don't think you're trying to be disruptive, but if you're making these changes without responding to requests, it might make us wonder. I'm sure you're acting in good faith, don't get me wrong, but we really need to chat about this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The edit in question was made before your original message. Your original message seemed to be mor informational than inquisitive, and therefore it seemed as if you were not expecting, or requesting a reply. I don't tend to reply to messages unless they ask a direct question or I require more information. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag from GPSDavandron | Talk 14:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Bull Air Race World Series

Hi, I have seen you editing Red Bull Air Race World Series, so this WikiProject may interest you. I am the only member at the moment so it would be great if you would sign up.--HamedogTalk|@ 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for joining us!!!--HamedogTalk|@ 13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter

Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Bull Air Race World Series/Newsletter1

Message on my talk page...

I added a response on my talk page - I just wanted to make sure that you get it.--Falconus|Talk 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BT Group

Thanks for your vigilence, but I think you are quite mistaken. If you want, you can remove your inappropriate warning and my response from my talk page (as well as this comment, of course). Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I declined semi-protection, I'd report it to WP:AN3 since both users were warned, but didn't stop. --Coredesat 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Leona Lewis

Just a note: I replied to you at Talk:Leona_Lewis#Unsourced. – SAJordan talkcontribs 06:31, 23 Dec 2006 (UTC).