This is an archive of past discussions with User:The Bushranger. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed1713:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to The Downlink·Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics·Salyut 2
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements.
Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content.
All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details.
Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal.
New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented.
Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it.
Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised.
One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{WikiProject Space}} and {{WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class.
News from Orbit
On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article.
On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles.
On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite.
17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles.
Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space ShuttleChallenger on mission STS-51-L.
Article News
It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight.
Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain.
Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.
Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited.
The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts.
Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics
There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic.
Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project.
One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative.
To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN.
This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided.
I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content.
Selected Article – Salyut 2
Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission.
The Salyut 2 article describes the station:
“
Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyutspace stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973.
”
The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month.
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.
You've done great work on military-related articles over the past year. Congratulations on getting to 50! PM800 (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
Hello, The Bushranger/Archive 5! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
Since you are sure this is notable please bring on at least one source. It's AfD otherwise. If you find a source I'd be fine with merging or not. 217.235.16.234 (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Never said it was notable, per se, just not a hoax. The only 'source' I could find was the AARSE forums, which aren't exactly a RS, although if they say it exists I believe them. A redirect to Enfield is probably needed regardless. - The BushrangerOne ping only07:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
WPTC
After reading your comments on the WPTC talkpage i was just wondering but would you say each and every European high and low pressure areas?. IMO they are exactly the same as tropical cyclones since they get named and notable systems get picked up by the media (just like TC's) and can do significant damage.Jason Rees (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Those are quite different, in that they don't even have the potential to reach Category V strength, and also the names are not widely used, being more like nicknames used by the weathercasters to sound "cute". - The BushrangerOne ping only00:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
On 8 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pratt & Whitney J48, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Pratt & Whitney J48 turbojet engine (pictured) was originally designed by Rolls-Royce, who abandoned it in favor of a different project? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
In your posting regarding Duno you say "Following 2010, Duno was released from her IndyCar ride as a result of her poor performance." When I removed this you then stated in your comments that your posting does not say that she has been released from IndyCar you said that it states/means that Duno was released from Dale Coyne Racing - the team that she competed with in the IndyCar Series last year - but that is not what your statement says. First - there is absolutely nothing that you can find in the media that states that Duno was released from Dale Coyne Racing. Second - there is absolutely nothing that you will find to support your claim that Duno was any way released from her "IndyCar" ride. Furthermore, the article you cite does in no way mention or state that Duno has either been "released from Dale Coyne Racing" or "released from her IndyCar ride." It does not state that Duno has been released from Dale Coyne Racing nor does it say that Duno has been released from her IndyCar ride. What you posted is incorrect based on your citation. Since you posted the information it is incumbent on you to find validation anywhere that supports your posting. You will not find anything that states that Duno has been released from her IndyCar ride or from Dale Coyne Racing.
In your posting "Choosing to head in a different direction this year..." - again you will find no credible source that states/verifies this. Duno also participated in the ARCA Test last year, as well as the ARCA Daytona race and also the full 2010 IndyCar season as well. There is nothing in the articles that you cite that supports your statement. According to the ARCA team release it appears that Duno has chosen to once again participate in the ARCA test and race at Daytona and that her full 2011 season plans are forthcoming.99.157.208.214 (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I found two different sources, both cited in my addition to the article, that stated she would not be returning to the IndyCar series this year. Which was the basis for my statment. For the record, I like her (as opposed to, it seems, 99.9% of other US racing fans), but I was merely reporting what I found. - The BushrangerOne ping only19:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Re
Thank you for your support at my five articles DYK. Do you know if there is a rule that prohibits similarity in articles listed for DYK? I'm curious. And BTW you forgot to sign your post at my DYK. Thanks and cheers! BineMai11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Eeep. That's what happens when it's almost 3am. As for the rule, well, there is a rule that says if you break out or merge an article, text added to an article in that way does not count. I'm not sure if there's an explict rule governing new articles with similar content between them; but as I said there, if all the articles in question are new, then it shouldn't matter. After all, there's only so much that can be said about things with similar characteristics... - The BushrangerOne ping only16:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Thanks for your review for DYK. How close would you say that this is to a GA? I am aware that the civil accidents need expansion, and the Kent and Sussex Courier and Tonbridge Free Press would seem to be likely sources for this. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem. :) Aside from the notable accidents, I'd suggest seeing if the 'Location' section could be expanded any at all, as it looks just a little on the short side compared to the rest of the article; perhaps why the location was chosen as suitable? And perhaps a bit more on WW1 service, but that might be hard to find! - The BushrangerOne ping only17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Re your GAR, I've tweaked the accidents and incidents section, and swapped the photos over. Can't expand the 1910s section any further from the sources I have, so have given MILHIST a shout in the hope that other editors will be able to. As you noted above, info on this period could be tricky to find. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador! Sadads (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Really it just requires a little bit of skill at editing Wikipedia and an ability to communicate effectively on Wikipedia. I think you more than qualify for that role, though if life is hectic, I can certainly understand that reasoning, but if things slow down, I encourage you to participate, Sadads (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
List of all County Maps from Florida DOT
BINGO! I figured there had to be a listing of County Maps ~somewhere~ and I finally ran across the right page today. (They are not always 100% accurate, but its the best reference point we have for citations.) Notice they are available in Large, Medium, and Small sizes. I have no idea what a "DGN" file is, but the others are PDFs. Gamweb (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Bushranger, The Miniman like the AT-4 that replaced it are not rockets. They operate similar to the large recoilless rifles. Unfortunately, even a few early US Army manuals and press releases referred to the AT-4 as a rocket. The texts of both weapons can explain their method of sending the projectile out of the tube. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Nike reference to nuclear space kill
Aha! I questioned the source, also, which is why I made this assertion in the Project Nike article. I copied this prose, more or less:
The United States developed direct ascent anti-satellite weapons. A United States Army Nike Zeus missile armed with a nuclear warhead destroyed an orbiting satellite in May 1963.
I have no first knowledge of either the systems or the references, but it would appear quite controversial seeing as it is not common knowledge of a nuclear strike of a satellite. I invite an investigation, but as it is, I would probably put in a "disputed comment" or note this in the articles' talk pages. I think that it is healthy to include this controversy rather than assuming the reference is plain wrong. Sources aren't wrong... they tend to be disputed if they are. :) I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there would have been some sort of notice if there'd been additional nuclear tests! But I see your point, and the ASM-135 article probably should have that excised as well. I did a Google search and can find references to the Nike-Zeus being tested in May 1963, but noting else about it being nuclear-armed. So...hm. - The BushrangerOne ping only06:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Aww, crudpuppies. That's why I haven't gone after the various by-country aircraft categories... I'll scratch my head and decide what to do, probably save those for "last" because of the templates. I might ask the folks over at MILHIST about it too. Thanks for the heads-up. - The BushrangerOne ping only04:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Much appreciated. There are people there who are much more responsible for that line's success than me. But I've had fun working with them on all the games and supplements I have.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Update: I managed to move the contents of the Cold War missiles category without damaging the other categories. I don't know if this principle will hold for other category templates, but we're okay on this one. I also haven't touched this MILHIST page but it's starting to get loaded with redlinks and inconsistencies.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you even look at the article? It has plenty of news articles about it, and plenty more in the Google News search. I have no idea where you're getting "Adventure Guide" from. Precedent is that malls don't have to be "different"; they just need sufficient secondary sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)23:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I did look at the article. The news articles are routine pieces that could be written about any strip center in Florida. The Adventure Guide was the only notable GBooks hit. As for precedent, I wasn't aware, thanks for the heads-up. Given that, I'll change to Neutral.- The BushrangerOne ping only23:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I was only going off what the source I had access to stated. Because the cited source contradicts the knowledge you have at hand, I have placed a {{citation needed}} tag on the designation of the decoy until it can be attributed to a source. -- saberwyn05:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1722:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Just adding my personal congrats, I know from experience that even being a frequent runner-up just doesn't quite do it for one sometimes, and this was well-deserved...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·The Charts·Yuri Gagarin
Project News
A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing.
