User talk:ThorX13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International Space Station[edit]

Hi ThorX13, how's it going? I see you've added some lists to the Scientific Research section of the ISS article - that's great, but could you please convert them into prose? Listing them like that is really the wrong format for the article, better suited to the articles on the modules the experiments are carried out within. Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, be my guest ;) i had to start somewhere, just check how much is there on the linked pages, except for Japanese. Intention was to give backbone, something that can be expanded with probably more appropriate wording as 'medecine', copied from CSA page. Expanding those acronyms also sounds like a good idea, but i can't do it all at once.ThorX 12:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it is time for a "Research conducted by the International Space Station programme" article ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is time for doing, no more talking.ThorX 12:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'am trying to translate CSA part into human language ThorX 12:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
some parts are over my transcribing abilities, good luck with them ... Internal links would also be welcome, in case they exist.ThorX 12:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and i don't come on Wiki for prose, i come here for information. ThorX 13:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, useful information formatted in prose - the article's Featured, and it needs to be in decent prose - see criterion 1a at WP:FACR. Lists go in articles entitled 'List of xyz'. As for the new article, DJ, I agree - I'll open up a discussion on Talk:International Space Station and see what replies we get. Colds7ream (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While you do that, i will search for internal links and add them where can be applied. ThorX 13:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi again ThorX13 - just a quick note about references; I see from your edits that you've been adding loads of citations to the article about the scientific experiments - that's great, but it's not a good idea to leave them as bare links - instead, you should be using Template:Cite web for these, usually using the parameters {{cite web|url=|date=|accessdate=|title=|author=|publisher=}} and anything else you find appropriate. Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fix a couple as an example --ThorX (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tables somehow keep coming in my mind,it would make everything much more compact and painless.I might try playing a bit with ideas on my page or in sandbox, but this is emergency. It has to be done, better sooner than later. Now do something about it, just don't delete anything anymore, add, organize, keep foggy prose out of it. There will be plenty of new articles necessary to cover this hole. I will go now, will come back later. --ThorX (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article 'Research and Science on the International Space Station' ? Information and links here can be used as a seed, and linked it would reduce the mess. I would be willing to help. It becomes obvious (it was not before, before info was not available on Wiki), that tables might be the best solution for this page. It should all fit in two-three screens at the most. --ThorX (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello. I saw your post on my talk page and I'm not completely sure what you wanted to ask me. I'm willing to help in any way I can if you could clarify what you need preferably on this page so that everithing is in one place.

Also, I think it may be a good idea to move all the great new information into Research and Science on the International Space Station and continue the work there since the ISS main article can't realistically have a comprehensive account of the science done on the ISS and also I don't think that appropriate prose can be written untill there's a decent Research and Science on the International Space Station.--U5K0 (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I go check that page, i did not notice it before. Let's try and find a solution somewhere in between, easy to find, with not too much need for updating. Which would probably mean, having lists for experiments per year, but i can't see that yet from available data --ThorX (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just made the article. It shouldn't be hard to find since I put a Main Article link into the science section of the main ISS article and have already made a few redirect pages which leed to it. --U5K0 (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair job. For the main article i don't have a decent idea, really, because all the information is so spread out, not equally grouped and not all updated. Perhaps grouping research around modules and sections ? One paragraph and a table of research facilities ?--ThorX (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seams to me, like one more page, a list of all experiments would be proper idea. They are very well covered on the Nasa and Energia page.It's just a huge amount of info.--ThorX (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Research and Science on the International Space Station has to get in the stage, where updates can be written, without too much messing with the article structure, or more subarticles, which is also a good idea, just don't know who will do it .. Perhaps with that list of experiments ?--ThorX (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will limit my lumbering to the Research and Science on the International Space Station page, for now. --ThorX (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just noticed the new posts. Would you agree to continue this discussion on the Talk:Research and Science on the International Space Station page to make the information available to anyone who wants to edit it and also to reduce fragmentation? I gave my thoughts on how I think the article should be organised and I think that making a 'list of all ISS experiments' page is a good idea.--U5K0 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Research and Science on the International Space Station[edit]

