User talk:ChiZeroOne

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

Barto and Mann[edit]

Dear Chizero, Thank you very much for the improvements and lesson on the use piped links. You might note that I put your lesson into practice right away by hot linking Hellzapoppin (without the apostrophe) to Hellzapoppin' (musical), incorrectly listed with an apostrophe. I haven't figured out how to make a correction on an article title. (There is, by the way, an apostrophe in the movie version of Hellzapoppin').

I have what I think is a related question you may be able to answer. For the link to "Alexander Pantages," I would like to go directly to the section, "Pantages Theatre Circuit" included in the Alexander Pantages Wikipedia article. I have a memory of seeing a way to do that, but I haven't been able to relocate the instructions. Again, many thanks for your help. Brad Smith (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestions and assistance, all of which were very helpful. Brad Smith (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved by Látches ~~~~

User:ChizeroUser:ChiZeroOne — New account, forgot old password. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Your attention is requested[edit]

Please see User_talk:John_Carter#Re:_GabrielVelasquez. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Swedish general election, 2010[edit]

Hi ChiZeroOne! You made useful criticisms around election day and soon afterwords. Please look at recent events on the talk page. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals[edit]

Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject activity[edit]

Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight at 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Human spaceflight activity[edit]

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Space reorganization[edit]

Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:

  1. Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
  2. Separate the Astronomy and Spaceflight "sides" of WikiProject, and remove WikiProject Space.

If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC). Redirected here from User talk:Chizero.

WikiProject Spaceflight activity[edit]

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 17:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot[edit]

Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

I replied to your comments at the Village pump[edit]

I replied to your comments about my suggestion on the village pump. Thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts on the discussion. --Kumioko (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Jupiter proposal[edit]

Jupiter by Cassini-Huygens.jpg Hello! Would you be interested in forming WikiProject Jupiter? If so, please show your support by clicking on the link above!--Novus Orator 06:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 0[edit]

   The Downlink   
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 0, December 2010  
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

Great work![edit]

Wow, well done with putting the new banner up on so many pages! It's very much appreciated! :-) Mlm42 (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem, it would have taken forever to convert them otherwise. In fact there are so many pages well within our scope that never had a banner or been tagged under spaceflight either. Still I'm leaving out the importance on many of them just to speed things up a bit, so there'll still be more work to do. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, ChiZeroOne. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight.
Message added 14:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
  • Another. --GW 15:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 1[edit]

   The Downlink   
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 1, January 2011  
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

The Space Barnstar[edit]

Space-Barnstar-1j.png The Space Barnstar
In recognition of your contributions to the reorganisation of WikiProject Spaceflight, and for your work on updating the project banners on talk pages, I would like to award you The Space Barnstar. GW 15:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconded by me - an absolutely stellar effort sir! :-D Colds7ream (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again :-) ! --ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue - 11JAN2011[edit]

Hi your comments...I am trying to get the article on RocketShip Tours re-written to a more encyclopedic word-smithing style/format...I took a look at the list of "Peacock Words " and phrases section that you referred to and I'm currently in the process of correcting same. Thanks for pointing out your concern...should have this revamped within the next 48 hours.MediaMogulMan (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear it. The better the quality of writing the more likely the article is to be seen anyway. ChiZeroOne (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Interview request[edit]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spaceflight for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview here. If you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, feel free to skip it. If you have any questions, you can drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for participating. Can you please help me clarify one of your answers (marked {{clarify}}) on the interview page? Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure if you saw my note. I need you to clarify what you mean by: "I probably should point out a good 700 or so of those are fortunately non article-space, useful content in supporting editing." It's not very clear to me what you are trying to say. You can make the clarification directly on the interview page. Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Oops! No I didn't see it. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for working on the article. I'm very sorry, but I'm still not clear about these 700 non-article space. What are these? Are they templates, project pages, etc.? How did you get the number of 700? Are these pages listed somewhere? Sorry for being a pain but I need to clarify it for our readers, or they will start making comments on the article once it is published. Thanks again for your help! – SMasters (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes these are pages that are not articles, categories etc. If you look at our assessment page you'll see a large number of pages in the NA column of the topmost table. These are things like template-space pages e.g Template:Shenzhou program, media files e.g Image:Apollo 11 bootprint.jpg etc etc. My point in the interview was that these sorts of pages are important to improving spaceflight articles but they themselves only need general maintenance, so while we do have a lot of articles to cover it's not as bad as the headline figure appears because a number of them are not full articles. All non article-space pages are marked NA for importance to the project so the number is just the number of NA articles, which has just in the last day broken over the 800 mark.
Thanks for the clarification. I have added some examples to show what you mean. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Herschel Space Observatory‎[edit]

i don't think the mos you cited applies. Category:European Space Agency probes is the diffusing category. --emerson7 16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was questioning whether it is a diffusive category, I don't believe it is. A diffusive category breaks another down into more specific versions, I.e Space programs -> Chinese space program. But that's not really what's going on between these categories, the subcategory is an aspect of the main one, and indeed it makes sense looking at the category structure here (I edited that article as part of a wider clean up). As such there should be no problem with an article being labelled under both, in fact it makes the categories far more useful/easier to navigate if they are. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


