This is an archive of past discussions with User:MadeYourReadThis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger.
An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project.
User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation.
News from orbit
Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites.
A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space ShuttleDiscovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not.
Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed.
4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data Systemcommunications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew.
On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear.
Article news
Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities.
Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected.
It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user.
Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed.
A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy.
A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain.
A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions.
It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested.
Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list.
Editorial: Direction of the Project
Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project.
Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far.
Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks.
Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.
In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-)
The Charts
Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off.
Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it:
Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage.
The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects :
Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches
Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch
Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred
Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled
The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed.
”
The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort.
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.
Thanks for reminding me about that. I've responded there and edited each image to make it very clear what my (limited) involvement is there. This is particularly important because I've been contacted by someone wishing to publish those images and I'm not 100% sure of the status there. Photographing artwork and even architecture can be thorny.--RadioFan (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
My curiosity may be getting the best of me, but I noticed that you are not an administrator. Do you have any interest in making a run? Strikerforce (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll give it a run. With so many more editors working to keep the new page patrol backlog down, I think I'd like to shift gears a bit and act on some of those expired prods, CSDs and ARV reports. I took a run a little over a year ago and withdrew when it was pretty clear that I wasn't there yet. Are you offering to nominate?
Ready?[2]I appear to have made an error in getting the talk page to link properly, however. I followed the instructions posted as far as how to create the page, but when I went to create the (2) to denote your second run, I kept getting an error. Could be a browser (Chrome) issue, but more likely my inexperience at the nomination process. I'm going to seek out help, but if you want to go ahead and knock out the questions, feel free! Never mind. Complete brain fart on the talk page issue. Long week at work has fried me! Strikerforce (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
My curiosity may be getting the best of me, but I noticed that you are not an administrator. Do you have any interest in making a run? Strikerforce (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll give it a run. With so many more editors working to keep the new page patrol backlog down, I think I'd like to shift gears a bit and act on some of those expired prods, CSDs and ARV reports. I took a run a little over a year ago and withdrew when it was pretty clear that I wasn't there yet. Are you offering to nominate?
Ready?[4]I appear to have made an error in getting the talk page to link properly, however. I followed the instructions posted as far as how to create the page, but when I went to create the (2) to denote your second run, I kept getting an error. Could be a browser (Chrome) issue, but more likely my inexperience at the nomination process. I'm going to seek out help, but if you want to go ahead and knock out the questions, feel free! Never mind. Complete brain fart on the talk page issue. Long week at work has fried me! Strikerforce (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I mistakenly referred to the speedy tag on this article as mine when it was originally yours, I was confused about my improvement notices and thought the CSD was mine too. Sorry about that. I think the removal is still valid after finding a few matches in GNews, probably enough to warrant an AFD discussion rather than speedy. Thanks Fæ (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note but are you sure about the potential notability here? The article makes no claim of notability. Could be a case of a new editor who is not experienced in the ways of Wikipedia notability but this organization didn't seem like one that set itself apart from thousands and thousands like it worldwide.--RadioFan (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
In terms of potential, I think so. The source Webfinanser (a business news website) states that (translated) "Rektorsakademien is the leading network of school leaders and business" and there are many other matches apparent in a GNews search and gets mentioned in a few books using GBooks. This seems plenty of doubt for a speedy though possibly a PROD or an AFD might be appropriate if it seems overly ambiguous (though with further sources available, improvement in the short term looks likely to me). Fæ (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the response and the thorough analysis. These non-English sources can be a bear to navigate through.--RadioFan (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
ikoniqueOS
I am challenging your suggestion that ikoniqueOS is "unremarkable software"?
Have you actually used the latest version of this FOS software before requesting deletion?
I am unaware of any software currently providing the functionality of ikoniqueOS?