↑
If anyone feels the need discussing here, but you can also use talk page. --ThorX (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd just drop you a note conserning your linking from section headings. I've been told in the past that this shouldn't be done.--U5K0 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just a wikipedia format rule. Notice that no other article has links in the headings just like there aren't any references in the headings. It may have something to do with the mobile version of wikipedia, the printable version or the pdf version or it may just be an esthetic thing, I don't know but that's what I've been told the few times that I did this and I have no reason to think it's changed. Personally I prefer the non links rule because of the way it looks but have no serious objections beyond that.--U5K0 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with leaving it as a temporary solution as long as we're aware that it'll have to go away at some point as per this. One more thing, do you think it's really necesary to put the not yet launched modules into a different section? I was quite happy with the way the Facilities section was before aside from the fact that I was planning to sort the other harware by module jike I did the racks.--U5K0 (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't just cupola. I also don't know what to do with the EXPRESS Logistics Carrier which is mounted on the truss of the ISS. I'll jst dump it there for now.--U5K0 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do as much as possible but there's no way I can keep this pace up much longer. I have other stuff to do. I hate to leave you hanging like this but I don't have much choice. But there's a saying in my country: work always waits for you.--U5K0 (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're unstoppable :D Great job with the experiments. I have a request. I would like to do the sorting of the hardware by module next week. Could you leave that part to me? If you want to do it, go ahead but if you don't care, I'd appreceiate it. Thanks, enjoy.--U5K0 (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Transportation Carrier (ISS Facility)[edit]

↑

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of European Transportation Carrier (ISS Facility), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/technical/experiments/rack/esr/esr_amb.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary

Resolved

but will need attention. --ThorX (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naming issues[edit]

↑

Basics[edit]

Hi Thor, I see you've created several ISS-related articles and categories. I wanted to warn you about inappropriate capitalisation in titles, such as with Category:ISS Experiments and Category:ISS Facilities. In both situations, the second word should *not* be capitalised since it is not a proper noun. Also, "ISS" should always be expanded to "International Space Station" when used in formal terms like this. Please create new categories with appropriate titles, migrate the articles to those categories, and request author deletion for these. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will solve this, before it gets out of hands. --ThorX (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Also, don't forget to rename your various articles that use the same formatting. For those articles, "(ISS facility)" is fine...you don't have to expand the "ISS" bit there. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please help with examples ? --ThorX (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm staying with (ISS Facility) format in the titles, it's easier to see, for fast-reading. It is very obvious in the case of experiments, or in short, capital letter in (i hope so) the noun. (Forgive me my English teacher where-ever you are) --ThorX (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't disambiguate article titles unless there are two or more articles sharing the same title. Please don't do that. For example, I moved MARES (ISS Facility) to Muscle Atrophy Research and Exercise System. Of course, MARES could have worked as well (and I created a redirect from that page since it may be a search term), but the expanded title is recommended unless it just wouldn't make sense to the reader (for example, TROPI).
I understand the concern, but please check the amount of data. This has to be part of a second stage clean-up and solved with redirection, or i'm dead.--ThorX (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be MARES (ISS Facility) page, for redirection, if not else, or this is a serious trouble. --ThorX (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you'll take a look at this diff, you'll notice I removed two categories from the TROPI article. When adding categories, don't add "parent" categories when a child category is already present...in this case, because "International Space Station experiments" was present, there is no reason to add "International Space Station" or "Space science experiments", because the 'experiments' category is already present in those. I know, this is complicated and probably frustrating, but you'll get the hang of it over time. Considering that you've only been here a short time, you've gotten a lot of article writing done, and that's fantastic. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit of category aerobics, please check. Some experiments and facilities go in the multiple categories, but not as a general solution, it has to be solved on a case per case basis.--ThorX (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some other naming examples: I moved "European Drawer Rack (EDR)" to "European Drawer Rack" because the acronym is extraneous. Moved "Microgravity Science Glovebox (ISS Facility)" to "Microgravity Science Glovebox" because the term does not need disambiguating (no other article uses that particular term). Moved "Holter (ISS Facility)" to "Human Research Facility Holter Monitor" because the term didn't need disambiguating, but the proper term for this is most appropriate as the article title. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do all of this in the first stage, but good job, and i appreciate it. This is exactly the problem i'm facing, and it takes too much time for me to solve. If you could help, like you just did, it would be very, very much appreciated. --ThorX (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When moving, i don't know how obvious it is, and how automatic, but i already link other articles to that title. I will use acronym redirection page to resolve the issue in the future. --ThorX (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the moved articles titles, and i think i know what you are talking about, and agree. We will see :) Will try and cause the least amount of trouble for other people, but some cases are beyond my abilities. They will be easy to spot :) --ThorX (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, don't hesitate to ask for help if you need it. As for moving pages, it is no problem because a redirect is automatically left behind. Like when I moved "European Drawer Rack (EDR)", a redirect was automatically created which forwards visitors to "European Drawer Rack", so you don't have to worry about fixing links within other articles. I've gone through the ISS categories and looked for obvious cases that need attention, and will look again tomorrow when I have fresh eyes :) For now, it is well past midnight, so I'm off to sleep! — Huntster (t @ c) 05:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one other thing I should mention. If you want to delete something that you made and that no one else has significantly contributed to, just add the {{db-author}} template to it, and an admin will come along and delete it shortly. No need to go through the whole Request for Deletion procedures! — Huntster (t @ c) 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, saves some trouble :) --ThorX (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made it bold, to be easy found and seen. --ThorX (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult naming cases[edit]