Wow, the task of replacing the old banner with the new one is almost done: 101.6% complete! If I didn't know better, I'd think that was a mistake. :-) Mlm42 (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, yeah I realised that. I know about half the "extra" are articles I've tagged in the last day, but that still makes 40 or so extra transclusions than there should be! :-S Oh well, I'll pretend they don't exist for now. ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2[edit]

   The Downlink   
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 2, February 2011  
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Tools question[edit]

Hi ChiZeroOne. You've been doing a yeoman's job on getting the spaceflight-related articles identified and banners added. I've been doing (compared to you) just a very little work in that area. My question is: Do you know of any WP or Wikimedia tools for watching the Spaceflight wikiproject, and seeing the DIFFERENCE in articles in the project based on a few simple categories, over some period of time (say the last week, or the last month)? I'm looking for something that would show stats on articles added/removed from the project, or class or quality ratings changed. Thanks very much. N2e (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I've noticed you around assessing articles, very much appreciated. What do you mean by stats? The Spaceflight articles by quality log has the raw list of article changes in all the categories you say you want. It updates a list of additions, removals, assessments, reassessments and renaming every day. All you need to do to see older entries is load previous revisions. Is that of any use or were you looking for something more? ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
That's cool, and supplies a great deal of what I was looking for. BTW, that link ought to be on the WPSpaceflight Assessment page if it isn't already. I didn't see it before, and I haven't gone back to look now that you provided me the link.
I have added a link to the Assessment page, to make this easier to find.N2e (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I also would like to see who is assessing articles for WikiProject Spaceflight. I'm guessing it is mostly you, and I've done a few, but who else, and in what period of time? So I guess I'm looking for a bit more. It also would be helpful if the "change list" were sortable by the type of changes made in the (selectable) past day/week/month, Quality Raised, Quality Lowered, Importance Raised, Importance Lowered, and what those changes were for each. (e.g., Stub to C, or B to C, or unassessed to Start; and also Low to Med, High to Top, noPriority to Low, etc. In short, if this tool exists for Wikipedia WikiProjects in general, I'd like to know where it is and try to use it, or set up a page to use it, for WPSpaceflight. If the tool does not already exist, I'm sure it's not worth trying to develop it for just our little project. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Specific log pages are linked to from a box around the task force assessment tables like Human spaceflight, but I think the same wasn't done for the Spaceflight one because of issues with space. I agree having such a link is useful.
Unfortunately I'm not sure whether there are any tools that use the stats from the log, I don't think there are. I suggest you ask either Mlm42 (talk · contribs) or GW Simulations (talk · contribs), they might know. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not aware of any such tools. It could be an interesting project to develop one. If we can come up with a specification, I might have a go, but no promises. --GW 16:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for offering your view on this. As to you "having a go", I'll leave any of the tool-writing to you and others with knowledge and interest—I am totally ignorant of the Wikipedia tools coding etc. However, IF you are ready to turn on any effort, let me know and I would be more than happy to join you in a little requirements analysis and in the requirements specification part of the project. N2e (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know of any tools like that either; the WP 1.0 bot is what updates the article assessment pages and tables.. so a tool like this should probably be added at that level, so other projects could use it as well. The piece of information the bot doesn't already have is "who" assessed the article. I'm not sure how easy this is to determine for a bot, but it seems feasible. I might be worth bringing this whole question up at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index to see if there's interest. Mlm42 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for offering your view on this Mlm42! N2e (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I know I not part of your team, but I thought I could help by offering some suggestions. As I understand it, you are wanting something where you are able to see all of the assessments of the articles, when they were assessed and who assessed them (basically)? It would be quite an undertaking, but I would suggest starting a new page with a sortable table of all of the articles within the project. Then possibly, every Friday or some other day, a committee of at least three members from the project can discuss on that page, the assessment of the articles most changed since the previous meeting. After discussing and assessing the articles, one member could update the table to reflect the new assessments, possibly a one line comment about how the article met the requirements or why it didn't, the date of the assessment and the names of the members who assessed the article. This would keep your project collaborative while maintaining some oversight on the somewhat subjective matter of assessing articles. For such an undertaking, I'd be willing to help if that is what you intended. --Xession (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I took a little bit of time and drafted up what I had pictured from this discussion. Here is a rough draft of a possible assessment table. --Xession (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


-; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howdroll (talkcontribs) 22:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this about Charlie the fried dog? ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Yuri Gagarin[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, ChiZeroOne. You have new messages at Greyhood's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


I just added Flight to WPSpaceflight. Rationale: it seems a rather core concept to our project, and it has a (brief) section on Spaceflight. Moreover, it has been assessed as "This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have." so it generally makes the release versions of Wikipedia.