A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles.
The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field.
Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list.
Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved.
A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them).
Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk·contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project.
News from orbit
Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article.
On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission.
The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January.
Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit.
A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating.
The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated.
On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space ShuttleDiscovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank.
At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February.
Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable.
Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria.
Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved.
A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle
Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article.
Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight.
There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories.
Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968.
His article describes him and his spaceflight experience:
On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky.
”
The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission.
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.
1. I'm in process now of putting all those refs into the Bio page. The individ refs are also in the list below. (it is a list style article, headed for FL). No problem to do so, I don't mind, and I can do some ref bundling for the ones where there will be lot of refs (like the 15 states with turtle). Just want to check and make sure this makes sense. Would be a shame if I put them there and someone told me to clear them out. I think they're fine, but just checking...
It's fine. The DYK rules require, as a rule of thumb, one reference per paragraph of prose, so that was the holdup. Just making sure that the statements in the prose are verifiable is the rule. And yup, I did, even though I live in 'That Other Town' compared to UF. ;) - The BushrangerOne ping only06:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
shoot. I was worried that my ass-kissing would be foiled by your chopping 'noleness. Serves me right.
But wait. Do you want me to bring the refs up or not? I'm going after it. but it's kind all or nothing as there is no single source. I'm not going to do anything ugly like 15 refs in text, but I will do a note (bundled ref) and then list them. Actually I'm all for doing it now. Probably worthwhile for FL. But just tell me if you think someone will DISlike it, please. As it's a couple hours work, minimum.TCO (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll just ref it all. I'm compiling an off line list of them all. Wiki is WAY more clunky than MS word. I'd be done by now in MS word.TCO (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The first para will take me a while. I have to do the whole bundled ref and all that. Making a list of named refs in a file offline. Thanks for the note on the rattlesnake thing. That's not even in our article, so will go get that one. Will look for anything similar also. I doubt it though. The rest was just discussion of the list.TCO (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. I got the rattlesnake ref in there, I reworded the comment on the saltwater species so as not to claim a negative, and I added a turtle bundled ref in para. I think you said you just needed one per para, but I will finish it all now. But should meet specs, now.TCO (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Hiya. This was debated on WT:AIR last...April, I think? Or was it last May? The consensus was that a lot of these categories are simply too broad to be useful as anything other than container categories for more refined, defnining-characteristic categories. There are so many "biplane", "twin engined", "low wing", "high wing" et-al categories that, it was consensus'd (if I may make up a word!) that they were useless and needed to be phased out. This was the final more-or-less agreed-upon layout hoped to be achieved once things are all said and done, as I recall. - The BushrangerOne ping only07:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I lived with an F-14 pilot. Twin engine was considered multi-engine in the Navy as well as the civilian air world. It's that you have certain controls (and procedures) involved with twin engine versus single. But the big difference was one verus more than one. Not one versus 3 or 4.TCO (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Just saw that container category. I guess you do need to make a category for twin-engine. if you care. I really don't see why so many cats anyway.TCO (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
(multiple (edit conflict)) I can't say that I agree with the "too many in this cat argument", but if consensus was established then I will accept that. I would suggest that a cat needs to be created for twin engine aircraft, which appears to be the only missing cat, as Category:Single-engine aircraft exists. Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Push-pull aircraft is separate from the number of engines, as it refers to the layout of the engines, not the number, which can be anything from two to 10 (I don't think any aircraft had more than 10 engines, but I could be wrong) I think this is deserving of discussion at WP level, particularly the creation of the cat for twins. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think 14 is the engine record, one of those crazy '60s VTOL ideas with stacked RB.108s as lift engines. I too can't see the benefit in stripping these cats. I would make "multi-engine" a meta-cat though and group the articles by exact number. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't do that much editing on Wikipedia, I'm normally working on intranet hosted wikis instead, some of which are quite a bit bigger than Wikipedia (although they don't have the user volume). 1200 entries in a cat is no problem (I've some 50k+), if what you're using is categories as a basis for automatic querying, rather than manual navigation. It's seemingly anathema on WP, but the way to manage cats at this level is through the use of tags (templates that add cats), rather than manual cat addition. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey birdman! I took photos of some seabirds today (at Daytona Beach Shores) and I don't know what species they are. My best guess is Red Plover, but I just don't know for sure. Can you take a look and see? Thanks. Shore BirdsGamweb (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
For doing what virtually no other editor on the Aircraft Project has been able to do: keep a sense of humour while in a deep philosophical discussion about article categories. Ahunt (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Well considering the bitter discussions in the past over cats, keeping a sense of humour over them is worthy of encouraging! Wear it proudly! - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. And...er...*looks it over* o.o...good luck there!
