User talk:Sdsds/Archive May 2007
WikiProject Rocketry - Space WikiProjects reorganisation proposal[edit]
It has been proposed that WikiProject Launch Vehicles, of which you are a member, be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry per a proposal to reorganise space-related WikiProjects. The proposal will serve to clarify and expand the scope of the project.
Please post comments and support/oppose votes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation. Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
A Wiki has been started that focuses directly on the moon. The original purpose of this effort is an informational resource to be used as a springboard for the commercialization of the Moon. I thought you might be interested. The project has expanded to all things lunar and sprouted a mars wiki, as well as several other TBA projects. You can catch me at my lunarpedia user page or at the ASI MOO (evenings CST). I sometimes attend the NSS Space chat on Thursdays so you can also catch me there if you're familiar with it. -- James "J" Rogers 4/2/2007 Greetings Sdsds (curious handle) from another Lunarpedia sysop (I eschew handles). Charles 13:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Space banner[edit]
hi, your changes to the templates look okay to me. i fixed up the unassessed case with a simple new template - Template:Unassessed-importance n - just in case the wording changes again in the future. cheers, Mlm42 14:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Your comments on my talk page about my justified edits to Traditional marriage movement[edit]
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Agnaramasi. Thank you.--Agnaramasi 03:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agnaramasi, on your page I evaluated the effect of your edits, and carefully wrote, "If that was your objective...." That hypothetical phrasing explicitly avoids making an assumption about your objective. Indeed, taking my entire comment in context, the reader will understand that if anything, I assume you want to be helping Wikipedia! Sdsds 03:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- You claimed that I harmed wikipedia. That is assuming bad faith, given that I am an established user acting from stated intentions of changing the article for reasons that I explicitly justified. You can't pretend your comment was in any way appropriate given that I was working as best as I could to legitimately improve the article in accordance with wikipedia policies. You were upset about my improvements to the article, because they clarified things and got rid of original research that you obviously had a personal interest for whatever reason in keeping in the article. I am assuming that your message was a momentary lack of good judgment in fit of POV frustration, but I think you still ought to admit to it and, even better, apologize for it. Perhaps it would be best, if you cannot control your emotional investments in the article, to keep away from topics in which you have such a strong POV.--Agnaramasi 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh my dear Agnaramasi! If only I were better able to explain the difference between intention and effect! Sdsds 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry, your careful distinction is perfectly clear to me. What I am unclear on, however, is whether you make it with the intention of dishonesty or if dishonesty is merely your unintended effect.--Agnaramasi 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- To return the favour of a third opinion (if I may, Agnaramasi?), Sdsds, I definitely think you could have phrased your comment a little more civilly, and I would like to point out that, even though you used 'if that was your intention', a reasonable interpretation of the context makes it seem as if you really were assuming bad faith. As it stands, you certainly look to be sneering down your nose at Ag, regardless of your intentions or whatever Ag removed, added, changed, etc. As well, Ag, your last comment on here is really stretching the bounds, and I'm sure neither of you would care to get into an Internet argument. :) Blast 08.04.07 2052 (UTC)
- Tips for Sdsds (hope these help):
- Shouldn't have stated that his edits were bad as fact -- start by saying: "I beleve...".
- Use constructive criticism -- you said his edits were bad, but you didn't say (or imply) what he should have done differently (which would've implied a problem-solving attitude). See How to ask questions the smart way for some general ideas -- that's about solving your own problems, not ones involving someone else, but many of the principles are useful.
- Minimise the amount of emotion evoked -- since presumably he is in good faith, this also assumes that Wikipedia is important to him. If you seriously said "Your edits kill kittens" (or babies, or whatever statement you want to make that would imply that he is a bad person), it would have a similar emotional effect, although possibly of lesser intensity
- If you genuinely want to improve, keep these things in mind, but also remember that hindsight is 20/20 -- don't kick yourself too much if you've resolved to do better next time.
- Yes, I have too many opinions and freely offer them :). Hope you don't mind.