My question for you is, given all this, is Mid importance high enough for the spaceflight project? N2e (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I should have mentioned, the article needs a little work from a Spaceflight point of view. E.g., currently "History" is pretty much "Aviation history" and "Physics" is "Aerodynamics"; would probably be better to have Spaceflight history and Astrodynamics get a mention, at minimum. N2e (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I should warn you now I'm generally quite strict about inclusion as you might see from the project talk page, everyone seems more forgiving than me :P . I'm not entirely sure it is really a core concept, it seems far too general with only a small portion concerning spaceflight in particular, and most actual spaceflight operates on quite different principles to the rest. I think mid importance is fine. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, ChiZeroOne. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight.
Message added 13:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Downlink: Issue 3[edit]

   The Downlink   
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 3, March 2011  
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC).


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, ChiZeroOne. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight.
Message added 19:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kepler (spacecraft) article rename[edit]

Hey ChizeroOne, I thought I would mention to you that user, Jenks24 is suggesting to rename the Kepler observatory article to "Kepler mission". I entirely disagree but I was hoping for your input as you are a relatively prominent editor and member of WP:Spaceflight. Thanks! --Xession (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sabre engine rename question[edit]

I don't think the choice of "rocket engine" as a disambiguator is the best since its not a pure rocket. Why not leave it at the manufacturer model title like aero-engines (which it technically is). By way of comparison the North American X-15 engines are at Reaction Motors XLR11 and the Blue Steel missile's are Rolls-Royce RZ2. It would also fit in with ScimitarGraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well as REL say themselves..."The SABRE engine is essentially a closed cycle rocket engine with an additional pre-cooled turbo-compressor to provide a high pressure air supply to the combustion chamber.". I realise that technically it is neither a rocket or a jet when taken over it's whole flight profile but referring to it as a form of rocket engine is clearly what REL themselves prefer in their documentation. As I pointed to in the renaming section on the Skylon talk page, with regard to spaceflight technology, manufacturer names as a form of disambiguation are not generally preferred on Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter whether other pages exist (they may simply have not been changed yet), what matters is there have been previous discussions on spaceflight-related articles that have come to the conclusion that such disambiguation is not preferred. Btw if you're going to say it is not a rocket engine it's just as easy to point out neither is it an "aero-engine" (unlike Scimitar) and so comparisons with things more clearly in the field of aviation don't necessarily apply. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I almost forgot, It is also an issue of common name. It may well be that the common name for the engines you quote do indeed include the manufacturer. I don't believe that is the case with SABRE, it itself seems mostly to be referred to as simply the SABRE engine and so including the manufacturer name would seem not to adhere to the policy. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"The X-15 motors are at XLR-11?" Yes, the first couple X-15s used LR-11s for most of the first 32 flights in the program. That noted, there was was nothing "X" about the LR-11 after over a dozen years and hundreds of flights it, and the very similar LR-8, were not the least experimental by the time of the X-15 flights. Nor was the LR-99 experimental by the time it was installed in X-15 #3. Most certain of all, the LR-11 was nothing more than a stop gap while the XLR-99 was tamed.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

the fate of the Sputnik Program[edit]

I almost wish I had not bothered to try and add the needed citations and references. I did not mean to end up with the page being nuked.

Please give me a heads up so i may move as much pertinent data to the other relevant pages before the work disappears.

ThanksMark Lincoln (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Any decision to change articles should be mutual, achieved by consensus between those involved, that is what the talk page is for. It is not for me or anyone else to unilaterally decide what is to be done, it will be decided by the progress of the discussion. This discussion is simply about how best to represent the subjects we cover and how best to organise the information. No one is proposing simply getting rid of the article without first re-using good quality information in other pages; it certainly shouldn't just suddenly disappear. ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not being a WikiGod, I accept the dictum ex cathedra. I am glad I would get warning that things would change so that work would not be wasted.

Unstated upon my page is that I was an Aerospace Engineering student who took a major in history for relaxation. I have never worked in either.