checking on co-authors for DYK
Thanks for all your DYK pushing. Just wanted to check and request that the 3 coauthors be added to the state reptile DYK (from 21st, in Queue 5). Not trying to pack the court, but am very conscious of slighting someone who has given us help. Hadn't seen the names go up before it went in queue.TCO (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
What's the deal with all the sucky editors out here? So many BENT on deleting and debasing other's work? Yeah, I see what good it does nominating my hard work for DYK, that won't be happening any longer. - Nconwaymicelli01:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. We're not "bent on deleting and debasing"; the fact is that the article was nominated late, and while Rule D9 does allow for that, when a week after nomination nothing had been heard from the submitter about the need for improvements, the article was removed from the nominations list per a discussion on wait times that had taken place at WT:DYK. I see you have been improving the article, and it looks good, but there are still some unreferenced paragraphs in it; even now it isn't ready for DYK. I would suggest, though, that once those paragraphs are cited, you submit it for Good Article status. - The BushrangerOne ping only23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Apology accepted but you are just trying to sooth my wound! Still largely not getting what you are saying Bushranger, don't mean to beat a dead horse but I went through that article and counted 79 paragraphs, 7 don't have a reference (and that is data I pulled from another Wiki page that unfortunately didn't have any). Another 8 paragraphs have citation on part of the paragraph. Yet when I look at many other pages currently on DYK I am largely seeing same thing and in some cases some articles have way fewer references? I don't add a citation on each sentence? Also, some of the paragraphs get quite lengthy and I am only adding the citation at the very end. Should I be adding more citations within each paragraph (but will in many cases be to same reference)? - Sorry for losing my temper and taking it out on you. Nconwaymicelli01:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.35.239 (talk)
No worries. I've been there and done that myself on occasion. :) The DYK rules call for a rule-of-thumb of one inline citation per paragraph; if articles are slipping through that have completely unreferenced paragraphs, that's worrying. Not having a citation on each sentence is OK; we don't want to encourage citation overkill, after all! As long as there's one citation in each paragraph, that's good; an additional citation if there's a particulary noteworthy/controversial fact that needs verifying wouldn't be amiss. Having citation on part of the paragraph is OK, it's the 7 that don't have a ref that would be the issue. Hope this helps! - The BushrangerOne ping only20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
JL-9
Thanks Bushranger for correcting the error. Just overlooked it. A photograph taken in January 2011 exists of a JL-9 with a tailhook. Because of copyright not able to produce it in the original article. AircraftZurf (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:
I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm flattered that you'd think I might be a good admin. :) To be completely honest, though, I don't think I'd be able to cope well with the associated stress that comes with adminship, alas - I've seen some of the shenanigans they have to deal with; anybody who becomes one certainly has my respect and appreciation - and sympathies! Perhaps at some point in the future, though, when my RL life is a bit less stressful, I might think about it more. Thanks! - The BushrangerOne ping only07:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Re the above category, I wanted to let you know that I've started a full CFD discussion here. I wanted to notify you because I didn't copy the comments made at CFD speedy, so you may want to post a new comment in the new discussion. I explained my rationale in a bit more detail. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Could I ask you a favor? The hotel I work in just became a Holiday Inn Express and I was interested in expanding the current Wikipedia article. After poking around Google News Archive, I found some newspaper clippings that would be good sources, but ((((horror)))) I actually discovered a mistake on the IHG website (my new corporate masters) where its claimed that Holiday Inn Express was launched in 1991. I discovered at least 3 newspaper articles where Holiday Inn Express hotels were opened in 1990 (the articles themselves were written in 1990). I added the articles as citations (you can read them in the References header, where they are links). I realized I now have a conflict of interest (not wanting to upset my corporate masters). Could you look over the links and see if you could expand the article for me? Would really appreciate it. I will continue to look for articles in Google News Archives and link them in. Gamweb (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey Ranger, I saw you were moving things around to the prep areas--can you move the entry for Jeanne Galzy? It's sort of laying around there, taking up space with an open-ended discussion on a by-now unrelated point, though all editors have agreed on a hook (ALT5). Also, your TV-guided missile, that's been good to go for a while too, in case you hadn't seen it. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I assume you're referring to the JB-4 article? That actually ran in the last cycle. :) I'll handle Galzy next time if it doesn't get used before then - somebody beat me to working on prep 4! - The BushrangerOne ping only01:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't seen that it was moved and frontpaged already. Hey, I am sure you thought I was being overly picky about that reference, but you know as well as anyone that people are keeping a sharp eye on things at DYK. Moreover, I wasn't very involved at DYK until the new requirement, and I'd hate to screw things up. Thanks for all your hard work there, Drmies (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
No worries! Like you said, better to be too picky than not picky enough. :) ANd thanks for the catch on the cats - one was my mistake, the other (space law) snuck in through The Downlink! - The BushrangerOne ping only01:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I feel compelled to award you this barnstar. While developing the Tops In Blue article, I've got to both WP:WikiProject Military History and WP:DYK with questions or requests and I didn't get the results I had hoped for until you came along to save the day. Thanks so much for advocating on my behalf in both these projects! v/r - TP02:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You're the second person to suggest that this week! o.o I'm flattered, but I'm not sure I have the proper personality type to deal with the stuff admins have to go through, to be honest - I get stressed out pretty easily sometimes. But maybe once RL gets a bit less stressful (long story) I'll give it another thought. Thanks though! :) - The BushrangerOne ping only08:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, you don't have to engage in the 'normal' admin stuff – you're allowed to only use your tools at DYK. :-) Look how often I use mine! Still, if that's your decision, so be it. Just know that my offer won't expire, feel free to ask for a nom anytime. Ed[talk][majestic titan]08:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What with the Signpost just running an article about a lack of admins, it seems a shame for you to not take up the tools. If you're worried about stressful conflict, just use them for relatively non-controversial administrative tasks, such as making DYK tick over. At the point where everyone assumes you're an admin, it's disruptive to the project to actively thwart their expectations by refusing the mop. As with Ed above, I would be happy to nominate or co-nominate you; all it takes is for you to say that you'll (reluctantly, if necessary) go to to RfA with us. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Kicking and screaming? :P I'll probably accept the mop (if only to turn it into a broom - inside joke there with one of my f(r)iends), so if y'all want to RfA me in the morning, well, why not? :) - The BushrangerOne ping only05:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Woot! Ed, if you've done one of these before, I'll leave the nomination to you, but if you feel it will be helpful please feel free to append my name as co-nominator. If I see you haven't done it when I come on again in about 14 hours, I'll do it myself. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The ed17 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact The ed17 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Bushranger. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
And there it is. I know you've been around the block and know what's up at RfA, but reminders can't hurt. ;-) Do not lose your cool, no matter what people say. My email is always open for venting. Try not to respond to many opposers. Be sure to brush up on the relevant policy (or -ies) before answering a question. Good luck! Ed[talk][majestic titan]07:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, that was my bad there. I meant to "bow out gracefully" one post before I did, and clearly I made one post more than I should have given the WikiStress level (which has now dropped significantly, just in time to go "oops"...). - The BushrangerOne ping only23:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
What's this crap about Joe Baugher not being a RS? Just because he's a hobbyist does not make him unreliable. The sheer quantity of info presented would indicate that he takes the subject seriously and would therefore be reliable enough to use. This is backed up by his list of over 4,200 references. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
He's already proved he's classless by bringing it up at your RFA as his major objection point. Sad. That's an issue better mentioned there in passing, and dealt with in detail elsewhere. But that seems par for the course for RFAs, and one reason I don't generally participate in them. I hope this doesn't torpedo the nom (I've seen minor issues hyped to the point that they have done so in the past), as we could certainly use another admin in WPAIR, even jsut for maintence issues such as page moves. Good luck. - BilCat (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
That'd be a she, and Sandy is one of the delegates at WP:FAC. Let's not go overboard and attack her – that's not going to help anything, least of which Bushranger's RfA. She has a major concern, and whether it is legitimate or not (in our eyes), we need to try to address it. I think RS/N is the next step, so that neutral editors can assess the site. Otherwise we will continue to rehash the same points. Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
