User talk:Wolfkeeper/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

August 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Edit warring against consensus on Policy pages. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wolfkeeper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The administrator SarekOfVulcan appears to be harassing me and is abusing his administrator bit. The principle of the wikipedia is that making bold changes to policy is acceptable, and the proposed change I made to the deletion policy is completely inline with the other policies of the Wikipedia and the general way that this policy is actually used in AFDs, even before any previous changes. The edit was not a repeat of any previous edits I have made, nor is it in any way disruptive.

Decline reason:

Blaming SarekofVulcan will not get your block lifted early. Please write an unblock request that discusses your behavior, not the actions of other editors. You may want to read the guide to appealing blocks for pointers. TNXMan 01:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wolfkeeper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The principle of the wikipedia is that making bold changes to policy is acceptable, and the proposed change I made to the deletion policy is completely inline with the other policies of the Wikipedia and the general way that this policy is actually used in AFDs, even before any previous changes. The edit was not a repeat of any previous edits I have made, nor is it in any way disruptive. Blocking people for long periods based simply on having had a stable account in the Wikipedia is unjust and simply encourages people to abandon accounts.

Decline reason:

No evidence the user understands that they actually did anything wrong, and no promise to cease said behaviour if unblocked. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note: These 8 edits, are probably what need to be explained.

HTH, I'm only posting this because I think your latest unblock request is probably not what they're wanting from you (ie, something conciliatory). -- Quiddity (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a bad block. I simply haven't done 3 reverts in 24 hours, and while you can be blocked for less than that the edit I was apparently blocked on wasn't even a revert according to the 3rr policy. A revert is when you return the page to an earlier state. This wasn't such an edit, it was considerably different. It's also significant that SarekofVulcan reverted the edit, that means he used his administrative powers as well as his editing in a particular situation. He can only do one or the other. SarekofVulcan is clearly well out of order, and this is going to have to come up on ANI. People have lost their adminstrator bits for this kind of thing.- Wolfkeeper 01:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't limited to 3 reverts spaced over 24 hours each, and neither is a revert strictly defined as a specific restoration of an earlier version of a page. It is also defined as an action which reverses the actions of other editors in whole or in part. Please see WP:REVERT.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear above, 3rr isn't strictly limited by time; it's a bright line rule. Slow edit warring, like what you were doing, still violates the policy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that, but the final edit I was apparently blocked for was different to the previous edits. And I don't buy this 'slow edit warring' theory. On that basis I would never be allowed to edit any page more than once, and even a single edit can count as 3RR. Which is ridiculous, we expect a bit of give and take. And the other really, really, really bad thing is that the person edit warring me was actually Sarek, he was the one doing most of the reverts. And then he blocked me. He's not allowed to do that. Otherwise he can pop up on any of my edits anywhere in the Wikipedia and revert me and then block me, which is actually what he did here. He can't deliberately make an edit war with me and then block me, people have lost their administrator bits for less than that before.- Wolfkeeper 02:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

<-- Wolf, you referenced an RFC. Where was that? Dlohcierekim 02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Proposal--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sarek. Don't agree with Wolf's interpretation, I'm afraid. Dlohcierekim 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, you can ban anyone you disagree with, because you're an administrator!!!! That's right isn't it? And if an administrator breaks the rules, as here, nothings happens. If a user doesn't actually break any rule, then they get banned! I wasn't actually 3RR, I had not been warned on this page, and I was edit warred and then banned by an admin. How is that not corrupt?- Wolfkeeper 03:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of 3RR is that it's supposed to damp out changes to pages, not that it's supposed to allow admins to chose the 'right' version. I was not rapidly editing pages, making changes to pages is the normal way consensus forms. This slow edit warring idea is a heap of shit.- Wolfkeeper 03:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Word articles

Sarek wrote "Policy pages", and never mentioned 3RR, so presumably the block was also for the editing at Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Sorry, but there it is. (being rude to everyone for the last 3 days, in talkpages and editsummaries, probably didn't help).

One positive step, might be to make an honest attempt at getting back to the actual discussion topic, in a polite way. E.g. I left you a long answer at WT:NOTDIC#Let the bots roll!, that I'm still interested in your thoughts on. Really!

The reality is that many editors agree with each other, about something to do with "notable words", and they're probably not all idiots! It takes a courageous person to stick to their beliefs, but it takes an even more courageous person to admit that perhaps their beliefs, were only opinions..