As you are suggesting that this page be deleted, please provide examples of existing software that performs the functionality of ikoniqueOS or alternatively explain the basis upon which you formed your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plogo (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Plogo. My name is Strikerforce and I am a talk-page "stalker", if you will, of RadioFan's. As a reminder, the burden of proof in regard to notability is on the editor wishing to add certain information to the encyclopedia, not necessarily the editor who wishes to strike it or suggest deletion of the article. RadioFan typically has pretty good judgement when it comes to matters of deletion, so the question that I will pose to you is simply this: What have you provided within the article to establish notability of the software? Without sources (preferably from technological journals / websites / etc and not the publisher's own website), notability is not established and that makes an article vulnerable to a deletion suggestion. Strikerforce (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Adding to Strikerforce's comments. Deletion isn't something taken lightly. The problem with ikoniqueOS is that, as Strikerforce notes, there is nothing there to tell us how this product might meet notability guidelines, the only thing we learn from the article is that the software exists but unfortunately, thats not enough. You'll need to add footnotes to reliable sources which cover the software in some detail. If you need guidance, you can ask for help on your talk page, someone (maybe me, maybe Strikerforce, maybe another editor) will do what they can to point you in the right direction. I know it seemed a bit abrupt but this method of deletion was chosen over immediate deletion to give you a few days to improve the article.--RadioFan (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
My curiosity may be getting the best of me, but I noticed that you are not an administrator. Do you have any interest in making a run? Strikerforce (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll give it a run. With so many more editors working to keep the new page patrol backlog down, I think I'd like to shift gears a bit and act on some of those expired prods, CSDs and ARV reports. I took a run a little over a year ago and withdrew when it was pretty clear that I wasn't there yet. Are you offering to nominate?
Ready?[6]I appear to have made an error in getting the talk page to link properly, however. I followed the instructions posted as far as how to create the page, but when I went to create the (2) to denote your second run, I kept getting an error. Could be a browser (Chrome) issue, but more likely my inexperience at the nomination process. I'm going to seek out help, but if you want to go ahead and knock out the questions, feel free! Never mind. Complete brain fart on the talk page issue. Long week at work has fried me! Strikerforce (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time and effort to do that. I'll mull the questions for a bit before answering them.--RadioFan (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Almost ready to go... don't forget to "accept" the nomination on the page. ;) I'll be around off and on this evening, so if you want to go ahead and transclude after accepting, feel free. Strikerforce (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:WOCY logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Doesn't look like something worth responding to, nothing positive would come out of it and likely only antagonize this person more. Several editors in those AFDs have their mind made up that I and others are out to get them or Sci-Fi fandom. I really wish they'd put their energies into improving the articles instead of complaining about conspiracies.--RadioFan (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, thanks for letting me know, I appreciate it. I Didn't know that "sci-fi" was viewed negatively. Learned something new today. Any idea why it's considered desparaging? That's suprising considering now many libraries and books stores label sections as "Sci-Fi/Fantasy".--RadioFan (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, many thought the articles weren't that badly in need of improvement, or in my own personal case, had dropped away from Wikipedia for a while until this was brought to my attention.
Much as I hate to be the bringer of bad news for the third time in one day, I'm afraid I've closed your RfA as unsuccessful. It seems the consensus is that you are not (at least not yet) ready for adminship. I have no doubt that you have the project's best interests at heart and your RfA was a sincere offer to help. Since most of the concerns were over your understanding of key policies, especially BLP and CSD, I would suggest spending some time in the mainspace applying these policies in a "hands-on" way to enhance your understanding of the policies and their application. Some editors like to keep a log in their userspace of articles they nominate for deletion, others like to pick the brains of experienced admins and I'm sure there are plenty of other methods people have used to get to grips with CSD. The most important thing is to try to learn lessons from the feedback you've been given (even though it stings, as I know from my own experience) and, rather than take it personally, use it to make yourself a better editor. don;t hesitate to ping me if you need anything, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
In principle, I'd be more than happy to help you out, but I'm not really the best person to ask about CSD. Certainly I can help you with just about every other aspect of adminship (though it might be wise to let the dust settle first), but you'd have to ask another admin about CSD. Off the top of my head, I'd recommend SoWhy or WereSpielChequers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know wether you would be a good admin (I personally think we should hand it out a lot less, and to adults, and to people who write a lot. None of these are accepted by the community, but it's what I think the project needs to get past a video game webforum, and really become top notch content, real encyclopedia, not just a googledump). You actually had a lot more than the other two dudes (who were incredibly stubblishly light). To be honest, still have some concerns about you, so would strongly urge more, more, more writing. I don't understand any of the CSD stuff, so can't tell if you are too frisky with the deletes or if you were honest and then got screwed. In any case, I strongly urge writing articles as the most important aspect of the Wiki (not mopping or RFA or any of that). Good luck, and whatever, I just feel bad for you dealing with the public denial. Keep the chin up!TCO (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the note but unfortunately after going through two of these, your point of view isn't shared by all RFA voters. Writing articles comes secondary to a clean record with CSD and prods. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. I didn't ask for this RFA but thought I'd give it ago.--RadioFan (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
(struck comment)
Did you think that comment was cute or funny? You seemed to be trying to help and then that. I dont know what to make of you.--RadioFan (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:WYVK logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:WYVK logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair use claim
I don't udnerstand what you mean here. 22:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Screen snapshots from television programs should be used only on the articles about that television program. That's all fair use allows. See WP:NFCI for more information.--RadioFan (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
How is the picture I've uploaded replaceable? The building does not exist anymore and the current state is impossible to get near to even fi you are a reported. Nergaal (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
King of Hearts reworded the replaceability rationale so that it meets fair use policy, the deletion tag has been removed. --RadioFan (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You (RadioFan) Censoring G-WAN was pure vandalism
This night, the article I just wrote yesterday evening was already flagged for deletion:
"It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:
largely promotional article on an unremarkable web server. Claims are referenced
with primary sources or blogs. Lacks coverage in 3rd party reliable sources."
