User talk:Craigboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Craigboy, on 22nd of April 2013 you did this:

You copy-pasted the text "NTO/MMH" from an FAA pdf and wikified it as "\[\[Monomethylhydrazine|NTO]]/\[\[Methylacetylene|MMH]]". You do not need even high school chemistry to know that's wrong. Just clicking is enough. I don't know why this mistake survived for 11 months. Please read John D. Clark's "Ingition!" before editing propellant related stuff. Zeev.tarantov (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Be courteous. Mistakes happen, it looks like it was a copy error.--Craigboy (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


my keyboard pressed return by itself b4 the end of the summary, but i can add something to the talkpage if you want me to. Penyulap 15:56, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

-(o)-(o)- I'm glaring at you[edit]

which is like, all I'd want to do really, but seriously, this can't go on forever, you've got to ask for a bit of help or something, consensus is clear, and although I am in the right, I'm not going to be an asshole and take you to ANI, because you are one of the most brilliant editors on the ISS talkpage for discussing things. Just because those two what does reg foreman say all the time ? just because they don't know what consensus is, doesn't mean you can't count. They set such a bad example that it confuses everyone. I should do something about that sooner rather than later. Penyulap 13:17, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox cargo spacecraft[edit]

Discussion moved to Template_talk:Infobox_cargo_spacecraft

Hi Craigboy, would you like to help Jssteil‎ ?[edit]

I've been working to help Jssteil‎, a newbie who is also a NASA employee (What? Penyulap helping NASA?? Is it the end of the world already) he's been working away in the space medicine department, if you recall there was another editor who came to the wikiproject a few months back I think, wanting to clean up the space medicine articles that we had, I tried contacting him and someone else to no avail. The only thing needed here is someone who would like to give a bit of guidance on what they want in the way of space medicine on wikipedia. People are looking at it as COI and so on, and they have a fair point, there is nothing actually wrong with what is being added per se, it's just boring and needs a bit of interest added to it, chuck the boring stuff, compress the interesting points. Everything we have on spaceflight touches on medicine, but nobody cares to fill in the blanks, same as the science on the space stations, it's a boring sort of subject.

If you'd like to point out what kind of medicinal :) coverage you'd like to see added and support or review it, that would be one easy task as Jssteil‎ has been given the job of helping improve wikipedia in that area. It's a bit like Ralf Vandebergh someone just needs to look at what is on offer properly, rather than automatically discarding everything, and then we would have an addition. I just thought to mention it, as I consider your ability to work with other editors brilliant and yeah, your into spacey stuff too :) Plus, it's a bit ironic that Penyulap seems to be the only one trying to help NASA, don't you think ? Penyulap 04:18, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Grasshopper rocket comparative graphic[edit]

Hey Craigboy.

Would you be willing to consider developing a comparison graphic of the Grasshopper v1 rocket to the other Falcon family rockets? I'm thinking something like your File:Falcon 9 v1.0 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Falcon Heavy.svg

Falcon 1 - Falcon 9 v1.0 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Falcon Heavy.svg

image but with the Grasshopper v1 shown in the progression after Falcon 9.

Now, after that, and since SpaceX has publicly announced that they are developing a longer Grasshopper v2 vehicle, assuming you can find the length in a source somewhere, it would be really cool to have the Grasshopper v2 shown as well. But maybe not, maybe better to wait on part 2 (Gv2) until the first photos of the v2 Grasshopper emerge.

However the Gv2 question is answered right now, I would really appreciate you taking a cut on a good Grasshopper comparative graphic for us with the Grasshopper v1. Then I would intend to use that graphic in the Grasshopper (rocket) article right away. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't I think I have enough free time to draw it.--Craigboy (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks for considering it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Manned and cargo Dragon spacecraft.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Manned and cargo Dragon spacecraft.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at Talk:Cygnus Mass Simulator.
Message added 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

W. D. Graham 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

First? photo of the 9-engine circular-configuration on Falcon 9 v 1.1[edit]

Hi Craig.

I think you'll find a particular photo interesting. Look at the source on the "restartable ignition system" statement in the SpaceX reusable rocket launching system article. Musk just posted that yesterday. Looks like there is a LOT of room between the outer engine bells and the center engine bell, just like your drawings. My guess: allows for a lot of gimbaling which will be needed for the controlled descent and landing phase of bringing the boosters back. Enjoy. N2e (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As a side note to this, I'd like to point this out [1]. As you can see, the corner fairings still remain in that rendition, and it shows the new octal configuration so it's not an out of date concept. So until we get something official from SpaceX, I still stand by my opinion that the graphics that assume the new stage to have no skirt/fairing are not verifiable. TMV943 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
That drawing is inaccurate and was created by an artist with no association with SpaceX. The only renderings released by NASA and SpaceX show no engine fairings.
Falcon 9 v1.0 engine configuration (left) and Falcon 9 v1.1 engine configuration (right)--Craigboy (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The Falcon 9 v1.0 has four engine fairings because engines upper-left, upper-right, lower-left and lower-right are further from the center than engines upper-middle, middle-left, middle-right and lower-middle. The reason why the same four fairing configuration would not make sense for Falcon 9 v1.1 is because all eight exterior engines are equidistant from the center.--Craigboy (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Where is the rendering from NASA and/or SpaceX? To my knowledge there hasn't been any TMV943 (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The first one can be found here (page 13) and here (page 20). The second one can be found here.--Craigboy (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Given the sources provided in the previous comment, it now appears it would be incorrect for purposes of this encyclopedia to show the Falcon 9 v1.1 with the corner engine farings, or with engine skirts that extend over the nozzles at all. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at File talk:Falcon 1 - Falcon 9 v1.0 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Falcon Heavy.svg.
Message added 03:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Craigboy. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox spaceflight‎‎.
Message added 08:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

