User talk:0.39

Hello 0.39 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Orbiter (sim)[edit]

I'm alittle curious as to why you deleted the second picture on that page. It seemed pretty relevant to me. What was your justification for this? --Aqua 20:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Regarding the areosynchronous/areostationary family of articles-- I attempted to make clear the distinction between areosynchronous and areostationary orbits in the second paragraph of areosynchronous orbit, though I may have been a bit brief. Areostationary orbits, after all, are just a very special subclass of areosynchronous orbits (circular and equatorial). Since there really wasn't much material in the two articles concerned, I thought it reasonable to condense them to one, with an appropriate redirect link. Perhaps my phrasing in the modified areosync article could be reworded for added clarity...?

Meanwhile, the articles on aerosynchronous and areostationary satellites struck me as a good idea whose time has not yet come. Once we have some examples of areosynchronous or areostationary satellites in orbit, they would surely deserve their own articles--the Sputnik program of the twenty-first century.

I was thinking that instead of maintaining four separate--but very closely-related, and stub-sized--articles, it made sense to condense the concepts into one place (with appropriate redirects.) What are your thoughts on this? It's certainly not my intent to get rid of the good content here. --TenOfAllTrades 23:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Orbits-OrbitalDistances-001.PNG[edit]

Hi,

Can you clarify the source and copyright status of this image? Otherwise, sooner or later someone will mark it as "unverified". -- Curps 00:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't undo my changes[edit]

Please don't undo my changes. They are in line with Wikipedia's naming convention. Please see my reply to your comment on my talk page, and reply there. — Timwi 16:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:0.39/Orbiter (sim)/Infobox Spacecraft Template[edit]

This is the ugliest series of templates I've ever seen. Please don't create any more of those "components". I'll be happy to help, but there is no way creating dozens of templates to cover one function is necessary. -- Netoholic @ 22:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for Spaceport and Space Station Templates too. -- Netoholic @ 22:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly accept your help in making those templates prettier as there is no fun in creating templates of this complication and size! However till now I could not come across information how to pass 'en masse' paremeters to sub-templates other than just pass them explicitly as the explicit template parameters. The templates I am working on have to use subtemplates with parameterized template names acting as conditional expressions...0.39 23:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you creating articles about spacecraft which are part of Orbiter (sim)? That software and the vehicle descriptions are protected by copyright, so I believe you are putting Wikipedia in a precarious position. On a less legalistic standpoint, the inclusion of those vehicle descriptions does not meet encyclopedic standards. It appears you are essentially creating a user manual within Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 22:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note:

Non-commercial use approved in this forum thread.
(On the other hand not all spacecraft are copyright of Dr Martin Schweiger - actually as of today only a minority is...)
According to my understanding under the fair use we can try to describe any concept/object...

On the other hand do the descriptions of the film episodes meet those standards? -- 0.39

Please don't mix in your comments in between others, and please sign your posts - it avoids confusion.

I see in that forum post he granted permission for the images, not the spacecraft specifications nor the sim-specific content. It's true many spacecraft exist as real vehicles and should probably deserve articles about them. The fictional ones should not, and some of your articles have already been deleted. Wikipedia is not a game guide, particularly when that in-game (sim) information is covered by copyright. Schweiger values his intellectual property, and says so on his website's notice. Just because the product is free to use does not eliminate his rights, nor change the article quality standards of Wikipedia.

This article series you're creating can't be compared to film articles, which are (usually) very notable all by themselves. What you're doing is the equivalent to creating articles about individual characters within a film, which we don't do unless that character is of particularly wide notability. I'm sure with your circle this is not true, but on a global scale, this Orbiter (sim) is obscure in the extreme. -- Netoholic @ 02:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orbiter articles and AfD[edit]

The Orbiter articles are getting nominated to AfD. As one of those who has voted with the majority for a deletion, I would like to explain my rationale and ask politely for reasoning. Essentially, Wikipedia does not host manuals of any sort. While it can have, and does have, an article on the Orbiter simulation game, that cannot devolve into an article on each feature, each control, each modification, and each strategy. The reason is that information should be conserved, adhering to like with like. Unless the size of the master article is excessive, "forking" the discussion into new articles should take place only if the new lemma is an utterly different product/thing. Further, the articles so far have been details of gameplay. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it holds articles that are primarily discursive and not reiterative. I.e. articles are discussions, not recapitulations or paraphrases. An article is "about" and not a "contents of."