My gums hurt like heck (not quite at hell-scape levels). First cavity-fillings in my life, today. So take everything I write today with a grain of salt. And floss regularly. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There's probably no way to define what notable means in this context. The Encyclopedia Britannica actually has very few words in it. Apart from any logical/encyclopedic reasons for it, they don't want to write the same topic multiple times in different languages, so they translate the encyclopedia from English into multiple languages. Clearly any content that doesn't translate would be a significant problem for them, so they deliberately avoid non translatable articles which rules out articles written to describe multiple meanings of words. That also means they have little lexicography, except in linguistic articles.

I had a look at your table, and the big problem with it is that it concentrates on knowledge and information; the difference between encyclopedias and dictionaries are largely to do with presentation and organization (depth will vary between particular reference works so it's not an inherent difference, but is nearly always deeper in encyclopedias). By arranging the information in encyclopedic form it becomes portable between languages, because concepts are far, far more general than words.

So saying that an article can be about a word should be totally wrong. At most it should be about a meaning of a word, otherwise taken to its logical conclusion it's just an essay-style dictionary entry (which actually many people are quite happy with for many articles, but taken to the logical conclusion everywhere in the wiki you to end up with the wikipedia being an essay style dictionary instead of an encyclopedia). I mean, if the topic is the word, then the article has to cover all aspects of that word, which will include every meaning. So if we take the meaning but even then... one article per meaning, if taken to its logical conclusion turns back into a dictionary but with an entry per definition/usage rather than an entry per word, but it comes to the same thing, you're just laying it out very slightly differently, but it's exactly the same- you end up with an encyclopedic dictionary in fact.

So you don't really have much choice. Articles on words, if allowed, and if taken to the logical conclusion ends up with badness; it's no longer an encyclopedia, it's either a dictionary or an encyclopedic dictionary. Or a mixture... I'll come to that in a minute.

And I think we have to assume that the Wikipedia, over time, is very definitely going to take everything to its absolute logical conclusion, people will just keep adding and polishing and growing until each article covers the topic, and probably then some more on top. There doesn't seem to be an end point.

Mixing things... that's what people are trying to do, but if you try to do a mix it doesn't work out well at all. The issues are that the content has to go somewhere, and it groups more easily conceptually than by word... but then you've got both going on so where do you draw the line between word and thing??? You just don't know. Does most of the stuff about salad go in rocket or under eruca sativa, or both, or elsewhere? You could try to come up with some arbitrary scheme and put cross references everywhere, but then it's arbitrary. In an encyclopedia you do sometimes get this problem a bit, but it's much, much easier to know where to put things. As I understand it, encyclopedias were invented to solve this exact problem in fact. By grouping things by logical conceptual type, the organisational sorting is much more stable.

I think that people must have tried to expand dictionaries and just failed. You end up with loads of content forks or you end up not knowing what the right place is. This is also why general-purpose encyclopedic dictionaries if you've ever read one are a bit clumsy. They're sort of better than a dictionary, but you keep getting sent off to other articles (synonyms in particular are very problematic).

So an Encyclopedia cum dictionary cum encyclopedic dictionary really doesn't hang together. You have to pick one but then you're a rules nazi and everyone hates you. :-)

But 5P is clear, it says that the wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Benoit says that encyclopedia articles are translatable, and translatable rules out word articles really pretty much, there might be the odd one that survives translation into any language, but that's going to be rare indeed.

And, unfortunately that's also the problem with favorite stuff, lexicography, in encyclopedia articles, as it refers to the words, so the words don't translate ;-(. Dictionaries/encyclopedic dictionaries do include lexicography though.

I honestly don't really see any way out. The best thing is just to keep dictionaries and encyclopedia completely separate in different wikis and link between them. I did wonder whether the wikis could be merged, with different articles for words than encyclopedia articles, but it doesn't seem to help, the policies need to be completely different and we can already link between the two (with a few minor issues with soft redirects that hopefully the system guys will sort out eventually). I also wondered whether doing stuff like sticking (word) on the end like football (word) had mileage, but again you end up with duplicating the Wiktionaries policies, and they have problems as well with their policies that are, if anything, worse than the Wikipedia's.- Wolfkeeper 07:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The policy issues are probably also why we don't have any FA quality word articles; they automagically fail a whole slew of encyclopedic policies!- Wolfkeeper 06:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at feeeeshboys stuff but he's not understood the primary points at all, it's about how things are laid out, the mapping to words is still there in encyclopedia, but the information is arranged by concept, not word. And in an encyclopedia even a thing, is really a concept. The article London is about the idea of the place called London, which hopefully has relationships to the real stuff on the ground. It's not about the word London.- Wolfkeeper 07:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Brief comments, more in the morning:

