User talk:Aalox/Archive 2010

Talkback

Hello, Aalox. You have new messages at GW Simulations's talk page.
Message added 15:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 15:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

It's much appreciated! :-D I'll let you know when I'm around the Outpost... Colds7ream (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Aalox. You have new messages at Colds7ream's talk page.
Message added 09:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Colds7ream (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Constellation

Thanks for the heads-up on the Constellation page, Aalox. I agree with you that the section (and the article) could be improved. Please see my additions on the discussions page. Voronwae (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Military History

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

DIRECT article

Hello, Aalox. I'm not sure I understand the talkback conventions, but I will type here in hopes that it makes sense. Re: the DIRECT article. At some time in the past, I removed most of the non-controversial citations from the lead paragraph in hopes that it would be a clean, inviting intro to the mess that is the rest of the article. As the Augustine Committee presentation has been, so far, the zenith of the DIRECT effort, it seemed to deserve a mention in the lead paragraph. I note that the fact is cited in the body of the article, and that it should not be considered controversial by any means.

I would like to remove it, but would be interested to know what you thought of the idea. Fotoguzzi (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the reference from the body of the article that you mention. Citations should be left in the lead and anywhere else, just look at International Space Station. It has 30 citations in the lead of the article and it is an FA. Aalox (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going by: Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. I don't think sentence is particularly controversial, and it is repeated in the text, so locating sources should not be a problem. If I recall, my interest in cleaning the lead was from someone on another article touting the benefits of a clean lead. Fotoguzzi (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Do with it as you wish. Aalox (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck on your space articles! Fotoguzzi (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Deep water

I'm sorry you feel that way, but my RfA is not the place to discuss the matter. As it happens, I'd just added that source to the article and the information you were using it to cite is not in it, which is a violation of our verifiability policy and that's why I removed it. I'm happy to take this to the talk page if you want to discuss it further. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I began discussing the matter Talk:Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion without responce by you. The RfA responce is not to discuss the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion article, but your actions in handing it, and my belief that type of behaviour is not acceptible for an admin. I will continue this conversation at Talk:Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion, if you wish to discuss this as it applies for your RfA, please do so on the RfA page. Aalox (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware that you'd posted on the talk page since I don't have the article on my watchlist, I've replied to you on the talk page anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN: Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion

-- tariqabjotu 00:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done :). I came here to make sure you got one of those. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

-- Thanks for your contributions. Please see my suggestion at Split "Oil spill" section of article to "BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill" which I think is the most efficient and quick way to resolve this merge/move discussion.Popsup (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

SunRail parameters

If you're going to add SunRail parameters to stations in Florida, you've got to add them to Kissimmee (Amtrak station) too. ----DanTD (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I could have sworn I did that. Must have previewed and then got distracted and closed the window. Will fix it now. Nice catch. I was thinking of adding in the new stations as well, although people might complain about them being a bit stubish.Aalox (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon, etc.

First, I want to congratulate you for your recent edits adding those dab links at the top of the page -- job well done. It probably won't have much effect on the Name Wars, but it was a terrific idea all the same. (I wish I'd thought of it!) Ditto for adding the Prudhoe Bay oil spill to the See also section, with the note that it's a BP-owed pipeline. I've been contending with repeated deletions of the entry I added for the Texas City Refinery explosion. Hopefully they will get the idea now. (We can always hope, right?)

Now, as for the use of the term "oil gusher" vs. " blowout" -- I read thru both of those articles and gave it a good deal of thought. Perhaps it is simply a deficiency in the way the blowout article is written, but it left me with the sense that the term "blowout" was introduced as a way to create the impression that there is some sort of distinction between an uncontrollable eruption (i.e. a "gusher") and a supposedly "controllable" eruption (i.e. a "blowout") which can (at least in some cases) be controlled thru the use of a "blowout preventer". If there is, in fact, no real distinction to be made between the two terms, then I wonder if you would agree that those two articles should be merged into a single article?