I never worked in aerospace engineering because in the early 1970s the combination of historical trends (fewer programs), the end of the Vietnam War, and the lend of the Space Race (cancellation of Apollo flights and Apollo Applications Technology had discarded 40,000 over-qualified engineers upon the Los Angeles taxi driver worker pool. To do academic history would have limited my life to becoming ever more expert about an ever smaller part of history. I ended up as a small and very small businessman. Working in a number of rapidly evolving businesses where my technical and historical comprehension allowed me to surf the bleeding edge of many technologies for decades.

I don't mind doing the work, but also don't like seeing good work discarded because it does not fit the desire of some bureaucrat or exactly comply with the eternal desire of bureaucrats to drive round reality into square holes.

I am trained to see engineering problems and historical events with both an engineering and historical perspective. The only 'bias' I must adhere to is the bias of reality whether it be evidenced by physical reality or historic events and perspective.

I think that the "Sputnik Crisis" is a most appropriate title for what has been a divided effort between the "Sputnik Program," and the rather anemic article "sputnik crisis." I would be glad to integrate the information in Sputnik Crisis into the current Sputnik Program page.

Every book I have cited is in my personal library. I use the Internet all the time, and wrote my first web page in hand coded html during the mid-1990s. I do not confuse the web with a reliable source unless filtered by trained intelligence. I used 'Arpanet' long before Al Gore 'invented it' (I am also aware Al Gore NEVER claimed to have invented the internet).

I always try to cite and reference anything I write or add since I learned how to do it. I always try to maintain a neutral bias unless a honest treatment of the subject requires the statement of a positive bias to convey reality as it happened. History is not without bias. Some folks loose wars despite having good reasons and some monsters win them despite deserving to die. To a historian only trying to tell a biased story for propaganda,profit or for ideological justification, is wrong. To insist the USA could have 'won' the non-existent, except in a few minds of a few, 'race' to put up the first satellite would require ignoring why the leaders of BOTH the Soviet Union and USA did not consider being first to do so essential at the expense of greater national goals.

The initial response of Dwight and Nikita was amusingly similar. That one came to realize he had the perfect weapon with which to secure his position and policies while the other had to scramble to take actions which assuaged the public is Ironic. That I have not sought to ram either point down the throats of Wikipedia should also be noted.

Eisenhower was awarded what he had spent tens of millions "vanguard" dollars to achieve by the Soviet Union. Nikita had his desire to out-flank the propaganda value of America's Strategic Air Command by accepting Korolev's argument, that given the delays in the Re-entry Vehicle for the 8K71, the launch crews would be best kept up to snuff by sending up a simple satellite. I do not think I have slighted either man or either nation in my edits.

In the last day I have reviewed the three 'Sputnik' articles and tried to improve two of them. i have also looked at the 'Sputnik Crisis' page and understand what the author was trying to convey and think that the author did as best he could without extensive documentation and the personal experience necessary to convey the facts and the essential nature of the time.

If the WikiLords agree I would like to use the "sputnik program' article as a means of integrating the 'sputnik crisis' page into a single entry, titled with the far more perfect term 'Sputnik Crisis.'

I am NOT a corporate kind of guy who easily fits within any organizational structure. That is why I have spent my life self-employed. I am not out to prove any 'point' except that history and engineering have to be honest or fail. An Engineer will accept reality and try to use it to his advantage. he will never try to pound a square peg into a round hole. A historian will seek to comprehend and communicate what happened and why - to describe and document the geometry - rather than try to make what happened and why fit a preconceived geometry.

I got REALY fed up when a Wiki Editor insisted upon posting an extremely edited version of a communication while refusing to allow the inclusion of, or citation of, the total contents of the message in question which countered the personal opinion of that editor.

But then I was never a bureaucrat kiss ass and can never be one.

I think one of my first Wikipages, US Army Airships was pretty good as originally posted. I think that my recent improvements also have merit. I have at least one linear meter of books on lighter-than-air flight and that my knowledge in the subject is based upon fact instead of desire.

Some fool thinks that everything about Airships can be condensed into a single article. If you look into the "List of US Navy Airships" and the original article addressing the why and how of USN airships which was deleted, it will be apparent that the original article should be a stub of the airships page and should have not been reduced to a mere list which has no context.

No doubt there are people with no knowledge of source material or later scholarship will not comprehend how 'Sputnik' is both an object and an event, but I think it must be treated as both. The Sputnik 1 article is very good, and i have not sought to 'tamper' with it because it is, in my opinion, too dependent upon internet resources and lacking in citations and references which will survive any simple purge of websites or entire servers.