My problem is that it's not an issue unique to BR, as the further discussions have proven. It's still classless behavior, whether or not it is the norm for an RFC. Again, that's a major reason why I don't participate. As to her being an FAC delegate, perhaps that should be dealt with too. - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
But you are right that I shouldn't have called her "classless" directly any more than she should be calling editors who use Baugher "lazy" - I'm sure you've already warned her for that as a good admin, right? - BilCat (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Nope, because I respect her opinion, even if I don't fully agree with how she is presenting it. Plus, in the grand scheme of things, constructing a strawman argument to call it "lazy" isn't a PA against a specific person and isn't the worst we have ever seen or faced. Ed[talk][majestic titan]04:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it was an attack against the project as a whole, and made on nearly venuue in which she raised this issue, and usually several times at each venue. We don't seem to have the term "Wikiproject attack", and attacking a whole project without bothering to investigate the matter more fully is not right. She made baseless assumptions, at someone's RFA no less, and that is what I am criticing, not merely her opinion. But time to move on. BR, I wish you the best in you RFA. - BilCat (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Your RfA
Just wanted to say that I'm sorry if my post at RSN results in your not gaining the tools at this time. In trying to get clarification for the use of JB as a source for aircraft histories, it was not my intention to further derail your RfA, although IMHO that had already been derailed by the extensive off-topic conversation there. Currently, you're on 84%, which is a pass, but it seems a pity that the opposes will be greater than they might otherwise have been. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Personally I would like to see Wikipedia mature as a project to the point where RfA doesn't include pointed character assassination. - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Concur. I've seen a number of good editors leave the project because of unjustifiable occurances at their RFAs. It's sad that such bad behavior is permitted in the name of "opinions", especially in what was an off-topic issue not unique to you in anyway. - BilCat (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree the conduct there by one or two editors has been nasty, mean-spirited and vitriolic. The nastiness at RfA is just one reason why I declined an invitation to be put though it previously. It seems to me ironic that the process to get into my nation's military, where I had a lot of far more potent "tools" in my hands, was far less rigorous and certainly less nasty than that of RfA on Wikipedia. Add to that anything that an admin could do here can be undone, not so the work I was doing for two decades and I don't see the need for all the rough treatment. - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Picture of iranian fighter
Hi,
My name is Darios I am User of Czech wiki [[4]] . I wrote a article about Saeqeh fighter [[5]] . I would like to add some picture of this aircraft. Is it possible to add this one?[[6]]
Please contact me here [[7]]
Thank you for your help.--Darios (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Template:Radioplane aircraft
BR, I've created a navbox at Template:Radioplane aircraft, and intend to sart an article on the company in time. Since you've done a lot of work on the missile and drone navboxes, I thought you night be more familar with Radioplane's products than I,a nd could help to expand the navbox to cover the myraid designations used. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
And thank you. I know you've had other matters commanding your attention, so I'm not expecting immediate help. I had noticed there wasn't a comapny article or a navbox, and the navbox was the easiest thing to create in a short time. Thankfully, we've know deadlines for articles and templates. - BilCat (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Over 100 articles that you created or expanded have been featured on the "Did you know..." section of the main page. Keep up the good work! 28bytes (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for all your work on NASCAR related articles. Since then I would like you to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR. If you would like to please join here, and if you would like to recieve a production of the newsletter, please add your name here. You may also like to display {{User WP NASCAR}}. By the way, congrats on the DYKs. Nascar199604:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Your R3 sensor needs recalibration. Did you check what linked to the page? How about the talk page for the user that did the erroneous page move? The redirect will need deleting so that Dough4872 can move the page back, but it won't be an R3. I'm going to let him undo his mess because there are a dozen other related page moves, redirects and article edits. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I did indeed check what linked to the page, and fixed the links that were redirects to the page before deleting it, bar the Wikipedia 1.0 team pages, which I assumed a bot or somebody involved in the project should get. I'll make a note to always check the user talk page first from now on; apologies, and thanks for the note. :) - The BushrangerOne ping only08:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
How can a bot fix something if there's no redirect for it to follow? One of the purposes of redirects is to prevent such breakage. That said, I now see that you're a newly minted admin. I hate it when others jump on something a new admin has done and here I've gone and done it myself! Please accept my apologies for not using the utmost kindness. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, even if you had changed the editorial links, this is a redirect that shouldn't have been deleted because it's not a "Recently-created, implausible redirect" per R3. "Recently created" in this case refers to when the original page was created, not the redirect. There could be many incoming links on the web that we're not aware of. Also, it's not implausible. I've edited this article and it's very likely that I would try to search for it using the old name. Without the redirect, I would have no way to find where it went unless I remembered the exact punctuation to look it up in the page move log. In this case of course, I happened to have it on my watchlist. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I gave this user a warning on not using his account for spamming purposes. Unless his behavior has continued after I gave this warning, could you consider unblocking him to give him a chance at contributing constructively? I know that sometimes newcomers do not understand the policies that guide Wikipedia, and that it can be hard to adjust at first. Of course, if his behavior has continued, keep the block in place, but perhaps consider topic banning him before an outright block (Remember WP:DBN). Regards,-- NovusOrator11:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I took a look at his contribs before banning him - inserting a full paragraph about "buy NFL Jerseys from [addresss]" into multiple articles on a range of topics sounds fairly blatant. However, given everything (and now fully caffinated), I decided to shorten the block to expire this afternoon, and we'll see what happens. :) - The BushrangerOne ping only15:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you please have a look at these articles. I have tagged them both for WP:CSD, but I see that you have deleted at least one of them before. It seems that the creator, User talk:Eyxtsai has removed the CSD tags him or herself without complying with the policy relating to article creators removing these tags and using "hang-on" tags instead several times and has vandalized your user page as well. Looking at their Special:Contributions/Eyxtsai it seems this is hoax/vandalism-only account and I would ask you to consider deleting both these articles and blocking them. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, as its late in the day I didn't want this to get lost in the mist, so to speak. As there is some degree of oppose comments and some neutral also, I am neutral ish myself, would you make a comment there to accept recall in some form, just as a good faith declaration? Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll just offer my congratulations too. Although I didn't support, I have no doubt you'll make a fine admin and hopefully won't get too stressed! Good luck for the future WormTT09:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Well done Bushranger it will be nice to have another admin share the work on the aircraft project and being in a slightly different time zone will be a great help to the project. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, yeah – take HJ's thought and do it (I'm assuming you use vector, there are different pages for monobook etc.). Some of the tools, like the AfD closing script, are invaluable to admins. :-) I've got that and a DRV closing script if you'd like to use them. Ed[talk][majestic titan]16:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
In order, they make credit-giving easier (if the DYK bot dies), lets you see the proze size of an article, makes closing AfDs easier, and makes closing DRVs easier. Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually...looking it over more thoroughly, copy policy or not it appears to need to be deleted anyway - as the only change was replacing "east" with "west". And therefore it's not only G12 based on the copy policy, but A10... - The BushrangerOne ping only00:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have a concern about the redirects I marked to speedily delete. I used a deletion rationale I believed to be accurate because of the fact that no articles link to it. Would the standard {{db}} have been the most appropriate template to apply or another? Also, could you delete the lowercase versions, since they are not correct? I noticed you just became an administrator yesterday, so it would be a big help. Readopedia (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The general consensus is that redirects are cheap, and there's no harm in leaving them. The lowercase versions actually help - if somebody comes across one on the Web, or types it in in lowercase, it'll redirect them to the page at the correct title. :) (Don't worry if some are "double redirects" at the moment, a bot fixes those.) As a rule, unless it's a wildly implausible term, it's best to leave a redirect in place. - The BushrangerOne ping only05:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Removal of the IARP article
Dear senior editor, the article on the International Aging Research Portfolio (IARP) was removed on G21 copyright violation. It was submitted by the technical director of the project, Konstantin Romantsov. He is new to Wikipedia and does not know how to deal with the issue. Neither do I, because Wiki changed a lot since my last edit a few years ago.
