You seem to know quite a bit about this kind of stuff, so I was wondering: do you have any details regarding the failure of the recent NSS-8 launch? Any information would be much appreciated! SuperDT 00:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not much is known yet. I was watching the webcast at the time, and the rocket appeared to collapse downwards before the fireball occurred. This would imply that the cause of the failure could be engine underperformace, or a structural failure of the launch platform. There was too much smoke around to say for certain. Other possibilities are that it fell over, which would have occurred if one of the clamps failed to hold the rocket down whilst the engine built up thrust, or the rocket suffered a structural failure at the bottom, and imploded. The latter is unlikley because I would have expected the explosion to occur sooner. If it had fallen over, I would have expected to see a change in the pattern of the exhaust flames, as the engine was still running up until it exploded. Therefore, it is most likley that it fell into the sea before it exploded. Having said this, it is too early to tell. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get the "userpage" and "talk" lines in your signature so small? I have tried to no avail. I hope there is a way that you can just you the little squiggly lines and won't have to sign it each time. Let me know how. Thanks and Stay Warm....SVRTVDude 02:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go into preferences, and change the "Signature" box. My signature is: <font color="#116655">'''GW_Simulations'''<sub>[[User:GW Simulations|<font color="#000000">User Page</font>]] | [[User talk:GW_Simulations|<font color="#000000">Talk</font>]]</sub></font>.
Just change it to suit yourself. You need to check the box that says "Raw Signature" as well, then you can add that signature in the normal way, with four tidles (~~~~). --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
I just got home from watching the launch a few minutes ago and was amazed to see that you've already got the updates taken care of. Way to go! If I took a still shot of the launch I could have uploaded it, but I shot video for this one instead. It was a beautiful launch. Crystal clear sky, beautiful sunset. Amazing! Fl295 00:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pretty good launch. The Delta II is a great old rocket, and it will be a shame to see it go when it retires in a few years. I actually thought the update speed was a little slow on this one - due to technical problems, I couldn't get onto Wikipedia to update anything until about 10 - 15 mins after the launch. Wait until a manned flight launches, they usually get updated within seconds. Regarding your video, why don't you upload that instead. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 00:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never uploaded video, I should look into it. My video of this launch got messed up. My elbow bumped into a person that was standing next to me and I lost the target. I wasn't able to re-acquire it in a reasonable time so I gave up. I've got the first minute or so, but after that it was lost. Thankfully there's supposed to be something like 14 more launches from the Cape this year, I'm going to try to photograph or tape as many as I can. Fl295 00:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aye there's loads, take a look at 2007 in spaceflight. As for the video, it's dead simple. Create an account on Wikimedia Commons, then just go to the upload page, and upload it as something like Image:THEMIS launch.ogg (The Image: prefix is important). Just cut off the bit you don't want. I envy you. I've always wanted to see a launch live, but I'm kind of at a disadvantage because I live in the UK. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 00:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a long way to travel to see a launch! Although there were some people in the crowd that I was chatting with before it went up that were from Germany and a couple from Norway. They both just happened to be here on holiday and got to see it just by chance. They were much in awe. It was a great shot. If you like, I could E-Mail you the video that I shot. Fl295 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly got to see a Shuttle once, but it got delayed. I think it was because of the STS-93 incident. Regarding the video, how big is it? (I think there's a size limit on my E-mail). If it's bigger than 5mb, can you zip it down to that sort of size. Thanks. My address is GW_Simulations@yahoo.co.uk --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 00:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My video is on it's way to you. It's less than 4MB. Hope you enjoy it, even though it's pretty rough. The sound is the best part! Fl295 01:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's great. I didn't realise they let you get so close to the rocket - certainly all the Shuttle crowdline videos show the rocket as a small dot. I like the way these videos give a sense of the atmosphere amongst the crowd. You can't get that with the official videos. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, LC17 (The Delta II launch complex) is only three miles from public access at Jetty Park at Port Canaveral. That's where I was at, on the fishing pier at Jetty Park. I believe that it is the closest that the general public can get to a launch of any type from KSC or the Cape. The exclusion area for the shuttle, Atlas 5, and Delta 4 is a few miles farther. That's one of the reasons that I enjoy the Delta II launches so much. They're not the most powerful or loudest, but being so close is a really amazing experience. Fl295 01:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:07pd0430.jpgThey're pretty spectacular launches on the webcast. The rocket gets enveloped in a plume of smoke before starts to rise through it. There's a video on the NASA site if you're interested - here. You'll need an MP4 codec though. Another video is available at http://www.nasaspaceflight.com. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 01:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are great! I wanted to tape the SRB jettison and them falling back to Earth, it was clearly visible but I'd already given up on the tape by that time. The SRB's falling are neat to watch, you can see them for a long time. So, when are you gonna come across the pond to watch a launch? Fl295 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to get away at some point, not for a couple of years though. I'm pretty busy this year, and probably next. After that, who knows. I'd like to try and go sometime in the next 3 years to see a Shuttle before it is retired. The real problem is that these dates keep changing. I could fork out hundreds on a holiday, only to get there, and find the rocket's been delayed to the day I go home, or to be more precise, about five seconds after I board the plane, so I can't watch it live, or on the web - that's about my luck. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 01:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the shuttle is especially unreliable when you're trying to plan a launch day visit. I would highly reccomend it though, even though it is a pain to try to match schedules, watching a shuttle go up is like nothing else on this planet. I've lived here on the Space Coast for several decades, I've seen most launches, from the Apollo moon rockets to today, and I can tell you, the only launch that is more impressive than the shuttle is the Saturn V. The Shuttle is an amazing thing to watch go up. I was in High school when Challenger went up on it's last mission. The entire class was outside watching the launch. I was in disbelief for a few moments. I knew that something bad had happened, but when I saw the SRB fly off to the south, I thought that maybe it was some sort of crew rescue capsule or something I was just a kid. When Columbia was re-entering over Texas, I was out shopping at garage sales on that Saturday morning. I didn't even realize that there was a landing planned. When I started to hear what was going on I went home and watched the TV for the rest of the day, sort of like 9/11. Fl295 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of the delays are just being too cautious, and to safe, but then again, can you be too safe? Complacency has been a factor in most space disasters. Anyway, it's been nice talking to you. It's gone 2 in the morning here, so I think I'd better call it a night. Thanks for the video. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 02:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a proposal to create an Aviation WikiProject, which would serve to clarify how all the aviation related projects relate, and help with interproject editing. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Proposal_Recap for how the projects hierarchy. Part of the reorganization proposes that, because of its very limited scope, WikiProject Red Bull Air Race World Series become a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation. For an idea of how task forces work, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history. They have a number of task forces, listed here. As described by them, "task forces are informal groups of editors gathered for collaborative work on a particular topic within the field of military history; all project members are encouraged to participate in any that interest them." The benefit of such a system it that the sub-topics have all the resources of the overall project at their disposal. For instance, the Military history project banner, is placed on every military history page, and the related task forces are listed at the bottom of it. All military history related articles are thereby joined under one roof. I just happened to stumble upon your project, and had until now never realized it existed. By joining forces with another project you will benefit from increased exposure. If you have any ideas or comments, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. - TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It has been suggested that the project "Martian geography" be rename to "Mars" in order to increase its scope and increase its usefulness. If you have an opinion concering this, could you leave it on the talk page, or on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space/Reorganisation? Thanks. Lunokhod 22:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my own proposal. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to have a formal structure. I'd prefer to keep it informal, on a peer-to-peer basis, as in the rest of Wikipedia. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was a simile and just a proposal that our separate lines of discussion be merged (in order for the Community to properly reach a conclusion), and that, since you opened the topic have the first say of where to propose, kind of. There's no need to have formal functionaries - that would be slightly inappropriate for volunteer spare-time hobbies - but natural informal leadership is nothing wrong (first-say-principle and authority by competence). Rursus 14:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. As for your other question, what are you trying to do with the two pages that you want to "co-ordinate"? Please could you be more specific. Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the trouble is getting a consensus about the structure on the reorganization talk page. Either we try to discuss until consensus is reached (preferrable), which means that "my" hierarchy proposals must be explicitly removed one by one – some qualities to be merged into the Current structure or rejected by whole, or otherwise there must be votes on each proposal. At some point, there must be a call for decision – do you have any idea of how it's going to look like when time is due? Rursus 18:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would favour option 1, as for when a decision is made, my policy is to wait for all discussion to stop, and then see what has the most support. Other people's policies may differ. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, by me. But now I'm "screaming" ({{{1}}}) for a decision on the WikiProject Space/Reorganisation. Nothing's happening in c:a one week, and I'm becoming impatient with unmessing the project pages. Rursus 17:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You moved Apollo Applications Program to Apollo Applications program with a lowercase p per WP:NC. Wondering which naming convention you're referring to, as program is capitalized in the article, is part of the program's TLA, and otherwise appears to be part of the program's proper name. Potatoswatter 05:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forget, it was a minor move, a few months ago. It should be noted that Space Shuttle program is the same. To be honest, I don't really care whether it is capitalised or not, so feel free to take it to WP:RM if you want to. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. TrevorMacInnis (Contribs) 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have a look at the discussion about Indian human spaceflight program (merger or not). I am getting seriously upset about this and I am wondering now if I am thinking clearly. Do you think this is a valid entry for wikipedia or not ? I'd like to have some kind of independent opinion. Hektor 09:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposing the merger as I think it does warrant a seperate article - afterall, we have an article on Tier Two. This is just as speculative, if not more so. We have plenty of cites for the article, so I am happy to leave it be. Hope this helps. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i noticed you added Infobox rocket to a couple of articles in the past. You might be interested in knowing that I updated to template a bit. A should create better html now (no empty rows and colums). --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not very good with template syntax, so your modifications can only have improved the template. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your message on the village pump. No, there was no fair use or crown copyright tag on this image. The only tag was the {{pd}} tag, but since it has no source the image was deleted. Which also explains why it can't be undeleted, we need to know the source. Garion96(talk) 14:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try to find a sourced image and upload that instead. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "Discussed and generally approved in 2004, but never implemented...." I write: Make it so, number one! Bearian 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is no longer consensus to implement this. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm answering your question from my talk page: I was following the format of the same sections in previous launch articles (STS-117, etc). There's a time zone discussion at Talk:STS-117 which recommends UTC over GMT.
I have observed that ground events are typically given in LOCAL (UNIVERSAL), but I can't find that written down anywhere right now. I'll keep looking when I get a chance. I agree it should be documented somewhere if I'm going to claim that. If you have any pointers for me, please let me know.
[EDIT: I found this discussion which I think is still valid: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space_missions#Time_format_discussion. Bottom line: 1) no times unless important. 2) Space times in UTC_24-hour. 3) Ground times in LOCAL_24-hour (UTC_24-hour). So I did the local time wrong. I'll post this link on the mission talk page as well. Srain 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Finally, I want to apologize if any feelings were hurt. Electronic media are very bad at emotional subtexts. My edits were intended to keep consistency with previous articles. If the community decides on different time format rules, I will try to follow those instead.