↑
Example of a horrible, i don't know what to do thing:

I will put here also some other tricky cases. --ThorX (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new article names in sub-articles[edit]

↑
I still don't know, how this will fit in, example:

I tried with new article titles, but it would probably be better, to solve this with abbreviations on the redirect level, to keep consistency. We will also notice clashes, when and if they exist. I will leave it now as it is, we can fix this later, by moving, if there will be, by any chance, new articles. --ThorX (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. Are you wanting to rename the FSL article to something else, or is there an issue inside the article you are working on? Naming Wollaston - shearing interferometer perhaps? — Huntster (t @ c) 09:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are red links in that article, with my suggested new article titles. I'm not done with them yet, have to see, how they will link with the list, but i'm not there yet. If you like, you could check those red links in Fluid Science Laboratory and you will get a little better idea. It is not so crucial, as long as there is ABBREVIATION (ISS Facility) redirect, it can be solved later, at leisure. This is how i will deal, with cases beyond my abilities, and they will show up in the group as such, i hope, not too many. And yes, like Wollaston - shearing interferometer, for which i would love to have WSI (ISS Facility) redirect, it's just there is no short version, and therefore, it doesn't make sense, or solve anything --ThorX (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I'll go through the article and see if any of the red-link terms need modifying. The Wollaston link in particular bothers me, as I can't find any information on the experiment. If you can give me a link, I can probably come up with a better term.
Thank you very much, it is annoying task, and just a first step, in case someone clicks on that red link. There are other red links, in other articles too, and i'm beginning to think 'a list' again. For the moment, i don't have a decent web link for them, as it is, they are reminder to get such links. Another list .. i have to digest this a bit.--ThorX (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also remember that redirects are mostly created when there's a reasonable expectation that a reader would be looking for an article under some other name. I'm not sure that anyone would be looking for an article with the parenthetical "(ISS Facility)", especially with an upper-case "Facility". Like I said before, I don't see any reason to create that kind of redirect. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you understand the concept of a 'database key' ? In the case of S&R on ISS it is the word in parenthesis, be it Facility or Experiment. That is certainly a necessary key, needs a file. I don't expect anyone to search for a SOME (ISS Facility), but they might, if it is a standard, consistent approach. It also solves the problem, where you loose at least a half hour before you find an article with a proper name to link, let say, in sub-articles from S&R. I don't know of any other possible solution, which would be able to address all of this, plus some more things that come out of it, without even trying, but for that i need more articles to show you. ISS Facility makes more sense than ISS facility, in the same way 'International Space Station facility' makes more sense than 'International Space Station Facility'. I would go for 'ISS Facility experiment' if i would make that longer, if you know what i mean. --ThorX (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In short : word in parenthesis is a case sensitive key, with a class descriptor (ISS Experiment), please, please, do not mess with it, what's more, when i get to it, i will make redirection articles for all, which don't have such existing redirect file, saves a lot of trouble, human and computer processing, and i'm not arguing about it, nor do i intend to, i'll just keep doing it like this, and fix what is not consistent with it. --ThorX (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While i'm at it, let me just add, there will be ambiguity even on this level, with a class descriptor, check the S&R on ISS page, at least a couple of such cases, for which i don't know yet what to do about, it will show, when the time comes, but they will need to be treated on a per case basis, and again do not mess with the key ! --ThorX (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm confused. We don't operate with database keys here. They aren't necessary for article titles...any sorting can be done inside categories, and can be done transparently without adding sort keys to the actual article names. For example, to sort the category "International Space Station components", you could add Components, where "Components" is the sort key. See my edit here. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be confused, but this is how this can work, and i see no other option, without a HUGE amount of hassle. I have enough of that as it is, with all the 'help' i get from various sources. It also explains, why this enormous hole still exists - people prefer talking to doing - it's easier. I'm on a very edge of letting all of this go, and get me another single player game. Think about it. Beside, i answered that already.--ThorX (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do use Wiki for searching for articles too, and this is what is needed to be able to find what you are looking for, or depend on Google, as it is in too many cases, like ISS parts, all over the place, i duplicated an article, because i didn't see it exists - with only 10 or so articles. Did you count how many will be there ? --ThorX (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another on the border of a hopeless case - FSL experiment container (EC) - duh, FSL EC (ISS Facility) ?? I'm happy with 'FSL experiment container' , but the pattern must be consistent. It' not even in that list .. ! THEY NEED Wiki, obviously, to get acronyms organized, or what ? --ThorX (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to International Space Station facilities category[edit]

↑
International Space Station facilities - Category

ESA Copyrights[edit]

↑

↑
Okay, for future reference, any image that is "Credit ESA" is automatically copyrighted and may not be uploaded to Commons. Same with JAXA images, ISRA images, etc. Only NASA-created images are public domain, and just because an image is hosted at NASA.gov does not mean it is public domain. Yes, it is complicated :P Any image like this, go ahead and request {{copyvio|copyrighted ESA file}} (or whatever) at Commons and remove from articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So where can i upload it ? What to do ? --ThorX (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You possibly could upload it to Wikipedia and add a fair-use rationale, but I would not recommend it. We want to keep fair-use to an absolute minimum, and I have a feeling that you could find a NASA-produced image somewhere that does the same thing. Remember, images are *nice*, but aren't required. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article without an image is a bad idea. I will solve this problem, for now, such that, i will do no articles with only such images. --ThorX (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No no, the article is *always* more important than an image. Please continue to create the articles...images can be found later on. Please don't avoid creating articles just because there is no image. At the very least, you can add an external link to an official page that *does* have an image. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk back[edit]

↑
For talk - back templates.

Hello, ThorX13. You have new messages at Talk:Research and Science on the International Space Station.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

header problem[edit]

↑
In response to this, please read WP:MOSHEAD. -MBK004 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about 1.st level sections. I did, and will continue to do so, because i start counting with 1. Try quoting the part, for which you think that applies directly to this issue. --ThorX (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see, or understand, what is the problem, so please, try again.--ThorX (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right here:
  • The nesting hierarchy for headings is as follows:
    • the automatically generated top-level heading of a page is H1, which gives the article title;
    • primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on.