The IARP system is open-access and non-profit, there is never any advertising. Any part of it can be taken without a license. It was built by volunteers to help advance aging research and specifically cancer and Alzheimers. The resource is very much like PubMed.Org, but it is independent and not funded by any government.
Over 50 people contributed to the project, but it is not a legal entity and there is no owner. A wiki entry is important, because it will be easier for scientists to find it.
Can you please let us know how to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnamo (talk • contribs) 03:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear The Bushranger, if you check the article, only a part of it was taken from About of the website, most of it was original. Can you bring it back and Konstantin will remove the sections from About and replace them with 100% original content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.231.129 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed asSelected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate it on the talk pages.
Images
Below is the NASCAR Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month.
It is exclusive to the Newsletter. REMEMBER, YOU CAN VOTE.
NASCAR fans hoist three fingers into the air during the third lap of the 53rd running of the Daytona 500 on Sunday to honor the late Dale Earnhardt, who was killed in a crash there 10 years ago while driving the No. 3 Goodwrench Chevrolet.
The 2010 Price Chopper 400 was a NASCARSprint Cup Seriesstock car race that was held on October 3, 2010 at Kansas Speedway in Kansas City, Kansas. The 300 lap race was the twenty-ninth in the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. The race was also the third event in the ten round Chase for the Sprint Cup competititon , which would concluded the 2010 season. Greg Biffle, of the Roush Fenway Racing team, won the race, with Jimmie Johnson finishing second and Kevin Harvick third. Pole position driver Kasey Kahne maintained his lead on the first lap to begin the race, as Jeff Gordon, who started in the third position on the grid, remained behind him. Twenty-three laps later Jeff Gordon became the leader of the race. After the final pit stops, Paul Menard became the leader of the race, but with less than fifty laps remaining, Biffle passed him. He maintained the first position to lead a total of sixty laps, and to win his second race of the season. There were five cautions and twenty lead changes among twelve different drivers throughout the course of the race. It was Greg Biffle's second win in the 2010 season, and the sixteenth of his career. The result moved Biffle up to eighth in the Drivers' Championship, eighty-five points behind Jimmie Johnson and sixteen ahead of Jeff Burton. Chevrolet maintained its lead in the Manufacturers' Championship, thirty-seven ahead of Toyota and seventy-seven ahead of Ford, with seven races remaining in the season. A total of 100,000 people attended the race, while 5.25 million watched it on television.
(More...)
Thanks for deleting all my old userspace drafts. I have been meaning to tag them for a while but never got around to it till today. Congrats of the adminship, too. Looks like you're already making good use of the mop! --E♴ (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Re: Your determination here, The administrator deciding the same for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Union County, Ohio decided differently. I would argue these categories are not the type we should have around empty. For one, these categories are not intended to become empty on occasion. I guess the normal use for this category would be that someone finds an article related to the US virgin islands and decides that it doesn't have enough pictures, so tags it. At some point, all articles in that location will have enough pictures so a category like this becomes unnecessary (and empty). Might it get new members in the future? Yes, but it can be recreated or restored if that happens. I would really view this as a G6 deletion once a category like this becomes empty. Perhaps you could reconsider? 69.59.200.77 (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd contend that there is a difference between a county-level pics needed category, and a state/territory-level pics-needed category. There are other categories of this type in existiance that already have the the "maintience category - may be empty, please do not delete" tag; in addition, the imageneeded template automatically add pages to the "photos needed in VI" category if checked. Deleting the category would, therefore, break the template. - The BushrangerOne ping only19:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
By "break the template" do you mean it would simply add the page to a redlinked category? I don't think that would be "breaking" it, but rather just showing that it needs to be re-created or restored, a fairly simple task. I think I'm more of an eventualist thinking that, assuming we had every VI article possible and they were all featured status, this category would essentially be useless and would never be populated (except perhaps for an article about a recent event in the VI) so I think it would definitely qualify for G6/C1 then. Now that's obviously not the case yet, but I think it is hard to place a subjective standard like that on determining when to delete it, and the regular 4 day C1 standard should probably apply. This could very well go months, or even years, without being populated. Finally, as for "there are similar categories with the "do not delete as empty" template", I don't doubt that is the case. However, I will also contend that the empty category template being placed is not something patrolled by many users and someone could probably add that to many "borderline" categories such as these and nobody would think twice, whether that should actually be the case or not. 69.59.200.77 (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I can understand your point, and agree that there is a "borderline". IMHO this straddles it though - if it's going to be deleted, it might be best to have a discussion at WP:CFD about the matter? - The BushrangerOne ping only19:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Being the first Arabic-lanugage sports website does not establish notability, nor does an Alexa rating; the page as it was was also nothing more than a promotional page for the site. However I will restore the page to your userspace for it to be worked on and improved. :) - The BushrangerOne ping only23:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Will do! Funny that, I was just about to ask you to take another look at JB-4, since I've added some information you mentioned in its B-class review and wondered if it could stand a bump up. - The BushrangerOne ping only23:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Danke
Thanks so much for helping out with that page protection. It's been a source of endless annoyance (although it did serve as a good way to track the editors who would go on to vandalize disney articles.) Danke!--Yaksar(let's chat)04:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping on that IP editor so quickly - they're removing all the warnings from their talk page, tho. This is generally the case with them every time they get blocked - FYI... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Felix
His demand for an "apology" for an SPI that certainly looked reasonable to file, is not only another nail in his coffin, it's also kind of familiar. There have been other editors that demanded some sort of retribution against those who filed SPI's that turned out "negative". That, of course, isn't done. I'm not saying he's anyone else's sock. Just that it's a somewhat-too-familiar ploy used by indefees sometimes. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I did notice that. I don't see the need for anybody to apologise for good-faith actions taken on the basis of the evidence, particulary since I already said, quite honestly too, that I'm happy the CU turned up negative. - The BushrangerOne ping only22:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of article
You recently deleted American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry because it was tagged with {{db-spam}}. The problem is, this was not a new page. It was an existing page on a notable organization that had recently had some spammy content added to it. I feel the more reasonalble thing to do would be to restore it, and revert to a pre-spam revision. This one should suffice. Would you consider undeleting please? --SelketTalk23:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.
Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, you advanced a position at the AfD after relisting it. As a general rule of thumb, after admins relist discussions, they do not participate in them to avoid accusations of impropriety. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 29 for instance and Ron Ritzman's comment at 23:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC). Cunard (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah. I was unaware of that, I'll certainly keep that in mind from now on, and I'll strike my !vote as soon as I get done posting this. As for the relisting, I gave serious thought to just out-and-out closing it on the spot, but thought that allowing it to run through another week and collect more delete !votes might cut down on the protests from the vocal !keep lobby. Now I realise that was the wrong move, of course...ah well. Sorry about that, and I'll try to be a bit bolder in the future. - The BushrangerOne ping only09:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I notice you're a newly minted admin so making mistakes is typical. I agree that you should have closed instead of relisted the AfD (your vote looked like a closing statement). The SPAs will never be satisfied when their precious article is deleted in one week's time. A word of warning: Statements like "allowing it to run through another week and collect more delete !votes ..." may get you into trouble at DRV. Though you have pure intentions of establishing a firmer consensus, this statement implies that you've had a strong bias prior to relisting the discussion and relisted it in the hopes of increasing the chances of getting the result you want. This is obviously not the case since the consensus was to delete prior to the relist. However, if you make such a statement in a future AfD, some editors will use it at Wikipedia:Deletion review to argue for overturning the close. Just a little friendly advice from someone who has observed DRV for a while. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. I make a point to learn as much as I can from as many people as I can, so that at least when I make future mistakes they'll be new ones! - The BushrangerOne ping only22:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
(2) Whether, such grounds has been established as valid grounds to deleted such of an Article Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math as per Wikipedia's prevailing deletion policy?
To address these issues, let us look on the basis of which such deletion was taken effect. Accordingly, concerned deletion debate concluded the grounds as, (i) Non notable pilgrimage site (ii) have no independent reliable sources to comply with the policy on inclusion (iii) whether there was an independent article or a book written about the subject there could be a reason (iv) No third-party WP:RS to assert its notability (v) This particular Matha is not particularly notable (vi) whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (vii) verifiability. Also see reviewers quotes below.
However, if Wikipedia's prevailing deletion policy is considered and the validity of the concerned deletion grounds need to be established, then reasonably it will rather be found that the decision in deleting the Article Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math was improper and invalid. They have not considered the following:-
He further said, "I guess if there was an independent article or a book written about the subject there could be a reason, or a possible reason to keep it."
User:Redtigerxyz said, "Searched the internet. Found no third-party WP:RS to assert its notability. The references in the article are not really RS. 1 mentions the temple in passing reference, the other calls it a "scared" place.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)"
The deletion was prejudiced and biased as well. A bonafide article such as Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math has been deleted by the inefficient observation of some biased administration that ultimately injuring Wikipedia.
Thanks for deleting my old userspace drafts! I think there may be others I've forgotten about but I'll find them eventually :) --E♴ (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Shucks, thank you. I'm glad that was entertaining to someone. I worry misquoting might later come around to bite me in the backside on this one, so it's good it had at least that benefit! - Vianello (Talk) 02:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Rs2010 jfp/Revere Security
Hi there, thanks for deleting the page. However I still see the page showing up in google search, is there anything that can be done to stop/prevent this ?? I was working on this page as a draft and the page was nominated for speedy delete and ever since then has been showing up in google search and it wont go away. Thanks in advance Rs2010 jfp (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I notice that on closing the AFD on Qbone you've redirected it to Pokémon: please note that it's already been redirected there twice before and twice reverted, which is why I took it to AFD. Thanks, Shire Reeve (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I only see one revert, but it's a fair point. My reasoning for redirecting was that it's a reasonable enough search term and long-established redirect; maybe semi-protecting might keep well-meaning IPs and new editors from doing it again? - The BushrangerOne ping only08:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
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.
I finished up the article and moved it into article space. I'm going to be pretty busy for the next month or so, so I'm going to let it sit for a while before it goes to A-class and FLC. Thanks for helping out with it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Bushranger. I'm about finished up with my class (I wrapped up my research paper earlier today) and am ready to get back into the fray. I just put the list up for ACR - you're more than welcome to jump in as a co-nom if you like. Oh, and nice work in the contest last month. Parsecboy (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You know what? I just realized SMS Markgraf was promoted to A-class in February, but I forgot to put it in for the contest. That would have put my five points ahead instead of the other way around. Oh well, guess that should teach me to pay attention :) Parsecboy (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to mention, I added a section on my Userpage where you can post your apology for accusing me of socking (here: User:Felixhonecker). No hurry but if you could get that up by end-of-week that would be great. Thanks! Felixhonecker (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but since the action was taken in good faith based on the evidence, I don't believe an apology is needed. As alreadly mentioned on your talk page, I'm quite happy I was proved wrong. - The BushrangerOne ping only19:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way and I obviously have no choice but to accept your refusal to provide a short, 7 or 8 word apology for inaccurately denouncing me in public as a sock and creating for me considerable time and heartache in lobbying for my defense. I will leave the section on my Userpage for the time being in case you have a change of heart. Thank you for your prompt reply. Felixhonecker (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I pointed out that out to Felix also, and he says he's intending to complain to ANI because I keep teling him stuff that he doesn't want to hear. If an admin tells me to back off, I will. I suspect his career here is going to be short, but that's show biz. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Intelligence
I've noticed your work in Intelligence an would like to ask you if you would like to join the WikiProject Intelligence. If you would or would not like to join, please comment on my talk page. Thanks. Gabesta449edits♦chat02:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Why did you delete the page Oobi at Work? It is not vandalism or any other type of vandalism-related things. The videos are real videos on YouTube, and I have watched them. The information was all found on Oobi at Work Wiki (a site created by the creator of the Oobi at Work videos), and the episodes, characters, plots, and other information sources on the article were all from that site. I even stated in my first edit summary that the page could be flagged for cleanup, because it was the first article I started on my own. I am sorry about the infobox template if it is wrong...I have no experience editing in "Source" mode all the time, considering I work on Wikia more than Wikipedia. Please tell me about any questions you have about the article's quality standards if you need to. --Weemer (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The concern about the page is that the subject is likely not notable, and the specific result that led to it being deleted under the CSD criterion is that the page made no credible assertion of their being notable. I do agree that it was a borderline case for CSD, however the article merely stated that "these exist, based on X, and are on YouTube". WP:ITEXISTS is insufficient rationaile for a Wikipedia page on a subject; other wikis (or, for that matter, Wikipedia itself) are not reliable sources, and information provided by the subject of a page or its creator is a primary source and thus does not establish notability. Now, as I said, this was a borderline A7 case; if you still believe, considering the above guidelines, that the videos deserve a page, I can undelete the article and allow it to go through the full AfD process to determine if it should be kept. - The BushrangerOne ping only23:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I do believe that the video series deserves a page, even considering the guidelines you typed. I think an article should be created about the videos because, as stated by the series' creator Oobiatwork, that the series will continue on until Autumn 2011, meaning that the series may become a large event in YouTube videos. Please undelete the page, --Weemer (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