1. Has the Encyclopedia Britannica ever been "translated"? Pointers, please.

There's spanish and french language versions on their website.- Wolfkeeper 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Most of the example articles listed at the main rfc, have interwiki links, and some have many: E.g. Fourth Estate, American (word), Craic, Fuck, Negro, Nigger, Secularity, Thou, Akata, Chemistry (etymology), Cunt, Grok, History of the term Vlach, Humbug, Idle, Infidel, Jew (word), Man (word), Milord, No (word), Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, Yankee.

1. Negro and Niger are synonyms. Thou is a pronoun, none of the pronouns should have their own articles in a proper encyclopedia. American (word) is good example of a problematic article, there almost certainly should be an article at American (which is after all a noun) that covers the idea of things belonging to the American continent. If you do that then the American (word) article probably merges into it.- Wolfkeeper 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1. If you could separate and clarify your arguments (perhaps in the table), that might help clarify the disagreement. – Currently the majority of your information above, seems to hinge upon the single sentence written by Bejoint. – However you also briefly touch upon the rocket/rocket point again (here, I think you're using a very confusing example, as nobody has ever suggested that the word rocket[ship] is in any way connected to the Eruca sativa plant's common name. (Have they?) The words have different etymologies given in wiktionary: rocca vs eruca).

1. They both have the same word root I think, I think Eruca Sativa grows quickly, and there's been a long etymological association of rocket with speed. I'm pretty sure that eruca is corruption of rocca, it's very suspicious, I think they're word fossils. People think that rockets are a new thing, but they're 800 years old.- Wolfkeeper 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

More in the morning. (Note for observers: The table Wolfkeeper is referring to is here and was mentioned by me at ANI) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Before cast anymore aspersions, you might want to read the WP:ANI discussion. Dlohcierekim 03:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Socking

Please don't do it again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact I reserve the right under WP:IAR to have and use socks, but I certainly haven't/won't use them to vote multiple times or give a generally false impression or otherwise be a wp:dick with them.- Wolfkeeper 07:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

IAR doesn't apply to using them to evade sanctions.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it doesn't so I have extended the block to 2 weeks. If you do it again you can expect and even longer block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't evading I was complaining about nazi admins. Fortunately, it's clear you are nazi admins, so you've extended the bans, and have neatly proved the point.- Wolfkeeper 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stop equating Wikipedia administrators with my relatives' murderers? Thanks. —David Levy 17:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What would you prefer? Fascistic?- Wolfkeeper 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer that you cease the personal attacks. —David Levy 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if admins didn't claim the right to revert and then suspend users, but apparently this form of admin abuse is currently perfectly acceptable, so perhaps you'll forgive me, but i doubt it.- Wolfkeeper 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, reverting continual vandalism and blocking the vandal is perfectly acceptable.

But I don't expect you to agree with that analysis. I'm only asking you to express your criticism in a constructive manner instead of engaging in personal attacks. —David Levy 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone seriously suggested that the edit I was blocked for was vandalism.- Wolfkeeper 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that, and I was in the process of doing so when the AN/I discussion was closed (after we learned that it was initiated by your sock puppet). —David Levy 19:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you're a bloody idiot then, and that's all I have to say on the matter.- Wolfkeeper 19:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's Godwin's law, folks. Comparisons with Nazis like this shouldn't happen, that's completely true, but they do, and when a discussion's degraded to that point, it's probably best just to ignore the whole thing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

permanent link to evidence of socking

I'd say if he socks again, OR if he returns from the block and resumes the previous behaviour, the block should be extended to indef. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You've already used socks to give a generally false impression - the false impression that there is another editor with your extreme views towards articles on words, and the false impression that you were someone else defending yourself at ANI. I've sought editing restrictions at WP:AN, if you wish to comment you may post a statement here and it will be copied over. –xeno^talk 14:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is simply a bad faith mischaracterisation, many other editors do indeed share my views on this, I used that sock because people were and are wikistalking me, and this includes admins, and when I created that sock, it was not illegal. Xeno's edits are a perfect example of the kind of malicious crap I have had to, and still do put up with.- Wolfkeeper 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See [1]. –xeno^talk 17:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