W. D. Graham 08:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Falcon 9[edit]

While the Falcon 9 article could go any of several ways (a high-level model class article, on all F9 vehicles, or an article on the F9 in general PLUS the specific F9 v1.0 model, etc.), some edits got made today that are presuming a particular outcome. Therefore, to get the issue quickly resolved, I proposed a move on the Talk page. I don't really care which way it goes, but do hope you and other editors will weigh in. N2e (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

RE: Documentary[edit]

It is not defamation if it is true. The DOB (8/6/1967) is available in the California Birth Registry and court references are all correct, as well as the referenced documentary Trans/Formed (2007).

In February 2007, a Los Angeles judge ruled "Eve" could legally chaged her name from William Ervin Pilger to Erika Elizabeth Ervin. At that time, a new birth certificate was issued. The decision came after "Eve" applied and published a notice regarding the change in her gender and identity in Los Angeles's Metropolitan News-Enterprise newspaper. In court documents "Eve's" doctor, Emanuel R. Lim, gave a declaration to the court that: 'Miss Ervin has undergone irreversible surgery that changed sex characteristics as a part of her transition from male to female. On October 6, 2006 Eve [Erika Ervin] was examined and diagnosed with gender identity disorder and underwent reassignment surgery at Piyavate Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCRos (talkcontribs) 22:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen Trans/Formed? I'm having trouble finding sources for some of those statements, can you either link or explicitly state where each is from?--Craigboy (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have seen it. In it, there are black and white photos, from a head shot of Bill Pilger. In it, Erika Ervin says that her name had been 'Bill Pilger,' she laughs and acts somewhat embarrassed and states that she graduated from Skyline High School in 1985. Her hair is straight and about shoulder length in the film. The Skyline High School (Oakland, CA) yearbook from 1985 shows a photo of BP in a senior photo, other photos are of Bill/William Pilger on the basketball team, although I think they may have been from junior year. If you want to double check it is available at The birth certificate issued to William Pilger (DOB 8/6/1967) has the parent names listed as Patricia and William. The documentary itself has completely disappeared from the net, along with its trailer. The court case documents are available thru the Los Angeles Superior Court and also can be viewed in an article in the Irish Daily News from January 29, 2011 called 'Secret of the 'World's Tallest Model'... She Used to Be a 7ft Man ; As She Prepares to Visit Ireland, We Reveal the Extraordinary Past of Towering Beauty Amazon Eve [Eire Region]' — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCRos (talkcontribs) 23:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you obtain a copy of the documentary?--Craigboy (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If you would like more information on the film, please contact Cleo Valente, Executive Producer/Director or Tom Bibiyan Co-Executive Producer by email at KCRos (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I emailed them but haven't gotten a response.--Craigboy (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: AE/EE KCRos I am related to this individual. The reason there is no supporting documentation is that AE/EE has threatened legal action against everyone from family members to websites in Ireland to the US, blogs, Youtube, documentary, etc. In regard to your research, the answers are all true, but proving them in this forum might not be the best course of action. Plenty of people in show business lie/distort facts about their age and history. Wether or not it is any of our business, is probably not up for public discussion. If AE/EE wants to present a public profile that reflects many facts that are untrue, in the end do we really give a SH!T? Her life, notoriety is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. On a personal note, if ever in your private life you are forced to deal with this individual, again, please know that it is not slander nor defamation if it is true. All of the statements and leads that you have looked into are factual. Hopefully, knowing that is enough. Roddylaves (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Falcon rocket family diagram[edit]

Hey Craigboy, there is some new and updated discussion on the Wikimedia page for that family drawing you made.

Here's the link: [2] Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

MCT launch vehicle[edit]

Hi Craigboy. You added that the MCT launch vehicle would "consist of one or three cores" over in the new section of the MCT article on the launch vehicle.

My question is could you point us to a source for the multiple cores? I know a LOT of folks are speculating on a three core, like the Falcon Heavy, and can point to old (and very preliminary, and later walked back) charts showing a three-core X and XX rockets on a powerpoint slide in 2010). But I've not seen a source where SpaceX has said any more than the LV for the MCT would use Raptor, would use 9 of them, and would be 10 metres in diameter.

Thanks. N2e (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"nine of these immensely powerful engines – on one or three cores – will be utilized to send SpaceX’s Super Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (SHLV) uphill on missions to Mars"--Craigboy (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1 WTC rendering.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:1 WTC rendering.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:ISROorbitalvehicle.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:ISROorbitalvehicle.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not replaceable with a free equivalent. Please do not delete fair-use images that you have not found a free equivalent for. I do not check my wikipedia account daily.--Craigboy (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The trouble is that a free equivalent could be made. In order to use a copyrighted image under the fair use rules, the image has to be one that can not be replaced by a free version, even in theory. There are very few images like that, usually ones that have important historical significance. Geogene (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)