BR: you can note that the article has completed AFD and has been deleted. We didn't deal with List of Oobi at Work videos, but since the main article was "non-notable" and this one has no refs I have nominated it for CSD under A7. Perhaps you can have a look and if you are satisfied then delete it to close this subject? - Ahunt (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
On what do you base your comment that "The source does not appear to be reliable. " in the justification for re-inserting the dubious tag? DaveApter (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact that it's a "the CIA killed somebody to shut them up" stated as fact, sourced to a online book. Now, the book was published, but by Trine Day, whose website states TrineDay is a small publishing house that arose as a response to the consistent refusal of the corporate press to publish many interesting, well-researched and well-written books with but one key “defect”: a challenge to official history that would tend to rock the boat of America’s corporate “culture.[8]. Other TrineDay-published books include America’s Secret Establishment and The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America - this is hardly what one would call a well-established, reputable publishing house, rather one on the WP:FRINGE. - The BushrangerOne ping only22:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Ordinarially, it would be a "you're edit warring - take it to the talk page and sort it out" to both parties, yes. But this wasn't a content dispute - it was vandalism on the IP's part, and reverting of vandalism on 1996's part. WP:3RR explicitly excludes that: Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking is not a violation - The BushrangerOne ping only22:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, it wasn't. Blanking large parts of the page because "it's already there in the lede", and doing it repeatedly despite being asked to stop and even talking about it on the talk page, is vandalism. There was no "content" being disputed, no facts being changed - two entire paragraphs were being excised and restored. - The BushrangerOne ping only22:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I recognise you are new to the mop, but do suggest you read all facts surrounding such tete a tetes and in particular check out edit histories of both parties. You would have noticed the following warning an admin of many year's standing placed on Nascar's page:
Nascar, you need to be a lot more careful. You can't just keep undoing edits if you disagree with someone. It's called edit warring. There's a 3 revert rule that you must adhere to. The only possible exception is if it's clear vandalism. In no way does editing over a content dispute justify it. Manual of Style is no reason. A one paragraph lead vs 2-3 is no reason. Also, calling someone a vandal is something that you need to be VERY careful about. Manual of Style or other content issues/disputes does not equal vandalism. I hope you are a lot more careful. I haven't known you to act like you've been lately. Is everything okay? Royalbroil03:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)"
You would also see that Nascar has been very problematic in his short time here, demonstrating ownership, removing warnings from his talk page, removing tags, deliberately uploading copyrighted images etc. He seems to have a problem, so perhaps he won't be editing for long anyway. I have been an admin for five years, and I guess I have mellowed. A few year's back I may have blocked both of them for disruption, but not one, or the other. You're new, and keen which is a plus for wiki. I hope you see this as friendly advice. Moriori (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I went by the "I know it when I see it" philosophy - had I come across somebody making those edits (the blanking) myself, then I would have assumed it vandalism and assumed that 3RR didn't apply per the vandalism exemption. But you do have a point - and it is borderline now that I've looked at it more. I'll try to be more careful in the future, and thanks for the note. :) - The BushrangerOne ping only23:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
After noticing this commnent, I probably will be leaving. It seems like my time here was completely wortheless, and was just a waste of time. I plan be going out quietly, until I am gone completely, unless something persuades me to stay. I have always felt like what I did was not even needed. --Nascar199601:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Per the above they have; since I have been problematic, I assume I'm not edit worthy. With this coming here, and just small frustrating things in real life, I am really frustraded. --Nascar199602:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Since I want to stay here, can someone help me. During my first hundred edits, I didn't know of the policy; however, now I do and I still removed the edit warnings and added copyrighted photos. I don't want to be problematic at all, and I wasn't planning to be. Demonstrating ownership is completely my fault. I want the articles to stay similar because I know that it was pretty good (as in I was trying to keep the article's class up). Such as on the 2011 Daytona 500 article, the changes didn't make any sense in my opinion. --Nascar199614:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Gabe Lewis
Thanks for your help with the Gabe Lewis-O'Connor copyvio. The newbie author has now moved it to Gabe Lewis (Facebook), whose content was properly reverted as non-notable, but now redirects to Gabe Lewis (The Office) with which it has nothing to do. Can this be deleted as r3, a7, g12, or any combination thereof? I've left a message on the editor's talk page. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I moved the original one (the one moved to Gabe Lewis (Facebook)) back to Gabe Lewis. This one I think can just be R3'd - Gabe Lewis (The Office) actually might not be too implausible, but I don't think it's plausible enough to keep - if it was somebody would have made it before without the disambiguation. ;) As for moving the article to that location - not sure. You'd think there'd be a notable RL Gabe Lewis somewhere out there, it's not exactly a pair of uncommon names? - The BushrangerOne ping only23:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The JW ones, you mean? I thought the general rule-of-thumb for indefs was to disable it so that innocent users swapping to the IPs later wouldn't get caught by it? - The BushrangerOne ping only03:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Linked to by *6 other wikipedia articles and noted as more musically relevant by allmusic than other ESL record bands such as sofa surfer, desmond williams. So you really should really have clicked the allmusic link cause that pretty much says it all...
Hey - I don't know what userifying is, but I edited the page where you placed it and I think I proved that because they 'released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (ESL RECORDS)' qualifies as notable. Can the page be restored now? -Ferociouslettuce (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Userfying is putting the page into your userspace for draftboard work. I'd say they're pretty borderline, but I suppose it can be restored - I can't guarantee somebody else won't dispute notability, though. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm back! Please see the first item on my talk page. As I suspected, this was a misguided but good faith effort by a new editor to move his new article Gabe Lewis (The Office) over an existing redirect at Gabe Lewis. I actually see no reason not to move it per WP:PRECISION, until some other notable Gabe Lewis comes along. Do you have any objection to a move? If so, I'll show him how to open a WP:RM. Otherwise, I'll just tell him to request an uncontested move in the future. Thanks. Station1 (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
(2) Whether, such grounds has been established as valid grounds to deleted such of an Article Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math as per Wikipedia's prevailing deletion policy?
To address these issues, let us look on the basis of which such deletion was taken effect. Accordingly, concerned deletion debate concluded the grounds as, (i) Non notable pilgrimage site (ii) have no independent reliable sources to comply with the policy on inclusion (iii) whether there was an independent article or a book written about the subject there could be a reason (iv) No third-party WP:RS to assert its notability (v) This particular Matha is not particularly notable (vi) whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (vii) verifiability. Also see reviewers quotes below.
However, if Wikipedia's prevailing deletion policy is considered and the validity of the concerned deletion grounds need to be established, then reasonably it will rather be found that the decision in deleting the Article Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math was improper and invalid. They have not considered the following:-
He further said, "I guess if there was an independent article or a book written about the subject there could be a reason, or a possible reason to keep it."
User:Redtigerxyz said, "Searched the internet. Found no third-party WP:RS to assert its notability. The references in the article are not really RS. 1 mentions the temple in passing reference, the other calls it a "scared" place.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)"
The deletion was prejudiced and biased as well. A bonafide article such as Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math has been deleted by the inefficient observation of some biased administration that ultimately injuring Wikipedia.