None of those edits were intended to give a false impression in any way. And I was genuinely being stalked.- Wolfkeeper 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretending to be a separate user railing against the inequities of your block was not intended to give a false impression? What about the double-participation in Talk:Git (slang)? –xeno^talk 17:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What about it, I made a single edit on the talk page? If I'd really been up to no good,do you think I would have stopped at one edit?- Wolfkeeper 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't see why that's inappropriate? To use an undisclosed sock to make it appear that your position has greater support than it actually does? What of the ANI thread where you defended yourself so vociferously? –xeno^talk 18:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no. This is about people following me around and revert warring me, repeatedly, over a long period. When I used BigBodBad I actually got comments on my talk page thanking me for doing stuff. Basically, the Wolfkeeper account experiences long-term, low grade harassment.- Wolfkeeper 18:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of the 4 editors who contacted you on your sock's talk page, three were critical of your changes. Rather than blaming others, claiming wikistalking, etc., perhaps you might look inwards, to see why you are encountering such opposition to your edits. Have you considered the possibility that your view with respect to words-as-articles does not align with that of the greater community? Have you considered directing your efforts to other areas of interest, where you might encounter less opposition? –xeno^talk 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That was actually better than the shit I normally have to put up with! I'm probably facing opposition mostly because I'm taking a very long view on where this place ends up. Others take a much more short-term view, and this means they've missed some of the problems their edits inevitably have and will have created.- Wolfkeeper 18:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, what you're describing is disguising the pattern in your contribution history in order to avoid the scrutiny of others. That's besides you using the sock to make your position appear to have more support than it really does and to evade a block. Those are all inappropriate uses of an alternate account, and until you understand and address that your unblock requests will continue to be declined.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. You were basically wikistalking and revert warring many of my edits. Perhaps you should acknowledge that and do something about it.- Wolfkeeper 18:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, if I had any intention of doing that, I would have made a fuck of a lot better job of it.- Wolfkeeper 17:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What you've done is called "using alternate accounts to feign consensus", and the only reason you haven't been banned outright is that you don't seem to have a habit of it. Sure, you can ignore all rules, but you also have to deal with the consequences of doing so. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, I feigned consensus? Doesn't look like there's a lot of consensus anywhere.- Wolfkeeper 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If I had actually feigned consensus you would have banned me completely. This is just trumped up nonsense.- Wolfkeeper 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I'm guilty of is disagreeing with an admin. Fortunately in the kafkaesque world of Wikipedia, that is a banning offense.- Wolfkeeper 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you attempting to claim that you did not use an alternate account to pose as an uninvolved third party when you were editing WP:ANI#Block of WolfKeeper by SarekOfVulcan? That's both block evasion and "consensus feigning". The only reason you haven't been banned completely for this is that you don't seem to have made a habit of it, and I didn't feel like making more than a cursory investigation. In other words, you're being given the benefit of the doubt here, and we're assuming good faith, which you're making quite difficult. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's actually kinda of touching, but I guarantee that nobody else will assume good faith. I wasn't blocked by someone assuming good faith. Any discussion for imposing editing restrictions won't assume good faith.- Wolfkeeper 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I assumed good faith until I logged in this morning, discovered that you were socking like that, and then read this discussion here.

Do you really not get it? Using a sockpuppet as you did is a far far more serious issue than just having gotten in a little edit war over a policy page. Pronouncing that you did nothing wrong is pretty much thumbing your nose at the entire idea of honest community consensus and participation. Wikipedia isn't just the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's the encyclopedia everyone edits together, and editing together requires that people collaborate in good faith. Socking as you did here is the antithesis of that.

Jpgordon's comment that he's giving you the benefit of the doubt here is about as good as you can hope for. If he had not already stepped in and said so, I would likely be dropping an indefinitely blocked notice on your page now instead of following up to him.

What you did is categorically not ok.

You have two weeks to figure that out. If you don't, and particularly if we discover any more sockpuppeting during those two weeks, your career here is over. I will indef block you immediately, as will any other administrator, and if you keep it up past that we'll hard block your IPs.

