User talk:Tarl N.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Tarl N.}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

SA-500F sources

Hi Tarl,

The sources that I linked to are reliable. One source (James (Lockheed)) got the information he provided from people at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. The other, Ed Kyle, runs http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/, and he knows far more about historical spaceflight than I ever will. The original source in the article is the only one I've ever seen that says that S-IVB-500F in on display at KSC.

Also, there are only two S-IVBs at KSC, 514 and 209 (I've seen both in person). 514 is part the display Saturn V, while 209 is on the Saturn IB at the visitors center. The Saturn V page contradicts itself with that (it says both 514 and 500F are on display at KSC, which simply isn't true). It also says further down that 514 is part of the Saturn V on display, and quotes a source from NASA.

Thanks, -Ian

References 1. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6263.msg104353#msg104353 2. https://www.drewexmachina.com/2016/09/23/the-saturn-500f-the-moon-rocket-that-couldnt-fly/ 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-500F 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB 5. https://www.johnweeks.com/spacecraft/saturn_v_ksc_3.html

(unsigned) —IanThePineapple (talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mafia sources

Hi Tarl, I received it as a gift and read the original version in the original language (the thesis). I did not see any COI just be cause I read it before the english version. MOreover what is wrong with the reference?

(unsigned) -- —2804:14d:1a87:1102:d980:5ddb:8aba:cd64 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 27 December 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the IP's talk page, where the discussion started. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giants edits

What do you mean, I needed sources? I get the somewhat flowery writing, but most of the info I put on there didn't need to be cited. There's something called observation and comparison. In fact, I calculated the 2007 New York Giants' strength of victory all by myself. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk page, where the discussion started. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really?! You're telling me the point differential has to be cited? All I had to do was look at the standings to find that out! You mean I have to put THAT as a citation? GRRR! This is frustrating. Can't people look at it for themselves? It's not rocket science! But whatever, I'll take a look at it. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mk8mlyb, please read the yellow box on the top of this page. Again, I'll answer on your talk page. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, pal, I'm just following what I see on the page, okay? If you read the articles, they have the same stuff throughout. All I'm doing is staying consistent. Look at the playoff section of the 2007 season article. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I put some sources on both articles. Is that enough? Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, responding on user's talk page. With WP:AGF, I'll assume some problem in understanding the yellow box. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

You undid several of my edits and gave a wrong description. You have to look precisely, e.g. Quaoar is no asteroid and this is why I removed the term. And please, don't write anything onto my talk page, let's talk here if you wanna, but better you stop watching me. Some of your comments are nonsense or evil. --212.186.15.191 (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with Tarl N.'s revert of your recent edits, nor do I see anything wrong with the edit summaries he left when he did so. Please do not engage in the hostile use of words by telling him that he "better stop watching you" - this kind of word use and tone begins to set the discussion toward the path of being uncivil. Please remain positive and open-minded in your comments and discussions, and work things out peacefully with other users. Thank you - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I did mistake the edit to Extreterrestrial skies, I thought you were adding "the asteroid". That one is correct. The rest of your edits, though, were wrong. We don't need "anything and anybody" in an encyclopedia. As for watching, that's what patrollers do. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you writing something onto my talk page although I wrote you please don't write anything there? And Oshwah is obviously joking (I'm just telling not to watch me please) and didn't see Tarl's previous edits on my talk page and in the comments. The use of Twinkle and Huggle is an over-exaggeration. They are thought to combat vandalism, not good faith edits. In the article about Moon's gravity there stands "16.6 % (1/6)". This is wrong, 1/6 is more than 16.6 %. You can write something like "about 1/6" if you wanna. Why don't we "need 'anything and anybody'", what's wrong with it? 212.186.15.191 (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the top of this talk page, it states that when I respond to a comment on my talk page, I will leave a talkback on yours. As for Oshwah joking, he's an administrator, and he doesn't joke about threats on Wiki. It's something that is taken very seriously on Wikipedia. As for the general issue of reverting your edits, please read the policy WP:BRD. When one of your edits is reverted, for whatever reason, the next step is to discuss it on the article's talk page, not simply re-revert. Please also read WP:3RR. Tarl N. (discuss) 08:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I made no jokes in my response and I meant everything that I said. I'm just looking out for you both; I don't want things to turn heated and nasty like I see happen with other users on Wikipedia. Just keep civil, and understand that messages and notifications are going to be left on your user talk page. Otherwise, you won't be notified at all when Tarl N. responds to you here. He's doing this to be courteous to you; the notifications are for your benefit, not Tarl N.'s. Don't be so quick to interpret messages as hostility; assume good faith and give others the benefit of the doubt in cases where the intent isn't clear. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left a notice on your user talk page regarding edit warring, which is disruptive and not allowed on Wikipedia. Please avoid repeatedly reverting articles in a back-and-forth manner with other editors; you need to discuss disputes and issues properly and come to a consensus instead. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And while I'm at it, allow me to convey my apology to 212.186.15.191 - I let myself get irritated, and my crankiness clearly showed on that talk page. I was less polite than I should have been. My regrets, Tarl N. (discuss) 08:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I forgive you both. But please correct the phrase in Gravitation of the Moon because 1/6 is more than 16.6 %. 212.186.15.191 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the surface gravity on earth nor the surface gravity on the moon are precise values; they both vary by considerably more than the difference between 0.166 and 1/6th. If you read the sentence before the one you modified, it says exactly that, and provides a map showing the variations on the moon. It already has established in that sentence that the value is an approximation. So the change is inappropriate. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to write "16.6 % (1/6)" is a lie because 16.6 % isn't 1/6. So better to write "...(about 1/6)". Nothing would be wrong with that. 212.186.15.191 (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]