I am, asking for guidance, though I am pledging liege to any WikiGod. If my return to editing is an effort which will not serve the increasingly autocratic forms and formulas of Wikipedia, then let me know.

Free spirits need bureaucrats almost as much as bureaucrats need free spirits. If Wikipedia has become so calcified in it's bureaucracy that it has no need of free spirits with a big library and a passion to see it does not simply reward myself, so be it.

Thank YouMark Lincoln (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Skylab Rescue Article needs assessment for importance.[edit]

Since it was created the Skylab Rescue has been expanded and the references improved. It now needs re-assessment. Would you be interested in doing this?Graham1973 (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took a while to get round to it but I have done an assessment [1]. All-in-all it's a good well-referenced article, the only thing stopping me bumping the article to C-class straight away is the short lede. To get the article to B-class from there would need a little work on the structure as well as the breadth of coverage, which in my experience tends to come from setting out a logical flowing structure anyway. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the rating and the comments. I was not actually the creator of the article, but I'll see what I can do in the way of re-writing and expanding the lead in.Graham1973 (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Green Peas[edit]

Thankyou for your Pea edit. I and others have being debating this figure, but we now guess that it was a typo error in the emails that I exchanged with C. Cardamone. Anyway, 10^8 years, or more easily 100 million years- very young indeed.Richard Nowell (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Considering 10^8 billion years is far older than the universe I guessed it was a little off...I assumed the 1/100th comparison was correct and since the Milky Way is ~10^10 years old that 10^8 years is what was meant. Yes it is exeptionally young, that's only half the time it takes the Milky Way to rotate once! ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

NASA Flagship Program[edit]

Hello. Following the NASA FY2013 budget cuts, it is evident (official) that NASA put on indefinite hold their Flagship Program; I included a couple of refs in its talk page for discussion purposes. I am not familiar with that program and I wonder if you'd like to update (or assist me updating) that article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi ChiZeroOne[edit]

The article's talkpage is the place to express what you'd like to about the article, and I had already invited you to do so. I'd like to warn you not to add inappropriate templates to the article itself. Thanks ChiZeroOne ! Penyulap talk 14:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss past what was said in the edit summary, a POV tag has been placed on the article and it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. To do so is disruptive editing. Also, do not "warn" me over anything. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
You should check the article and talkpage history before you go backing the wrong horse. There was no dispute whatsoever on the talkpage of the article or anywhere else. WD hadn't even done a single edit, so how can that constitute an ongoing dispute. Go read the documentation of the template that you are defending the use of. You want an example of disruptive editing, well, the use of such a template is a fine example. Penyulap talk 18:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


What on Earth have you been doing with the articles related to Medway? Medway is a unitary authority politically separate from Kent County Council but it most definitely is still in the ceremonial county of Kent and so are all the places within it. Also Medway is a conurbation, not a town or city and therefore your wholesale changing of placenames is erroneous. I say this myself being from Rochester. You have changed so many articles I would appreciate it if you would help reverting them back to their correct state. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Medway is not in Kent - it is in the position of a number of places, such as Bromley and Enfield Town, where the administration has changed over the years. It has an anachronistic link to Kent in that the Lieutenancies Act 1997 which linked the Medway Towns with Kent has not been amended, and I have put that information in the articles with citations so people are correctly informed of the situation, so there is nothing to revert back. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Medway is in Kent, in fact you said as much yourself! [2], "seems it is still true that Medway is in the cermonial county of Kent - placed in main body and cited" and yet have mysteriously ignored this in every other edit. I don't think you can grasp that geography (the ceremonial county of Kent), and local government politics (Medway Council and Kent County Council) are not the same. Indeed the address of the main Medway Council buildings is;
Medway Council
Gun Wharf
Dock Road
I live in Rochester which is part of the Medway conurbation, I think I know that it remains in the ceremonial county of Kent, as do all other unitary authorities created in their respective counties (excepting for example the creation of the Metropolitan districts and their respective Metropolitan counties). Yes administration has changed but the only change to come in 1998 was that the creation of the unitary authority separated the highest tier of local government in Kent between Medway Council and Kent County Council, because by definition unitaries only have one tier of local government. This did not change the status that Medway is in the county of Kent. I'm well within my rights to BRD if the sources are interpreted by you incorrectly. ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just seen what you are doing. If you disagree or don't understand the rationale for an edit the appropriate approach is to discuss the matter. What you are doing is disruptive and can lead to edit wars. First we can discuss it, and if after discussion you still feel that Medway is in Kent, then we can open up a wider discussion.