I liked the "Lacks coverage in 3rd party reliable sources" comment since the external link targeted here is for a "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology" Laboratory Student involved in the "Distributed Information Systems Laboratory".
1) I hardly can be accused of having any grip on the Academic world ("3rd Party");
2) the "Distributed Information Systems Laboratory" of one of the most respected universities in the world can hardly be qualified of NOT being a "reliable source".
Sure, G-WAN's comparative benchmarks hurt some sensibilities. But this is no excuse for blatant lies.
The reason for you to remove G-WAN this time was "addition with no article".
Since the G-WAN article HAS BEEN CENSORED by Wikipedia 'moderators' like the one making this remark, this is a vicious circle: they make their own luck to justify blatant censorship.
In the past, similar fallacious arguments were used, like removing all references and then claiming that no references were available, or claiming that G-WAN is not 'notable' while G-WAN is the fastest Web Server on BOTH Windows AND Linux (and by a large margin, see the links above), and whether user-mode or kernel-mode servers are considered.
For the record, "notability" means "the quality that makes somebody or something worth paying attention to".
First off, ease up a bit. Censorship is a strong accusation as is accusing other editors, me or anyone else, of "blatant lies". This kind of agression isn't going to save this article in fact it's probably going to get most editors to turn a deaf ear to any legitimate claims you may have simply because you behavior is not unlike spammers who come here only to promote and not to contribute. You are a new editor so I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt please dont make it difficult. In the end, this article must meet the same standards every other article must meet. It is your responsibility as the article creator to sufficiently reference any claims there with reliable sources. Blogs such as the ones mentioned in the article do not meet this standard. Notability for Wikipedia's purposes of determining what is worthy for an article is defined here WP:N, please read it. Your reference to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology also cannot be used as Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source. Also web pages published by the owners of this software are primary sources and cannot be used. Your contributions are welcome Since you've removed the proposed deletion without addressing the issues mentioned in the that proposal or outlined above, the next step is a a deletion discussion, which unlike the prod, is binding. Should the consensus be delete, recreation will be very difficult. I urge you to weigh in on the deletion discussion but you should consider calming down a bit first. The "Wikipedia is out to get me" approach is not viewed very favorably. I know this can all be a bit daunting for a new editor but please slow down and take a minute to familiarize yourself with the processes here. Your contributions are welcome but there are policies and guidelines you and every other editor must adhere to if you want to contribute.--RadioFan (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes unless an appropriate edit summary is used.
You did not answer any of my arguments - proof that your goal is not to evaluate the value of this article. The fact that you go as far as to deny the EPFL existence *because* it is referenced on Wikipedia reveals how much you value fair talks (to check its existence, you could click on the wikipedia link to reach the EPFL website). Instead of discussing the merit of your deletion, instead of presenting arguments, you are threatening me of a permanent exclusion. You are clearly NOT serving the Temple of Knowledge.
