User talk:N2e

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


Contact[edit]

I saw and appreciate your thanks for my edit. It looks as if we have some common interests; I invite you to drop me a note at chasrmartin@gmail.com. == Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Charlie (Colorado). Seeing this today, on 22 Oct, I'm not clear on whether I wrote you back on this or not. I think perhaps not. But I didn't mean to be rude and do that.
Are you still interested in receiving an email from me? Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

CCtCap award breakdown[edit]

Hi N2e! Please see Talk:Commercial Crew Development#Number of operation flights covered by the award for a discussion related to material you added back in September. Cheers! -- ToE 14:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Yes check.svg Done. I've left a comment. N2e (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Having dug up NASA's FY 2015 budget request and the OIG report, both of which Foust used to construct the breakdown, I believe that his analysis is spot on and that it should remain in our article as is. I still haven't found any other source that picked up on Foust's analysis, but I don't think that matters. Besides, NASA will publicly release the contract details eventually. Thanks for the quick response. -- ToE 18:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks for the update. N2e (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

RocketMotorTwo[edit]

While you are working on it, this article could also use a mention.--v/r - TP 20:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, probably so. But I'm pretty sure that the flight today did NOT include a RocketMotorTwo, as that formulation used in RM2 (rubber and nitrous) has been retired, and they switched to a new/different motor, the new one still uses nitrous oxide as the oxidizer, but totally changed the fuel formulation in the hybrid motor, had to modify the SpaceShipTwo vehicle for the new motor, etc. N2e (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
User:TParis, I've made a bunch of edits, added a source, etc. to bring the article more up to date. Still needs more work, but its on the whole correct now. See what you think.
Only thing is, it is unclear to me if VG is continuing to use the moniker RocketMotorTwo for their second-generation, developed in-house engine. My guess, but I don't have any source for it, based on the new statement released by SNC today, is that SNC has probably been under some sort of contractual/legal obligation to say very little about the change up to this point—but with the SpaceShipTwo fatal accident and vehicle destruction today, and with SNC having certain US obligations to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission re company shares, etc.—SNC probably had to now make a statement indicating the clear separation of the earlier rubber-fueled engine from them, and the newer plastic-fueled engine from Virgin Galactic. We'll see as the Accident Investigation proceeds; I expect a LOT more public information, eventually.
But if VG is (or wants to) keep using the RM2 moniker for their new/different engine, then the existing SNC-based RM2 article probably needs to be renamed. What do you think? N2e (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
User:TParis — the question about the RM2 term got resolved. Although the article, per sources, had been mostly/nearly exclusively about the SNC-developed engine, another editor came and added quite a bit on the Virgin Galactic-developed second-gen engine. So it is now explicitly about both.
Therefore, I've gone back and further edited the article to make it hang together for the new wider scope now. N2e (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

VSS Enterprise and VMS Eve articles need tidying up - you appear to be interested[edit]

Hi N2e.

I came on Wikipedia to read up on the 2014 Virgin Galactic crash. I found a couple of articles (VSS Enterprise and VMS Eve that were useful, but which need a bit of attention.

You previously wrote on the talk page of the VMS Eve article, that you thought there might be too much detail about the test flight program. I do not personally agree with that position, but it was clear that you edit Wikipedia in good faith and also clear that you are knowledgeable on the subject.

With this in the news, I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight called VSS Enterprise explosion - article and VMS Eve article could do with some help.

As you are clearly someone who is interested in improving Wikipedia, I thought it would be good to get your input. Big Mac (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Please be careful in using the automatic revert function, since this removes all changes. In restoring the content I removed from the Falcon 9 article, the revert also undid several other, completely unrelated changes. If an edit or series of edits removes content that should have remained, adding it back in from a previous version with a partial-revert avoids this problem. Cheers! A(Ch) 16:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a source to support the statement (new date, I believe) that you had previously added to that article. I only challenged the lack of a source, and there was enough complexity in the previous set of otherwise helpful edits you had made that it appeared best to leave it to you, as the original editor, to clarify what you thought could stay in and what not if, for example, you did not find a source to support the date change. N2e (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Autonomous spaceport drone ship at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoops; missed that step. I've taken care of it now. N2e (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Resolved

SpaceX barge citation thing[edit]

I saw that you added a hidden note for the Thrustmaster information. There is an archived version of that website at https://archive(dot)today/x5xD6, but certain elements of Wikipedia have it in for that website's owner and have set a filter disallowing its links in articles. If you don't mind, I'll set a commented-out archive link within the citation so folks can access it, and that should relieve the need for a long explanatory comment. Huntster (t @ c) 15:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Huntster -- No, don't mind at all. In fact, if I'd known there was an archive link, I would have used it and that would have avoided the need for the long comment I left. Glad you fixed the situation. (but I haven't had the time to go to that article and look yet; just know you did it well!) Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

admin proposal comments[edit]

Just wanted to say that I found your comments in response to the proposal to automatically grant admin tools to be refreshing. Cheers! Azx2 19:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Autonomous spaceport drone ship[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of "Squish" on Combustion chamber[edit]

I feel your deletion was premature. The article is still barely more than a stub and there are very few citations. If you are going to delete "Squish", why not also delete "Swirl"(which has no citations)? I am aware that WP relies on referencing & verifiability, but articles should not be smothered at birth for want of citations. Rome wasn't built in a day! I suggest instead that Squish should be reinstated, with a citation needed tag. Arrivisto (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted sentence, and have cited two references. Arrivisto (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Please look at the Combustion chamber talk page. Arrivisto (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
That's great that you added sources. That info was removed only because it did not have sources. I'll try to get over to that Talk page in the next day or two. N2e (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

SIAI-Marchetti S.205 specifications[edit]

I reverted your mass [citation needed] tagging of the specifications section of the SIAI-Marchetti S.205 article, as all the specifications are covered by the existing reference (i.e. the 1966–67 edition of Jane's All The World's Aircaft). The specifications have been unchanged since they were added with the citation parameters in 2010 [1], and the parameters that you tagged (i.e stall speed, range ceiling and climb) rate are as quoted in Jane's.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Elon Musk founder dispute[edit]

Hello! I also believe the best thing to do is to open a discussion to reach consensual agreement then have the discussion closed, so that this dispute doesn't continue throughout 2015 as it has throughout 2014. I have started the discussion on talk:Elon Musk, and have expressed my views, other editors have also weighed in. It would be great if you could review the discussion and add your views as well, thanks! Heuh0 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to get over there, take a look, and weigh in. Thanks for the invitation. N2e (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 17 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks for the notice. N2e (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Elon Musk. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - andy (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Elon Musk proposals[edit]

Hi! I've now added the reason for the proposals, and provided reliable sources specifically for Tesla Motors (which you commented on in your decision to oppose). I apologise for the delay of this, just letting you know as you may wish to read them, and it possibly could change you descison somewhat, or perhaps not. Either way they are there. Thanks, Heuh (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Heads up on YouTube links[edit]

Hi, Thanks for all your contributions on the Elon Musk article. On the talk page you've listed several very good sources. However you've also linked to some copyright infringements by DreamTV and others on YouTube.Anyone posting videos on YT that is not the producer and owner of the video is in copyright violation. YT doesn't enforce it unless the owner complains but WP has a higher standard than that. So these URLs can not be used in citations or External Link sections of articles and should be removed from the talk page post per WP:YOUTUBE and WP:EL. If you can find the originals on the website of the content producers and owners, then they could be used. Thanks!-- KeithbobTalk 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)