Level 1 headers are never in articles used except those that are automatically generated (title of the article), start with level 2 for what you were doing. -MBK004 02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good link is Help:Section#Creation_and_numbering_of_sections which says "Please do not use only one equals sign on a side (=Heading=). This would cause a section heading to be as large as the page's name (title)." It's mostly a style issue but it is the convention around here <shrug>. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy. I understand conventions, and have no need for different leveling, i just wanted to know, for future reference. I will copy the responses in the new article naming section, but you can do that too, it might be even better :) I go fix the skeletons. --ThorX (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

continued from WP:IMAGEHELP[edit]

↑
So I was looking into the copyright issues for making/modifying attribution templates for you and sadly came across nothing but problems:

  • The CSA license isn't PD. It's noncommercial, which is a problem. It means we can't use it except for as a source like normal references.
  • The ESA terms and conditions have the same problem as the CSA.
  • JAXA policy appears to offer no license at all.
  • All Roscosmos has is a blurb in the lower-left corner of the page which is so short as to be ambiguous, but I doubt it will let you import it straight into WP since we're rather particular about copyrights, as you may have noticed from your image work already. I'll ask one of the veteran copyright admins about it though and see if they have a different take.

Unless there are different terms for whatever subpages you want to use it looks like NASA is going to be your only source for material you can copy/paste instead of having to rewrite everything. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming my suspicions. I will, or not, deal with this after NASA data is on-board, and in the mean time avoid non-NASA material.--ThorX (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add, that i do appreciate your effort and help very much. Your response is helping, even if it is not obvious :) --ThorX (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm copying your response, it is very informative, good starting point, to the page's talk page. --ThorX (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its nice (albeit surreal) to be appreciated for telling you that it won't be an easy job. And I did check with the admin, and she confirmed that Roscosmos won't work either, so NASA is definitively the low-hanging fruit (which has always been my favorite). Good luck! VernoWhitney (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it, because it came from the source (you) which seams competent and can provide references for her/his/its claims, not to mention, knows whom to ask, and ask them. Your response made this info a fact, not a rumour anymore, at least for me. Thank you, again, as surreal as it may sound. (and a personal note - i like surreal, among other ;) --ThorX (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing about NASA is that not only are their images public domain, but amongst the space community, they generate far more media than (probably) all the other space agencies combined. So regardless of what you are looking for, or who it belongs to, NASA has probably generated a PD image of it somewhere along the line ;) — Huntster (t @ c) 09:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking very much along this line, it's just that i hate to leave articles without images behind me, and i can't start with transcriptions, too much, later, i will worry about this, when i run out of NASA data, not very soon .. ;) --ThorX (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image galleries[edit]

↑
I have noticed you are adding a large image gallery to Minus Eighty Degree Laboratory Freezer for ISS. Please be aware of WP:IG and WP:NOTREPOSITORY before adding massive image galleries to articles just because the images exist. -MBK004 06:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you don't want this on wikipedia ? I get a lot of trouble, very little useful help, as an average - google hints don't count. Don't have time to mess with this now, i have about 1000 more articles with images to upload, or so. If you are willing to help, welcome. --ThorX (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, if i skip a very long rant, this discussion should be on the respective pages talk page, not here. I will copy it on the appropriate places, when it will get to that stage, but of course, you can do that too. --ThorX (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time come with something like this:


--ThorX (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A page you could do with reading...[edit]

Just as a piece of friendly advice, can I suggest you take a look at the page at WP:OWN? Colds7ream (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ThorX13. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects.
Message added 09:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've asked WikiProject Insects to ID that dragonfly for you. Hope they know what it is! Colds7ream (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Copy/paste skeletons for new articles[edit]

Hello, ThorX13. You have new messages at Talk:Scientific research on the International Space Station#Copy/paste skeletons for new articles.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThorX13&oldid=692235706"