Talk:Fobos-Grunt/Archive 2

The Planetary Society's LIFE project

Despite the loss of the Phobos LIFE, the LIFE project is not abandoned or even defunct. It is continuing, due to the analyses of the microorganisms flown with the Shuttle LIFE project. Starkiller88 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

LIFE was never a matter of debte or controversy. It is you who keeps speculating on the projet/team's disbandment over and over. Same with Fobos-Grunt. At least you got this particular point now. Please do yourself a favor and read WP:SPECULATION. If you spend this much time in Wikipedia, at least make your edits worthwhile. Thankyou. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. Is the Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment not abandoned right now? Starkiller88 (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you want to write articles on how NASA is not being disbanded, how the Pentagon is not being demolished, how Putin is not a woman and how Obama did not die this morning. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that. I want to know what happened to the Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment project right now. 115.133.211.160 (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Starkiller88, since you admit you have no knowledge (references) please stop inserting WP:SPECULATIONs; really, it should not be a difficult concept to understand. Thankyou. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

According to talk page on LIFE, I made another something coherent regarding it. Starkiller88 (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Project website status

Okay, I'm still not certain about the status of the Fobos-Grunt project website after the reentry of the probe in January 2012 and the repeat plans for Fobos-Grunt have been abandoned in favor of Exomars. Starkiller88 (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• It's still unnoteworthy speculation. --W. D. Graham 17:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's still unnoteworthy speculation. -- BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What about the Fobos-Grunt project website becoming a general site for general news and miscellanea? 115.133.217.122 (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance. Clarify to yourself if this article is about Fobos-Grunt or about speculation on the post-failure development of their web site. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you try to visit phobos.cosmos.ru and think about it. You can state whether this statement that the Fobos-Grunt project website after the reentry of the probe in January 2012 and the repeat mission plans have been rejected still online, thus posting news stories and headlines is true, not an unnoteworthy speculation. 115.133.217.122 (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is or is not still online, it doesn't really have any bearing on the mission itself, and therefore isn't worth mentioning in the article. --W. D. Graham 18:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps, you visit phobos.cosmos.ru and determine whether it is online or NOT. It is dormant. 115.133.217.122 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So what? --W. D. Graham 19:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You see first. It is not unnoteworthy speculation. It is a FACT. 119.40.118.34 (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't care whether it is a fact or not, it doesn't have any bearing on the article. It is insignificant, non-notable, not worthy of inclusion, or however else you want me to word "unnoteworthy". I don't give a damn how true it may or may not be, the current status of a website has absolutely no bearing on this article, and that it why it should not be included. --W. D. Graham 08:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, WDGraham. phobos.cosmos.ru is STILL online. Am I right? Go visit that damn site. 115.133.210.221 (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't. I said that the status of a website is not worth mentioning in this article. RTFP. --W. D. Graham 12:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again I deleted WP:IRI editorial on the web site. Having fun yet? BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I realized it. I am really sorry for this. The status of phobos.cosmos.ru is not worth mentioning in this article. Starkiller88 (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Fobos-Grunt 2 plans?

I'm not going to disrupt the Fobos-Grunt page, nor going to disrupt Wikipedia as a whole, is it possible to add these following headers where Fobos-Grunt-2 is mentioned?

• "Future plans for a repeat"
• "Uncertain plans for a repeat"
• "Abandoned plans for a repeat"
• "Postponed plans for a repeat"

Feel free to discuss before adding it into the article. Thanks. 115.133.216.143 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

pastebin not reliable

Recently, from various Fobos-Grunt related articles I have been removing text when the sole citation is a post from pastebin.com. Please note that anybody can create a pastebin and there is no editorial control whatsoever. If editors wish to add claims concerning the group Anonymous, these must be cited using reliable third party sources. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. -84user (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. I recently reverted an edit by, well - you can guess who it was by, for that reason. There's absolutely no non-primary coverage of this, and that's assuming even the primary coverage is reliable. We shouldn't mention the fact that somebody has posted something on a public website claiming to accuse the programme's engineers of treason; without reliable, third-party, sources it is libellous to claim that the project's engineers are traitors. I think the recent actions of the editor concerned are starting to approach an ANI level now. --W. D. Graham 00:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have dropped a polite note on one of the editors involved, as the undesirable editing is continuing. -84user (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• • I think I got to the point of sending him a final warning and he just ignored it. I'm also fairly sure he was behind the series of IP edits that resulted in the page being semi-protected. If he restores this crap again, I'd recommend requesting administrator intervention. --W. D. Graham 09:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Russian vs Soviet

There was NO "Russian" space program before 1991. It was then a Soviet program. Yes, this difference matters. Please stop disrespecting the tens of thousands of ethnically and nationally non-Russians who worked on the Soviet space program (whose craft had "USSR/CCCP" written on the side) by suggesting that their efforts were "Russian." They were NOT. and to simply in effect give the modern country of Russia credit for the accomplishments of the Soviet Union is disingenuous, and historically wrong. So, when referring to pre-1991 interplanetary missions, it is important to refer to them as Soviet, not "Russian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)