Leaving aside the personal accusations of bias and prejudice, I have looked at the impressive list of sources, and found that some of them do not mention the subject, others barely mention it, others are not reliable or not independent or both. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
We are the Tak Sun Secondary School. We recently submitted an article titled "Tak Sun Secondary School", but was subsequently deleted. Would it be possible to un-delete it so that our school info can be shared with others via Wikipedia. Thanks a lot.Tssswebmaster (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
As noted on your talk page, the information was copyrighted. Even if you are the original writer, the copyright still prohibits its use on Wikipedia unless it is released through the OTRS system. - The BushrangerOne ping only20:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Merger Proposal WikiProject Intelligence with WikiProject Espionage
I have been in discussion with the WikiProject Council over concerns of WikiProject Espionage, WikiProject Intelligence and WikiProject Military Intelligence. I have suggested that WikiProject Military Intelligence will stay with the WikiProject Military History since Military History as a WikiProject is well established by itself.
My proposal is WikiProject Espionage and WikiProject Intelligence to be merged as one WikiProject, keeping the WikiProject Espionage name and userbox. I've suggested that WikiProject Intelligence could possibly help fill holes with WikiProject Espionage. Unfortunately, the founder of WikiProject Espionage has not been actively contributing since May 5, 2010. Therefore I've suggested if this "merger" does go ahead that there should be some "structure" of members such as "Co-ordinators" then the more users who join can become normal users or anything else built from scratch. You can see my discussion with the WikiProject Council by going to the talkpage on their main page. Feedback would be appreciated there to keep all of the discussion at one place. Once again feedback would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The Bushranger - I'm new to the WP:MILHIST and have been focusing on referencing the BLPs. I stumbled on this one and I am not sure if it should go to AfD. The only thing that I am not sure about is the award. I'm not sure what level the Meritorious Service Cross ranks in the Canadian military. The article was created in 2005 and the earliest version of the article, I feel, would have been CSDd. He had a previous VFD (?) that has been migrated to the AfD listed here. What do you think, nominate again?--v/r - TP15:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as being a member of WikiProject Rocketry. In order to establish how many members are still actively editing within the project, if you still consider yourself to be an active member of WikiProject rocketry, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Members and move your name from the list of inactive members at the bottom of the page to the list of active members at the top of the page.
The Frank Buckles article is currently at GAN. An issue has been raised over an image, a copy of which was deleted at Commons as not being in the Public Domain. A version of the image is hosted at en-Wiki under NFUR rules. Please see talk:Frank Buckles for a discussion on this issue, where you are welcome to give your opinion. Mjroots (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to point out that WP:CRYSTAL is not a sufficient reason to delete an article on a future album. Crystal applies to speculation, not known future subjects. Please see [9].
It would be super helpful if you could restore the deleted content, as I am now starting to create a new article for it.
Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed asSelected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate it on the talk pages.
Images
Below is the NASCAR Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month.
It is exclusive to the Newsletter. REMEMBER, YOU CAN VOTE.
The 2010 Ford 400 was a NASCARSprint Cup Seriesstock car race that was held on November 21, 2010 at Homestead Miami Speedway in Homestead, Florida. The 267 lap race was the thirty-sixth in the 2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, as well as the final race in the ten-race Chase for the Sprint Cup, which ends the season. The race was won by Carl Edwards for the Roush Fenway Racing team. Jimmie Johnson finished second, and Kevin Harvick clinched third. Pole position driver Kasey Kahne maintained his lead on the first lap of the race. Edwards started in the second position on the grid, and became the leader of the race on the fourth lap. Shortly after a restart on lap 22, championship leader Denny Hamlin spun sideways, resulting with damage to his splitter. Martin Truex, Jr. took the lead on lap 73, but after the final pit stops Edwards was first. He maintained the lead to win the race, having led it for 192 laps. A total of 67,000 people attended the race, while 5.605 million watched it on television. There were ten cautions in the race, as well as twenty-five lead changes among nine different drivers. Edwards' victory was his second win in the 2010 season, with the first coming the previous week at the Kobalt Tools 500. Jimmie Johnson won the Drivers' Championship, 39 points ahead of Denny Hamlin. Johnson's team owner Rick Hendrick won the Owners' Championship. Chevrolet won the Manufacturer Championship with 261 points, 44 points ahead of Toyota. (More...)
I wanted to make the translation from russian wiki article Дару~дар into English but the new page Darudar was deleted very quickly. And it was late to add the translate tag - karaboz
Thank you The Bushranger! But what's the next? Is this article shown for people who can translate and who wants to do that? And what should be done to transfer the article in common space from my private zone? Who should I ask about this, when and how? - karaboz
No problem! Glad to help. If the translation tag is on the page it will be in the appropriate categories; however, being a userspace page, you might want to contact one of the editors here, who have expressed an ability to translate pages from Russian to English. Once the page is translated, you can simply use the 'Move' tool to move it back to the original name, or use requested moves to ask for help. Good luck! - The BushrangerOne ping only00:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear The Bushranger! Thank you a lot for you previous help. I translated the article about DaruDar and moved it from my user namespace into the global one. The article was here several days but then I found it deleted again: User_talk:Vianello#Deletion_of_the_article_.22DaruDar.22. Could you please tell me what was wrong? Is it possible to undelete this article or maybe move it to my local namespace again? I spent a lot of time creating this article and it will be a pity if my work will be lost. Yours Karaboz (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, The Blade of the Northern Lights said you could give me a copy of the article on the Denver Gem and Mineral Show that you deleted earlier this month. That, some indication of what needs to be done to it to make it acceptable, and instructions on how to put something into the sandbox and find it again would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Eepstein (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I've sandboxed the page here for you. :) As for what's needed - well, I'd suggest taking the information there, and rewriting it completely; in addition, everything after 'external links' should be trimmed. - The BushrangerOne ping only03:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Rewrite completely? How? Some guidance on what you think is wrong with the way it's written now would be helpful. As for the external links, the show website and websites of the Council's member clubs would be essential. I added links to sites that have lists of rock clubs and/or shows worldwide--that information doesn't seem to be anywhere else in Wikipedia, and I couldn't find a suitable place to add it.
I still don't know how to put something in the sandbox myself and find it again. When I first started writing this, I used the "save in sandbox" option and it simply disappeared. I had to start again from scratch. I'm probably overlooking something obvious and simple, but I don't have a lot of time to spend messing with this. I tried using help and the FAQ, but found them even less useful than Microsoft's help screens. If you could provide me with a clue, I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance. Eepstein (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Intelligence
Good afternoon Bushranger,
A proposal of merger has been put through on the Disscussion page on the WikiProject Council. I would like to take this chance to urge you to inform us of your opinion on this merger. I will soon declare the disscussion over and determine whether the WikiProject should be merged or not. ALso you may want to address the matter f whether you will be staying or leaving the WikiProject Intelligence/Espionage (for now). Your opinion is very much valued. Thanks and Cheers. SunCountryGuy012(talk)16:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Fixed citations added --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 10:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
wackywace 17:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by 
Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to 
Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, 
Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and 
Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
Previous month's issue - Next month's issue 
Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to 
Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Hey there The Bushranger, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:The Bushranger/Archive 2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
_-_Matt_Kenseth_at_Slinger%27s_scoreboard.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:HESA_Saeqeh.png){kind=link}