Before yesterday, you had a lot of experience and credibility built up. By yesterday evening, using the sockpuppet after the block like that, you lost most of the credibility with the community. Defending your actions like this pretty much wiped the rest out. You have a long, long road to travel to reestablish your bona fides as someone who cares about Wikipedia and is participating honestly and constructively. If you intend to travel that road then you need to stop digging yourself into your hole.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All I know is that I did the best I could for the Wikipedia, and I got massively hated for it. This account is dead.- Wolfkeeper 20:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolf, I know you didn't do it in the post directly above this one, but you can't keep claiming that harassment is just cause to evade a block and pretend to be someone else. Harassment or no, you evaded a block. This is strictly against policy. I would suggest you stop defending your actions and own up to that fact.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and they doubled a block I probably shouldn't have had in the first place. You see how admin harassment works?: "Congratulations! You have been blocked. You need to explain how the block you just had was really your fault in order to be unblocked. You have no right to contest the block, because you have been blocked, unless you explain that it was all your fault and how sorry you are. If you are not sorry, we will permanently ban you. Have a nice day!"- Wolfkeeper 20:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway I'm really gone now (password scrambled and email erased). Further harassment goes here VVVVVVVVVVV- Wolfkeeper 20:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolf, AGF has it's limits, and mine have already been met. With your post above, you didn't even so much as address my own. You evaded your block, however 'wrong' it may be, it is never right to evade sanctions. You need to own up and stop evading.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, using a sock to dodge a legitimate block never falls under IAR. IAR is only for specific circumstances where a guideline or policy actively interferes with the process of improving the encyclopedia. Defending yourself does not fall under IAR. Using your sock to edit in areas where your behavior led to your block does not fall under IAR. Claiming an admin is harassing you and not providing a damn shred of evidence to back up your assertion does not fall under IAR. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 21:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of Community Sanctions

If you return after your block expires, you are will be subject to the following community enforced sanctions that have been agreed at AN:

1. Wolfkeeper is indefinitely restricted from using undisclosed alternate accounts.
2. Wolfkeeper is topic-banned for six months from any edits in the mainspace related to words-as-articles, broadly construed.
3. Wolfkeeper is topic-banned for six months from any edits on policies and guidelines related to words-as-articles, broadly construed.

   Constructive talk page comments are permitted in respect to 2 & 3 above.

If you have any questions or concerns about how these will apply to your editing then you should seek advice from an administrator or raise a thread at ANI for community input. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC) noting permanent reference to discussion

Fair use rationale for File:Skylon orbit 1m.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Skylon orbit 1m.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Terrillja _talk 15:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Sabre-model-m.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Sabre-model-m.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Terrillja _talk 15:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Space reorganization

Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:

1. Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
2. Separate the Astronomy and Spaceflight "sides" of WikiProject, and remove WikiProject Space.

If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Centrifugal force (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Centrifugal force (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Centrifugal force (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wolfkeeper. You have new messages at Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion's talk page.
Message added 06:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re Talk:Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion -- I've made a comment on the article, and noticed you had previously contributed to that article. Could you please take a look and offer an opinion? Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

TU-160

I have to agree that Russian sources are just as reliable.Foxhound66 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Rocketry activity check

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.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Rocketry at 19:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Skylon

There are developments related to Skylon you might be interested in.

My email is listed on my user page. Keith Henson (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

sources used on Template:Supersonic_fuel_efficiency

I have serious concerns about the sources used on Template:Supersonic_fuel_efficiency. Can you see the talk there. 0¹⁸ (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A common problem

Dear Wikipedist editor, I want to submit to your attention an our common problem: disruptive contributions and edit warring operated by user Derek farn (talk). This latter shows systematically a provoking behaviour and lacking of respect for other people’s work, typical of vandalism. I’ve sent this communication to many people having the same problem in order to organize a collective protest/action request directed to e.g. the Arbitration Committee or Requests for comment/User conduct (this latter procedure requires the participation of at least two users) or to the Wikipedia Community. If you agree with this initiative please contact me at this dedicated email address: clipeaster-1971 AT yahoo DOT com. In order to avoid creating of a forum section dedicated to Derek farn I suggest you to delete this communication once you’ve read it and, then, be in contact via email. Any suggestion are welcomed. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

As another user pointed out to me that suggesting to be in contact outside wikipedia is not a correct way, for transparency reasons, so I conclude that we need to correspond via talk page. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