First of all, what do you feel is incorrect about this opening sentence:

Chatham (/ˈætəm/ CHAT-əm) is in the unitary authority of Medway in South East England. It was, until 1998,[1] part of Kent and is still ceremonially associated via the Lieutenancies Act.[2]

You have removed that sentence even though it is informative, accurate and sourced.

Second, as Chatham is in Medway, why do you feel it is more helpful to have the title as Chatham, Kent. For disambiguation by place we go for the nearest large recognisable area, so we have Beeston, Leeds, Barbican, Plymouth, Bradwell, Milton Keynes, etc. Before the towns in Medway were formally recognised as a unit to be called Medway, they were known for some time as the Medway Towns, so there has long been a recognition of Chatham as being part of either MEdway Towns or Medway. There would be a possible discussion of the appropriate naming of places like Rainham, which still retain some association with Kent, and I gave that some thouight, but felt that as a disambiguation was needed, it would be preferable to go for consistency with the other places in Medway - but for Rainham and possibly Gillingham there is room for some discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Medway Council – Local history: Medway in the 20th century 1901 – 2000". 2009. Retrieved 9 June 2012. 
  2. ^ "Lieutenancies Act 1997". 2012 [last update]. Retrieved 9 June 2012.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

What do you think I was doing by messaging you on your Talk page if not discussing? That doesn't change the fact this is contentious material and according to Wikipedia guidelines it should be removed until consensus has been reached, especially considering you have changed so many articles without discussion. You need to prove that your interpretation of the sources is correct, it is not my responsibility to first show you why they are wrong.
Do not tell me my edits are disruptive when you have made wholesale changes without consulation to a great many articles manually in such a short space of time (this actually is defined by the community as disruptive behaviour) and then are surprised when actually it's shown to be incorrect?
With regard to the opening sentences you are using a source to claim something that isn't in the source! Where in the "Medway Council –Local history: Medway in the 20th century 1901 – 2000" page does it state that Medway is no longer part of Kent (I suggest giving that article a read)? This makes the whole premise of your edits false. The very fact that under the Lieutenancies Act it remains in the county is legal evidence that this is indeed the case. And yet you call this an anachronism, that is your opinion, the law says otherwise.
The sentence is not informative or accurate and while sources are provided, they contradict what you are using them to claim. You cannot just claim an opinion is untouchable because you have a link to any old random webpage.
The guidelines you cite over disambiguation state;
For localities unambiguously located within a town/city settlement (according to reliable, external sources) "placename, town/city" is used. For example, within the borough of Milton Keynes, for localities in the defined new city area "placename, Milton Keynes" is used, as with Bradwell, Milton Keynes. Localities within the borough but outside the city area continue to be disambiguated by ceremonial county, as with Olney, Buckinghamshire.
It references towns and cities. Medway is neither a town or city but a conurbation and unitary authority and thus comparing it to towns and cities such as Leeds, Plymouth, or Milton Keynes is erroneous. In fact the guideline further goes on to state that only in cases where further disambiguation is required (so more than one place with that name in the same county/town) then authorities can be used. The places you have been changing the names of do not require this level of disambiguation. Disambiguation is about separating places with the same name, there are no other Chathams in Kent, not assigning geographical allegiances. Chatham is part of the Medway unitary yes, but it is also a town in Kent, I don't understand the problem with this concept. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Restored edits[edit]