It seems likely at this point that there is going to be a mass-AfD listing for these articles. If the past is precedent, they will likely fail that AfD. Please consider constraining your discussion to one or two articles that can contain all the information, rather than scattering every feature into a new article, and do not reiterate the manual pages or instructions for the game in the articles. If there is a mass AfD listing, and if the articles fail, and if you continue to generate new ones along the same lines, there will likely be a Request for Comment on the material (an RFC). If you would like to open a Request for Comment on the subject ahead of any mass AfD listing to forestall it, please feel free to do so. It is a valid way to get the community's input on the viability of a particular type of content. Geogre 02:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your confusion, but we need to separate a few issues. First, there is the matter of obscurity. Wikipedia is bigger than anyone can see, so it's inevitable that some articles are present that violate the standards of the deletion policy, while other things that barely get on the edge of the standards lose their discussions on AfD. The presence of an article on a minor modification isn't an argument that that article is appropriate, since it probably hasn't been considered. We get a ton of folks writing articles about mods, in particular. Most of them get sent to AfD and get deleted. In fact, if you would like to test the waters, you can take one of those mod articles you mentioned and nominate it at AfD and see whether it passes or fails the discussion there. (I'm not saying that as a challenge, just as a real bit of advice.) I am rather more inclined to vote "delete" on game aspects, so I may not represent the middle of the line of voters. I think in this case, though, I do, and that's why I'm offering advice.

Secondly, as for when a product or byproduct gets kept, it's difficult to say anything specific or empirical. Generally, the popularity of it matters. Further, the availability of it matters (e.g. something on sale at every WalMart is different from something available at a Warez site). Whether it has been produced professionally, rather than by dedicated fans, matters. Whether it has been attested and discussed in media other than fan/user forums and sites matters most of all, to me (so a mod that makes America's Army, the game, into a transsexual adventure would almost certainly get discussed by newspapers and magazines, and therefore, even if only 3 people "played" it and the programmer is a guy making a protest, it would be a locus of discussion and something the world needs explained). Finally, after all those, there is the matter of whether the game/modification, etc., is sufficiently different from its master topic (Orbiter (simulation) to need separate treatment.

All of that pertains to whether something is a valid target of an article. Contents are another matter. Generally, if the contents are a "how-to" guide, then that violates part of WP:NOT.

If you see articles that you honestly believe violate any of the principles above, please do list them at AfD. Also, you can, as I mentioned above, try to get consensus on an RFC. Geogre 12:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it was not my point to suggest that those articles I mentioned to be deleted (In fact I enjoyed some of them as much as I would like the others to enjoy pieces related to Orbiter (sim)). I was just curious about your opinion about what makes them different from from the point of view of Wikipedia fitness... But from your observations I can see that it is also a bit problematic for you whether all the content that is available should be there in the first place. I am inclined to expand on your comments to arrive at the hypothesis that the content available is not available because is proper or fit for particular purpose but rather because it has survived the past challanges... That is really bothersome taking into consideration the overall goals of Wikipedia - to create a compendium of human knowledge... This brings us to the discussion of the challange process itself - about how optimal is this democratic collaboration process from the point of view of the outcomes it produces... It seems to me that this process may be to dependant on the number of guns - and less on the validity of arguments. However misled I may be this idea crops immediately into the mind when hearing from some people the very definite statements about the niche character of this Orbiter (sim) and lack of merits of the Orbiter (sim) add-ons created for it. Concerning the latter I would like to point that out that most of my recent pieces have been concerned with World of 2001: A Space Odyssey add-on which is a recreation of TBD

wikicities[edit]

Hi, just about your orbiter articles. You may be able to create a wikicities just for Orbiter. See here under "start a new wikicity" -- Astrokey44|talk 23:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion - it's a good one because I have actually already created one [1]. This is the place where I will try to move the content banned from the wikipedia...

0.39 09:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Standard assumptions in astrodynamics[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Standard assumptions in astrodynamics. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard assumptions in astrodynamics. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Orbiter-sim-No-image-yet-001.jpg[edit]

The file File:Orbiter-sim-No-image-yet-001.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Personal file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]