SPacecraft Propulsion

Good start ---I am age 75 and have a major problem that by dis-use I have forgotten all too much of what I knew 50 years ago. In 1959-1962 I was deep inside the AF space engine program and for example bought the Cs reaction mass for a Cs ion engine that was quite successfully run. I also did the first work on tri=propellants (at that time highly classified and I thus am not at liberty to discuss some things even today)

HOWEVER: please allow me to offer some hints and partial memory items that may get you to a better understanding of use of electrical propulsion and deep space (i.e. trans lunar) missions…. 1) Electrical propulsion is so far superior to chemical there is no excuse (other than total ignorance) for using anything else for Mars, asteroids or outer planets—Chemical simply does not compete and should NEVER be considered. Even a Lunar shuttle from LEO to Moon Orbit probably should be electrical. 2) The Hohmann Transfer ellipse is required for Chemical because the energy stored in the propellant is all there is and the Hohmann trajectory is the minimal energy path. This is NOT true for electrical systems where the energy comes from a power plant and thus Hohmann should NEVER be used for electrical propulsion. 3) Taking mars as an example The chemical systems take 277 days give or tak very little to get from Earth to Mars orbit, But you cannot go but once every year and a half when the perihelion of the Hohmann touches Mars orbit when Mars is there. If Mars is elsewhere you just swing back to Earth getting nowhere you wanted to go. The best payload using LH2 LOX is about 12.5% of LEO mass…and that is optimistic. Counterary : Electrical you go any time you please (**almost - there is a period at opposition where your trajectory either goes through the sun (absurd) or too near the sun and you save time by waiting as Earth moves faster than mars and eventually your trip time is greatly reduced by waiting)- At conjunction the trip time depending on the power supply Power to weight ratio and thus the acceleration varies from about 1/1000 g (solar panels for example which function to mars and even into asteroids but cannot be used for Jupiter because the energy density falls off (1/r2) too much_)) to 1/100 g for Nuclear power plants (such as Russia launched for their space naval radar surveillance system)(a total failure –in theory they could spot our subs at periscope depth – true of periscopes without stealth radar adsorbing material—oops- we put a cheap composite hood on periscopes and their system was useless—abandoned after a few years). Key point accelerations are all small 0.001 to 0.01 g At conjunction the craft accelerates in a spiral to break Earth orbit, then accelerates to mid point and decelerates to reach Mars with velocity such as to make orbit (again a spiral down)to LMO. Please deduct the spirals and treat them as independent times to be added and the distance to turnover is ½ of the distance between planets….almost in a straight line. (The velocity at turn over is well past solar escape velocity thus is not an “orbit” at all) the trip takes from about 22 days to 64 days  !!!!!!!!!!!!!! A more typical trajectory would take 45 days to 100 days at 1/100 g and 1/1000 g. AND this is approximately true that the mass fractions would be 25% “payload” 25% power plant and dry weight structure and 50% reaction mass//// (human habitation is bookkeeped as payload and the tanks for reaction mass and shielding from the reactor are dry weight structure)

4 times for other planets are: distance d 5289d/0.016 to turn over v=a t d miles from time to in miles tsq t in sec days v ft/sec v average=v/2 planet Mercury 0.39AU 0.39 36270000 d= Vave (t*2) Venus 0.723 AU 0.723 67239000 2.26091E+12 0.32 t check of work Earth 1.00 AU = 93 million miles 149.5Mega km 1 93000000 Mars 1.524 AU =20 to 66 days best to worst positions 33 da average 1.52 141360000 2.33244E+12 1527233 17.67631 488714.5 141360000 35.35261 Asteroids main belt 2.0 to 3.3 AU average 46 da 3.3 306900000 5.06385E+12 2250300 26.04514 720096 306900000 52.09028 Jupiter 5.203 AU 66 da 5.20 483879000 7.984E+12 2825598 32.70368 904191.3 483879000 65.40736 Saturn 9.539 AU 88 da 9.539 887127000 1.46376E+13 3825911 44.28138 1224292 887127000 88.56276 Uranus 19.81 AU 125 da 19.82 1843260000 3.04138E+13 5514870 63.82951 1764758 1843260000 127.659 Neptune 30.06 AU 157 da 30.06 2795580000 4.61271E+13 6791691 78.60754 2173341 2795580000 157.2151 Pluto eccentric ~~39 AU average 178 da 39 3627000000 5.98455E+13 7735987 89.53689 2475516 3627000000 179.0738

TRANSLATION THE PLANETS ARE OUR FOR THE TAKING…..EXTANT TECHNOLOGY !!! (Sub note we must purge the system of all “politicians” as they have sabotaged the Whole space program since Nixon pre-empted the last 2 Apollo rockets for that worthless Apollo Souse link up which was scientifically totally worthless.) ((we are at least 30 probably 40 years behind now where we should be---it makes me sick and worse we are susceptible to Extinction events (7 types) 4 of which would be eliminated if we had self supporting space colonies by now-to my mind this is racial treason on their part).( Sorry but I have no time to be subtle or politically correct).