I considered carefully what you had done, and I have restored to the position before your reverts. I have done this as you were reverting fairly strongly, removing sourced information. We need to have a discussion about this to see how we can move forward and find the best solution. I have this page watchlisted so we can talk here or you can ping me on my talkpage. Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This sort of widespread change needs to be discussed by all active editors so that WP:CONSENSUS can be obtained. May I suggest a moratorium on the fledgling edit war and discussion moved to Talk:Rochester, Kent or Talk:Rochester, Medway according to your predilections. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree Martin. I couldn't believe how much of a sweeping change was done with zero discussion with editors concerned with the subject. It is however correct of me to revert the articles to their original state and I take issue with this being called disruptive when it is actually Wikipedia guideline on contentious edits. As I have said above it is SilkTork's responsibility to show his opinion and changes are correct, because the citations do not state what he is saying. The changes were not done with consensus and must be removed and only reinserted once you have demonstrated there is a consensus to do so. That a statement has a citation is irrelevant if said statement is not even referenced in the citation! ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I was rather careful not to call either of you gentlemen disruptive. I would suggest however that fledgling edit war is an accurate description of the events. I have created a section on the Rochester talk page for this discussion, perhaps moving there will draw in all concerned editors? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm unsure that's the best place for this discussion, at the least it would probably be a good idea to link to it from more local articles such as Medway or Kent talk pages where there will be editors with greater local knowledge. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
As this seems to be the place where the discussion is taking place, may I add an opinion before someone does it for me.
  • Technically User:SilkTork is correct, this is a change that needs to be made to comply with a flawed convention.
  • The text that User:SilkTork has added to many pages is correct and should stand.
  • Providing, that users can still search on the term Wigmore, Kent and Upnor, Kent and these pages exist as redirects my principal concern is addressed, so I will stand on the sidelines and hold folks coats as they slug it out.
  • Where the page is stored is immaterial providing it is properly indexed.
  • The user experience of reading a page with a heading that is artificial is less than perfect, and i think it is this part of the rule that needs to be addressed. Does user experience mean less or more than administrative tidyness- that is an issue.
    • Any other fact on a page must be supported by a verifiable reference- this one doesn't. In the two examples I have given only national estate agent use the Upnor, Medway notation. Vision of Britain has had to address the issue. It Googles on both- but Titles on Upnor, Kent. An issue.
    • It is not just Gillingham Dorset/Kent- or Rainham Essex/Kent that are possible cases for exception, for decades Rochester, Kent has been in use to distinguish it from Rochester, New York (which is marginally bigger) and the amusing distinction between Chatham, Kent and Chatham-Kent the unitary authority in Kent county, Ontario. I would suggest that historical precedent is an issue that really only affects UK unitaries and this was not taken into account sufficiently when the convention was formulated.
    • When I write an article on a suburb of Macclesfield, say the non-existant Upton, am I require to call it Upton, Cheshire East after the unitary- Upton, Cheshire after the traditional county, or Upton, Macclesfield- I could work up a case for the latter two. But I see that Moston, Cheshire West and Chester has already had the treatment- though in that case there are two Mostons in Cheshire. Coats gentlemen? --ClemRutter (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

LISA vs NGO[edit]

I was hoping you could reread the press release regarding the naming of eLISA/NGO (Press release: 9th LISA sypmosium). You are quite correct, it does indeed say that eLISA = NGO, but that (I believe) is just to state that the design for eLISA is the same as proposed to ESA as NGO. However, if you look through the text you see that eLISA is used preferentially, that it is the eLISA collaboration, and the name NGO only appears in a footnote. I think that adds up to them changing the name back to something LISA-based, which makes sense, as NGO is not a good name, whilst LISA has historical precedence and connection to LISA Pathfinder. Since the main reason for the mission not being selected was perceived technological risks, it would be logical that they wish to make the connection to the proof-of-concept mission. Of course, that is all my opinion, which would not justify reverting the article; however, I do think that the press release form the LISA Symposium backs me up. BobQQ (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Mars Science Laboratory[edit]

Why not just yank that whole sidebox with the flags in the instrument section? Nothing like it appears in any of the other rover articles. It's only going to be a target of endless vandalism anyway. All of the participating countries are listed in the appropriate areas. It looks more like something you would find in an Olympics article. Just a thought. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a fair point. ChiZeroOne (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Here is an aknowledgement to your dedication and diligence while developing and successfuly managing the Mars Science Laboratory article. Thankyou! BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! ChiZeroOne (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


Hello there, what was the point of reverting the SABRE (rocket engine) page back to an edit with dated information? Doesn't seem very constructive to just delete it. If you don't approve the way the new source has been added it might be more appropriate for you to edit it, so that no one will lose time looking for it once again, and the page will remain up to date. I'll reinstate the new version of that paragraph if you agree. We can then move on from there. Or if you prefer, you can write it all over yourself. Cheers, --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and written another version of the lead text spending a little more time on it. Feel free to edit it. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
You posted material in violation of copyright (read it), it is the responsibility of editors to remove illegal text. I was being constructive in removing it, and it is not my responsibility to rework the text to make it legal. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Aren't quotes considered fair use? I'd add that when reverting because of copyright concerns it's good practice to inform the original editor so that he/she may modify it accordingly and that the edit isn't lost (your revert might also be wrong). Maybe read the article once again yourself. For the future I would suggest to you Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary (read it). Reverting drives away editors, so please keep that in mind if you love Wikipedia.
I agree that the paragraph was kind of sloppy, the point was to start a constructive process that moved the page forward (usually better than going backwards). Cheers, --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
You copied everything, not just quotes. Do not quote me pages that are not policies like they mean anything, WP:COPYVIO is clear that copyright violations must be reverted. I do not care if I "drive away" people who infringe other people's creative rights. You cannot post copyright infringement and expect it to remain in place. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
You need a break my friend, you are not enjoying this anymore. Since this appears to be your only goal, here you go: you are absolutely right. "Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work”, Albert Einstein --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Fomalhaut b is Rogue planet or Exocomet?[edit]