You are misunderstanding the basis of Wikipedia. I dont deny the existence of EPFL, it's existence doesn't do anything to support the claim you are making in the article. As I mentioned above, Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source for purposes of establishing notability of other articles anyway. You seem to be trying to put all of this on me but remember, it is your responsibility to sufficiently source what you add to Wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. Now the $1m question: why, on all the Web servers listed on Wikipedia, the only one that MUST be "deleted permanently" (to quote you) is G-WAN, the smallest, fastest and safest (no vulnerabilities ever, another notable difference) of all. This is a simple question. Bugapi (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You still dont get it. This may be the greatest piece of software in the world, but if there aren't sufficient references in 3rd party reliable sources to back up those claims, it's not going to be a part of Wikipedia. Right or wrong thats the way it is. I didn't make the rules. I'm not an administrator so I cant even delete the article, all I've done is bring it up for discussion and bring it to the attention of administrators who will make the final judgement on whether or not it will be deleted. You should focus your efforts on bringing the article up to standards that prevent it's deletion, not on me.--RadioFan (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
"Not on me". You are kidding, right? You want to delete this article but will NOT TELL WHY G-WAN MUST BE ERADICATED (while many other *less notable* Web servers have your benediction).Bugapi (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed a page of Bhaskar Mukherjee has been deleted. Actually I feel the page by mistake have been made by different user without understanding the proper reason of deletion. Now I feel the page of Bhaskar Mukherjee should be uploaded, provided a suggestion to incorporate changes on that profile. What citation is essential, Shall the link to original article or who cite the work of the author. There are so many person's biography I found without having any citation. And various reasons i don't feel their work is as parallel as wiki policy to maintain. Due to that It looks hazy to undertsand the connotation of term citation. Better give certain suggestion.
1. How biographer re-submit with necessary modification of that page.
2. How to put citation in more better manner. I common have have problem to understand all technicalities of wiki. So better if some simple suggestions are available.
3. What step-by-step process should one follow to upload properly.
--Open3215 (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Just now I checked the criteria and found that Dr. Bhaskar Mukherjee has fulfill atleast criteria no. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8. How then some one suggest this entry to delete. There are so many files in wiki, having criteria below these standrads. How then wiki kept all such entries? --Open3215 (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
2011 First Flight High School protests and walkouts
No, I will not delete it — absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Moreover, I see no reason why this must be false: it's not a case of "____ can fly and won a gold meddal in teh olympiks every year since they started lulz". Why can't we just let the AFD run its course? Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not a border line case here. It's some high school vandals who have ignored requests for verifiable references. The AFD is snowballing, multiple editors believe it to be a hoax. Why must we let the AFD run its course? Why let the vandals use this page as their personal blog?--RadioFan (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Because it's not a blatant hoax. As I already told you, a blatant hoax is one that any editor can see to be false, and I cannot so see it. Please read the following quote from WP:HOAX —
Hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. It is usually not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax, as there have been cases in the past where something has been thought to have been a hoax by several editors, but has turned out to be true, and merely obscure. Suspected hoaxes should be investigated thoroughly, and only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be tagged for speedy deletion as {{db-hoax}}.
It's obviously obscure enough that it's deserving of deletion, but it's not blatant enough to be deleted speedily under this criterion. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess its a mater of opinion. I and another editor see it as a pretty blatant hoax. Do you see a reason to keep the AFD open any longer. It would be nice to put an end to the persistent editing of this article.--RadioFan (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
External media box
RadioFan, please don't use external media boxes when they obviously interfere with the display of the article and links can be dropped just as easily into the External links box. For that matter, if a link would not normally go in the External links box, don't throw them into a media box. The only time such a box is useful is for longer articles that can tolerate the visual disruption. This is definitely not one of those cases. I'm not going to remove that link again, but I am going to restore some semblance of visual orderliness. I'm collecting references and will try and clean up that article (and the individual ship articles) once I get some spare time. To that end, I'm not sure there is even a need for all three articles..."NASA recovery ships" basically duplicates what the ship articles do (i.e., nothing there can't be merged into the individual ship articles), so I'm tempted to turn that article into a disambiguation page. Thoughts? — Huntster (t@c)03:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
If you'd like to merge them all into a single article, retaining the infoboxes from each ship, I'd be happy to assist with that. That would also help alleviate your concerns about the overall look. I cannot support removal of the media boxes. They add to the article, and highlight 2 external videos that are very relavant far better than external links do.--RadioFan (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't merge the individual ships into a single article; they are notable individually, in my opinion. The generic article is the redundant item here. I'll have to ponder on this, see what makes the most sense. — Huntster (t@c)04:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The recovery ships and the process of SRB recovery is in itself notable. If you think the individual ship articles should be retained, thats fine but the main article on the recover ships and process shouldn't be deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
