Marsadvexpdev (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Then why have you not deleted: Conceptual Space Vehicle Architecture for Human Exploration of Mars (2012) - an item which contains a single paragraph and a reference to a single AIAA paper.
Per my last message - what is the difference between at least this item and mine? and what about all the other comments I made on items there that should be either modified heavily or removed altogether. It this is truly to be a useful Encyclopedia. There are just too many inconsistencies on this whole page.
- For goodness sake, I explained this in words of one syllable. You'll find the same on many policy pages and in many many discussions. I don't do subtitles. andy (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, i want to ask to senior persons here that i want to write on the topic of web design dubai, and what if i want to write about certain website? Can senior persons guide me in this?
I'll give two.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdvv8qIl_WI "Hi, I'm Tom Mueller, Vice President of prpoulsio n here at SpaceX, "I'm a co-founder of the company"
A reliable source? I think the fact that Tom Mueller himself said so is pretty reliable... or the fact that the video was made by SpaceX and is on the SpaceX channel.
2. Furthermore you can read the Popular Mechanics article 'The Full story behind Elon Musk, and Tom Mueller's SpaceX' It tells how Elon approached Mueller before the company was formed about building rockets, Musk then said if Musk financed it would Mueller build the rockets. The company was CO-founded a few months later.
I'm not sure why the fact that Musk can fire Mueller is a reason for him not being a co-founder. This is usually the case.
I am sick and tired of the correct information being changed on Wikipedia. Just because something popular belief doesn't mean it is true. Case in point Musk being the co-founder of Tesla Motors. Therefore i would suggest you change the page back.
On a secondary note, concerning his occupation, by definition he is not an inventor. The only thing that he could possibly be mistaken for inventing his hyperloop. However he has said himself he conceptualised the idea, and tasked his engineers as Tesla and SpaceX to coming up with the schematics (don't think he specified whether he contributed to math and engineering tasks, though given his lack of training it would suggest not). Since we are only listing significant occupations, I chose not to include 'conceptualiser' nor inventor because they are not one of the same.
- Please read WP:RS - YouTube is not a reliable source. And the Popular Mechanics article does not say he's a co-founder. I think you're getting confused between what he says, vernacular usage, and the legal reality of the situation. A founder could be taken to be anyone who was in at the beginning. Or it could mean the guy who thought of it, caused it to be set up, put up the money and had total control from the beginning - i.e. Founder = Original owner. That's how most people would see it. On your interpretation Mueller is probably only one of several "founders". The SpaceX site calls him a founding employee, hardly likely if he had any legal standing as an owner. So let's keep with what his employer says.
- You know, I might be wrong. I can see a few articles on the web that call him a co-founder. But vastly more that don't. So please find something definitive such as his name on the original company Articles.
- Anyway, change it again without offering at least one reliable source proves that he was anything other than employee #1 or 2 and it will be clear that you are edit warring. Do not make important changes to articles unless you can prove your claims. andy (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Youtube is not a reliable source, but the fact that it comes from one of the leading SpaceX 'people' and was uploaded by the OFFICIAL SpaceX channel, created by SPACEX is a reliable source.
Secondly, PayPal was co-founded by Musk, Levchin, Theil, Howery & Nosek. He is not a single founder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARLIEPHILLIPS00 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Skyhooks and Mars
It appears you also removed a link I added to the "See Also" section of Mars Direct as irrelevant. How is a link to another Earth-Mars transportation system not relevant? The transportation system proposed in Mars Direct might work for a start-up situation but sooner or later there will be a need for a more substantial, more capable, transportation system. The link you removed is one possible solution to that issue. If you have another reason for removing it please state it, but non-relevance isn't relevant :) Skyhook1 (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Skyhook technology has never been mentioned in connection with Mars Direct. They have their own technology plans. You might just as well suggest matter transportation - it has nothing to do with the subject which is the plan put forward by the Mars Direct team. If you want to put it in, find some third parties who point out the eventual necessity of Mars Direct in particular using skyhooks. andy (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello. It looks like our friend Skyhook1 is back at it again at the Skyhook (structure) (he was also spamming other articles as well). He is prolific; If you have time I will appreciate if you help me keep his bias, OR and POV in check. He particularly dislikes -so he keeps deleting- the Boeing analysis, which was not favorable to the skyhook and to the lack of materials available. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
But the editor who removed all that text was blocked, right? Do you think that there was still a consensus in favor of that action? Regards. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)