Presently unclear - Recent reports seem to suggest Fomalhaut b is a Rogue planet (according to NASA)< ref name="NASA-20130108">Harrington, J.D.; Villard, Ray (January 8, 2013). "NASA's Hubble Reveals Rogue Planetary Orbit For Fomalhaut B". NASA. Retrieved January 9, 2013. </ref> - or - perhaps an exocomet< ref name=Wired-20130108">Mann, Adam (January 8, 2013). "Rogue Planet Confirmed Orbiting Around ‘Eye of Sauron’". Wired (magazine). Retrieved January 9, 2013. </ref> - clarification(s) welcome if possible - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The NASA article doesn't call it a "rogue planet", it just says it has a rogue planetary orbit (by definition being in orbit means it can't be a rogue planet). Again, this is just imprecise media language for the general public. The actual information provided is pretty clear that with the new orbit it does not meet the definition of a rogue planet, an unbound object. As that article states,
"Even more surprisingly, the latest Hubble images have allowed a team of astronomers to calculate the planet follows an unusual elliptical orbit that carries it on a potentially destructive path through the vast dust ring."
An elliptical orbit is a variety of bound orbit. Indeed the video on the Wired article clearly shows the proposed orbit is bound to Fomalhaut, just highly elliptical. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you *very much* for your comments - yes, after a closer look, I *entirely* agree with you that Fomalhaut b does not seem to be a Rogue planet by definition - (seems NASA and others may have used the term somewhat loosely) - OTOH, seems possible that Fomalhaut b *could* be an Exocomet, as suggested in the Wired (magazine) reference, I would think - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the ALSE article[edit] (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Hello, I started the ALSE article years ago and haven't looked at it since until today. I was happily amazed at the amount of detail and the links that have been added. You did a wonderful job. Thank you ! (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Philae and Rosetta Stone[edit]

Could you please try to improve the prose in the Rosetta (spacecraft) article, where it says, "an obelisk was found that helped decipher the Rosetta Stone"? This is confusing to me. The Rosetta Stone was key to deciphering Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, and I didn't see this mentioned. Instead, I saw something that mentioned "decipher the Rosetta Stone". Without the context, I wouldn't know why it would be important to decipher the Rosetta Stone.

This confusion led me to the Wikipedia article on the Philae obelisk, where I learned that part of the Rosetta Stone had been lost over the centuries since its creation, and text found at Philae helped fill in the part that had been lost.

I accept that the story is more complicated than I originally understood. Could you please try to improve the prose here so it is easier for people to understand? For example: "The Rosetta Stone provided the same text in three languages, Ancient Greek, ... and Egyptian hieroglyphs. As such, it represented a major breakthrough in the modern ability to read the ancient Egyptial hieroglyphs. An obelisk found at Philae provided another version of essentially the same text, which further contributed to ... ."

And while you are at it, I think the article could use another link to Rosetta Stone. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Next Gravitational-Wave Observatory listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Next Gravitational-Wave Observatory. Since you had some involvement with the Next Gravitational-Wave Observatory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. (I know you already have participated in the discussion, but I'm adding this notification since I had not done so yet.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Manchester Metrolink[edit]

Following a edit you made to the Manchester Metrolink wikipedia page on 17th August 2014, I would like to enquire how you know that Manchester Metrolink Airport line will run to Crumpsall in 2017 and cite your references. Many thanks,

pjm0512 (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight: Retirement of project member WD Graham[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight: Retirement of project member WD Graham You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight#Retirement of project member WD Graham. WD Graham, formerly operating under the editor name of GW Simulations, has retired from Wikipedia. Please pop on over to offer a remembrance, or thanks, or ... (...maybe talk him in to giving it another go.) Thanks. N2e (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"London" / "Greater London"[edit]

Hello. I don't oppose your removal of that paragraph, possibly it could be amended but it was recently added and I'm not sure the contrast in naming with Manchester & Greater Manchester is particularly notable. However, I just wanted to make you aware that "London" is an official name for "Greater London". See the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 Schedule 1, where Greater London is listed simply as "London" (with the extent listed as Greater London). I believe this is for naming purposes, as the act later specifies that the regional development agencies are named per this schedule (I realise these no longer exist but it is nonetheless an example of legislation, and I don't think any current legislation refers to the regions). Also the ONS often uses "London" to refer to the region in statistical bulletins. Though "Greater London" as a legally defined area has existed long before this. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, ChiZeroOne. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)