Dr James H L Lawler (PhD type) jhlawr@att.net 817 292 2881 7401 Tallow Wind Trail Apt E Forth Worth TX 76133 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.76.0 (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

IP Address

I'm just too lazy to log in 99.9999% of the time. I'm Akulkis 15:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)~

Some questions

Hello Wolfkeeper,

I'm impressed by some of the knowledge you exhibited in some articles. I'd like to ask you a question or two related to some of your exhibitions. Please write me an e-mail using the link on my page.

[[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockst (talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey Wolkeeper, how ya doin'? I've been away lately myself, but miss your good works. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfkeeper for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Space Show

The article The Space Show has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable talk show, sources are all primary sources that cannot show notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Space Show

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on The Space Show, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Allchin Royal Chester tidied.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Allchin Royal Chester tidied.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Penis circum.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Penis circum.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Penis circum percentile.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Penis circum percentile.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

File:SpaceElevatorLeaning.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SpaceElevatorLeaning.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

File:OrbitalRing.GIF missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:OrbitalRing.GIF

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

File:OrbitalRing.GIF missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:OrbitalRing.GIF

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

File:OrbitalRing.GIF missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:OrbitalRing.GIF

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Rocket mass ratio versus delta-v.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rocket mass ratio versus delta-v.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

File:OrbitalRing.GIF missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:OrbitalRing.GIF

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Cislunar potential.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki is so confusing

I can't even figure how to reply to anything. I'm supposed to read some long article...to figure out how and my remaining eye is too tired. It's like a bunch of people wrote the interface who weren't real concerned with making it user friendly in some ways..(eg. it takes me to a page when I click the notifications where there's no real sign what anything means or how to interact.. I click 'talk' and it takes me for instance to some totally unrelated page..) and we're expecting it to have integrable protocol for establishing that information is correct? History with multiple witness testimony should be valid stuff to post.

In regard to the talk page a while back re: my being filtered from the usenet archives by Henry Spencer.... re: how only I got edited out of some of newsgroup history except for a cross post on a day when something hickup'd and we had a uucp address instead of the usual address at greylady.uoregon.edu is a lousy theory. Obviously... I mean what are the odds all the other people I was talking to would still have THEIR posts in the group but that hundreds of mine ..the entire threads containing them were ALL eradicated! It'd be great if the real complete archives were available including the post titled 'I spew thee off the usenet' but... no I don't think that'll happen for obvious reasons. Someone with clout covered their tracks obviously. That's what evil people do. Or try to do. Anyway just trying to help give true information so people have a more accurate idea of what people's real contributions were etc. THE THEORY someone posted though thinking it might have just been 'what someone considered important..?

No. Every thread that involved me was GONE. Well over 100 posts I'm sure. The odds are ridiculous that the volume would have ONLY slumped during THAT particular year and correlating to the threads I was involved in. In late '86 to '87. Talk.religion.misc. See how the volume slumped from what 70 threads to 15 or something as I recall in a year when volume should have increased. lol Sounddoctorin (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Bob Weigel

Proposed deletion of Bradley C. Edwards

The article Bradley C. Edwards has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that this person is in any way notable. He had an idea and wrote a couple of papers, that's all. "The Institute for Scientific Research" in Fairmont WV, of which he's a director, has no website and may not even exist any more.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Bradley C. Edwards for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bradley C. Edwards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley C. Edwards until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. andy (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Modification Request for Template:Infobox_rocket_engine

Dear Wolfkeeper, I don't quite understand how to add parameters to the infobox and would like if you could add. I've requested such parameters on the Talk box of the template. Baldusi (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

File:SkylonTower.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SkylonTower.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of William J. Beaty for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William J. Beaty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William J. Beaty until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SpinningSpark 16:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)