You proposed putting up climate of mars as a good article candidate in March. Well, we haven't stopped working on it though I'd hardly support a GA nomination right now. I just had to put up two NPOV section tags because a global warming enthusiast who is also an admin can't stomach the idea that "we don't know" both on cause and scope is the current state of affairs on martian warming. Anyway, come back over and help fill out the article. I'd like to get it to a size where we can break out the warming section entirely. TMLutas 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually remember doing that, and I can't find where I said it. Thanks for your message, and if you could point out my own comment to me, then please do so. Thanks. I will look into what improvements I can make. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, GW. I was just looking through my past edits and noticed that I hadn't played chess with you for a long time. I went and checked the board, but it seems that the template might have changed as it isn't displaying right on you page. When you fix it, message me and I'll play a game. Nice talking to you! - Hairchrm 03:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, do you know exactly what happened? I see the banner up on top, but there are maybe 1000 threads on it from the en wiki and commons. And I don't want to go hunting tonight. - Hairchrm 00:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GW Simulations, I like your template. I was looking for a webcast of todays Delta II launch and though a perfect place for it would be on the Launching template, and there it was - thanks. --Duk 18:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Thank-you for implementing a good solution to the question of spelling the names of Chinese launch facilities by, as you say, avoiding the area of conflict. I do support your use of abbreviations in the "Next launch" text (which I am happy to keep short anyway). As you know, in the United States the conversion to consistently using "center" rather than centre is nearly complete. (As compared with e.g. theater rather than theatre, which is nowhere nearly as consistent in the U.S.)
As I may have expressed before, my personal sense is that spelling consistency is not of the highest value; rather, the appropriate variant should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Nowhere is this more evident than with names which are translated from another language. In these cases, neither British nor U.S. English is fundamentally the "correct" name given by the naming authority. Even so, when there is an established naming authority, and that authority provides a name in English, we should defer to them.
If you would like to suggest a place on Wikipedia to continue this discussion, and possibly include others in reaching a long-term resolution, please fee free to move these comments there!
Thanks again, BTW, for implementing a solution for the short term that "works" so comfortably. (sdsds - talk) 22:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
First off, I would like to say I'm not an admin :). I put the already protected message up because at the time it was protected by admin DragonflySixtyseven and just wanted to help out. However, another admin, RockMFR chose to unprotect the article after I posted the comment. I believe that the reason the second admin chose to unprotect it was because today, Pluto is the featured article on the main page. As the featured article, it is expected to gain lots of vandalism. The reason they choose to rarely protect featured articles is because they feel it is discouraging to visiting anons to state that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, yet the main page article cannot be edited. Hopefully that clears things up. However, if the article does experience more vandalism after it is no long the featured article of the day, feel free to repost the article on the WP:RFPP page! Icestorm815 23:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Apologies if you have arranged for a valid license, but I see no signs of this.
You have also flagged an image with valid licensing for deletion. I contest the deletion.WolfKeeper 14:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that they do look similar to the one that you have so kindly drawn my attention to (which I used as a reference in creating them), I can assure you that I created the two images that I uploaded myself. There are several ways in which I can prove they differ.
Firstly, the image in the PDF is also found here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/hotol/skylon-schem.gif
It is a raster file (GIF). My images are vector (SVG). While it is possible to convert raster to vector, the process will produce a single object in the file. If you open the SVGs that I have produced using Inkscape, or a similar programme, you will see that they have been drawn from scratch.
There are also differences in the layout of the 4-view image. The raster image has the plan at the top and the side elevation at the bottom, whereas the vector image has these two the other way around. The same is true for the front and rear elevations.