- -- TimNelson 13:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Tips for Sdsds (hope these help):
- To return the favour of a third opinion (if I may, Agnaramasi?), Sdsds, I definitely think you could have phrased your comment a little more civilly, and I would like to point out that, even though you used 'if that was your intention', a reasonable interpretation of the context makes it seem as if you really were assuming bad faith. As it stands, you certainly look to be sneering down your nose at Ag, regardless of your intentions or whatever Ag removed, added, changed, etc. As well, Ag, your last comment on here is really stretching the bounds, and I'm sure neither of you would care to get into an Internet argument. :) Blast 08.04.07 2052 (UTC)
- Don't worry, your careful distinction is perfectly clear to me. What I am unclear on, however, is whether you make it with the intention of dishonesty or if dishonesty is merely your unintended effect.--Agnaramasi 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh my dear Agnaramasi! If only I were better able to explain the difference between intention and effect! Sdsds 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- You claimed that I harmed wikipedia. That is assuming bad faith, given that I am an established user acting from stated intentions of changing the article for reasons that I explicitly justified. You can't pretend your comment was in any way appropriate given that I was working as best as I could to legitimately improve the article in accordance with wikipedia policies. You were upset about my improvements to the article, because they clarified things and got rid of original research that you obviously had a personal interest for whatever reason in keeping in the article. I am assuming that your message was a momentary lack of good judgment in fit of POV frustration, but I think you still ought to admit to it and, even better, apologize for it. Perhaps it would be best, if you cannot control your emotional investments in the article, to keep away from topics in which you have such a strong POV.--Agnaramasi 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
On harming marriage[edit]
Hi, sorry I should have got back to you much sooner on this! I do remember the interaction we had and your assertion I had harmed the article. I recall being somewhat amused, but it did make me go back and check that all was in order. I think it was just a drive-by edit as I like the openers of articles to be as light and focussed as possible. The examples can come later in the text. After watching marriage for a day or so it became apparent that it was undergoing a change that I didn't have the time to participate in, so I moved on. But Solomon isn't mentioned in the article today so my edit must have been the correct one! Thanks for the follow up --Steve (Stephen) talk 04:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Orion (spacecraft)[edit]
Sorry for taking so long to respond; I've been very busy lately and I didn't have any time to look over the article (when I fixed that typo, I only read the lead section). Now that I've read the whole article, I believe that it is a fairly well-written article. I enjoyed reading it. There are times where it seems too technical or still a bit messy, but that can be said about most Wikipedia articles. Overall it's a very good article! I find the whole project very exciting; I can't wait to see what it produces in the future. bob rulz 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about doing it this way but I'm at work right now. The Orion (spacecraft) article was vandalized, just thought I would let you know as this seems to be an article you favor. The IP that vandalized it also seems to have an excessive history of said and it seems to me that they should just be blocked permanently from editing. - KOTD
EXPAND tag spree[edit]
MWHAHAHAHA nah jus jking.... [[1]], is the reason. Their objective is to remove stub tag's on articles that are no longer stubs, and thus add the appropriate tag afterwards such as expand,unreferenced,uncategorized,cleanup or nothing. If the article is no longer a stub, i remove the stub tag and add those as appropriate. I also made a decision where if the article is still a stub, but has a lot of tables and such, i kept the stub tag but also added an expand tag. If you believe this is incorrect or im doing something wrong, please correct me... (I have stopped adding expand tag's anyway and im working on my medicine related articles for now...)... (Btw i got all those random articles from here: [[2]] (see history) as once ur finish with a section, u remove that section... etc etc.... Hope i wasn't doing anything wrong..Cya petze 04:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Lagrange point[edit]
Mass situation much better now - keep up the good work. --5telios 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Viking suborbital?[edit]
You have a point on questioning whether the Vikings at White Sands were America's first suborbital flights. Still, even the immense size of White Sands wouldn't permit a trajectory that would allow anything like a flight from the Cape. Let's face it, the angle of launch can't be very shallow from White Sands for a capable rocket. But at least one site claimed "suborbital" for White Sands. I suppose it depends on the definition of suborbital. BTW, I think there are formulas around for this, which I was hoping to avoid! Where shall we go with this? Actually, thanks to Wikipedia policy, we don't have to resolve it. We can just cite authoritative references supporting both! :) (So much for "the truth!" :) Student7 11:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Viking 11 reached a height of 253 km! That clearly meets any reasonable definition of sub-orbital spaceflight. (Sdsds - Talk) 18:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
SIM PlanetQuest[edit]
Thanks so much for the helpful comments on Space Interferometry Mission, this is just the type of direction I was looking for. It can be difficult to assess an article when I am the sole writer. I am glad you liked the article, I have worked really hard on it, of course, it needs more work and your comments about the structure will be most helpful. As for the criticism section this is one of the earliest things I thought of but have had difficulty finding information on. I have found a number of citations for papers that were presented at symposiums and conferences but I cannot find anywhere that holds the papers, so more foot work will be required. Thanks again for the very helpful comments, I will institute your suggestions at my earliest conveinence, probably tomorrow. Also, is it okay if I copy your comments to the peer review so that they will be archived with it? IvoShandor 03:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, feel free to copy my comments anywhere you like, with our without attribution! I do hope the comments prove useful to you. The mission itself is inherently interesting and you have done a great job of presenting it! (Sdsds - Talk) 03:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very much appreciated, and thanks, I have made a few comments on the talk page, nothing spectacular, but I thought I would let you know. IvoShandor 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
CCAFS[edit]
Thank you for clearing up the misconception on the CCAFS article. I also appreciated learning from your reference, that height, not speed, determines "sub-orbital!" Student7 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)