There are also no centrelines on my images, as can clearly be seen on the raster file. In short, the images may be similar, but this is only to be expected as they are of the same thing. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks just about OK to me now. I'd prefer it if you did it in orthographic projection but it probably looks different enough that unless you're very unlucky indeed with a very litigious lawyer that it would be fine.WolfKeeper 04:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I've had that "feel free to update the vandalism counter" notice for some months, but you're the first reverter to heed it :-) Nyttend 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I thought I'd assist with updating content in the new table of GSO satellites in orbit that you are developing, but frankly I find trying to edit such a large table very confusing. I was wondering if you use any special software tool to help edit such a large table, or are you just very familiar with the wikitable language? If I can get to grips with the table I'll happily help edit the content before you move it over to the new article. Mark --MarkPos(User Page | Talk | Contribs) 12:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just familliar with the language. I have a lot of experience from the Timeline of spaceflight article. One way to make it easier is to copy an entry from elsewhere. Another option is to write a template. I did this quickly, incase it is any use. You'll need to add the current location seperately, then hit enter, and add:
Fill it out with the information for each satellite. It's all self-explanatory except the "ref" bit. This is where you put the date which it is correct up to, and any references. If you leave it blank, today's date will be inserted automatically. I hope this is useful. If it is not, please let me know and I will look for another method. Being a programmer, I could probably write a tool to help you if this template doesn't work. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a convention for dating rocket launches by GMT? Or are they dated by or by local (place of launch) time? --Duk 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no set convention for general articles. WP:TLS uses GMT, but that only applies to TLS articles. If, for example, you are querying the use of 10 November in the List of Delta IV launches article, there is no convention. I have been pushing for GMT/UTC to be standardised, as it is not affected by reigonal variations, but so far this has been fruitless. It varies from article to article. Best practice would be to list both, or mention the time, eg "11 November, 01:39-03:42 GMT (10 November, 8:39-10:42 EST)", or "10 November, 8:39-10:42 EST (11 November, 01:39-03:42 GMT)" depending on context. If you ask me, the system is a mess. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agree with trying to standardize. My first impression is to go by GMT and (optionally) add local time as a second entry. But I haven't thought to much about it. --Duk 22:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for nudging me on that, the citation was already in the article (for the COM transcript) but I added it there along with some more detail and yeah, clearly they could dig a hole or whatever. Gwen Gale 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What an awesome idea! They have them for football, baseball, music, stuff like that. Wonder how it is that none of us realized it was missing!? Great, super, fantastic job on creating them all! You rock. Ariel♥Gold 11:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been around for a while, there's even a Wikiproject. I'm just implementing a proposal to move the start point from 1957 to 1951, which means creating a few new pages. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting HTP - Disambiguation, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel my edit was inaccurate or unwarranted. What I have changed and provided as evidence is freely available in many sources. Do not accuse me of vandalism because we do not agree. That is uncalled for. I have just as many rights as you to change an article. Jparenti (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
If you look at the File history table on this page you will find that I have uploaded my reworked version of this, and then reverted to yours. By clicking on the Date/Time of my upload you can see my version, and you should be able to view the source code too. Let me know what you think. Copied from your Commons talk page. Bill F (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've replied on Commons. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused as to the best place to talk to you. You asked about more efficient SVG.
For a probably more efficient way of repeating elements of a drawing see the Inkscape manual page on cloning. The effect of copy and paste is: "verbose description of object here, identical verbose description of object here, identical verbo ..." while using a clone produces: "verbose description of object here, put another one like that here, and another one here ...". This is much more efficient, and means that if you alter the first one, all the clones change in exactly the same way.
In the case in question, I first defined one yellow circle for a face, one black dot for an eye, one line for a straight mouth and one curve for a smile. I then defined a dumb face using a clone of blank face and two clones of the eye. Next I defined a smiley face with a cloned dumb face and a cloned smile, and a worried face with a cloned dumb face and a clone of the straight mouth. After that I defined rows of various numbers of each type of face as required. Later on clones of these rows were used in defining each of the 14 cabins, and only then were clones of the populated and equipped cabins actually 'drawn' in the required locations. Now, if I want my astronauts to have blue eyes, I edit the one prototype eye in my text editor, save the file, go back to my browser, refresh the page, and all 154 eyes change colour instantly!
You can program in VB (eugh:-)) and write HTML, so even if you have never seen SVG before, you should be able to almost intuitively understand all but the fine detail of the SVG source code of my version (I don't expect an instant grasp of <path/> coordinates). I urge you to have a look at this, though I am not claiming that it is exemplary SVG coding, though, it probably is. Bill F (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think my greatest failing is that I never read the manuals... --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 00:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