Regards, Cgingold (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, merging blowout and gusher. As far as I can tell, the main difference between gusher and blowout, is that a blowout has equipment in place to prevent an uncontrolled release of oil, that then failed. A gusher on the other hand had no such equipment to begin with and was just a expected by-product of drilling for oil.

As far as enormous oil plumes, enormous compared to what? Compared to the plume behind a comet, the oil plumes are small, compared to the plume from a car exhaust, it is indeed enormous. If you wish to compare it to just oil plumes, what other oil plumes can you compare it to? From what I've read, this is something that has never been seen before. The article says exactly how big the plumes are, the reader can make their own judgement call without the word 'enormous' being forced on them. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 23:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A pervious merge proposal was shot down due to the scale of a rewrite that would be necessary. I started a sandbox of the merge here (Blowout (well drilling)/merge example Corrected: User:Aalox/Blowout (well drilling)/merge example) so that we can already have the rewrite complete when we propose the merge so that they can't use it as an excuse. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 00:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that tweak of the conversion template -- it reads more clearly now, which was my objective. Cgingold (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we since we have blowout preventers, we started having blowouts instead of gushers. As for the reverts, I'm only at 2, not 3, but that's not the point. Please look at the article talk page, everybody calls it a gusher by now, I put the references there. 140.109.226.67 (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your subpage

I patrolled a subpage you made. However, you should be using userspace. Andrewz111 (typo intended) (let me know) 00:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that because multiple editors would be working on it, it wouldn't be in my user space. Corrected - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 00:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill Redirect

Seems rather clear to me. I personally don't see a need for the redirects at all (I see the redirect issue as being highly unlikely) but some other editor(s?) appears to see some sort of value in them so I simply formatted them correctly.Labattblueboy (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

removing report

It is totally ok to remove a report like that, as the reverting stopped it is good to remove and attempt more discussion, if reverting was to continue it is totally fine to make another new report, it can sometimes take some time for admins to reply there, what I think is good is, after three reverts give a warning note on the userpage of the editor and if they revert again then give then a chance and ask them to revert their edit and if they don't then you have a case that would be strong and likely actionable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Deepwater Horizon oil spill

--Again! :) I've probably missed some people out, so feel free to copy and paste this to them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon circular reference

I'm watching the page, so let's discuss it there. I don't want active editors to overlook it because it's on our talk pages.--~TPW 17:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See also links

You might want to check in on the skirmish that has broken out over the BP-related See also links at Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Cgingold (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Article on blowout technology

Hello from a fellow UF alumni, and congrats on your excellent work on the Blowout article merger. I'm feeling a great need for more on the *technology* of what is happening now in the Gulf, so I started an article Offshore oil spill prevention just to get the ball rolling. I'm an Electrical Engineer, so I'm not really the person to add a lot of detail here. I see my role as getting things started, and then providing help with readability for a non-specialist. I know that we can do a lot better in explaining this technology to the public. Wikipedia seems like the right place for this. We sure aren't going to get it from BP, and CNN folks don't even know what questions to ask!

We have a discussion started on whether we should keep Offshore oil spill prevention and expand it into a really great article, or merge this material into other articles. Your input would be most welcome. --Dave (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Florida High Speed Rail

Thanks for clearing up the progress of the Florida High Speed Rail! Student7 (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals

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 08:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight activity

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 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot

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 00:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 0

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 0, December 2010
Welcome to The Downlink · Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects · User Activity Checks Welcome to The Downlink Welcome to The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Future issues will contain information on issues under discussion, newly featured content, and articles written by members of the project to appear in the newsletter. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter. If you were not aware of being a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, membership of the former Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight and Space colonization WikiProjects was merged into WikiProject spaceflight during the reorganisation of the spaceflight projects, for more details, please see below. Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects The ongoing discussion of the future of Space WikiProjects has been making progress. WikiProject Space was abolished on 5 December 2010, with the Spaceflight, Astronomy and Solar System projects becoming independent of each other. On the same day, an assessment banner, {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} was created for WikiProject Spaceflight to replace the generic space one which had been used previously. On 9 December, WikiProject Space Colonization was abolished, with its tasks being subsumed into WikiProject Spaceflight. On 12 December, the Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight WikiProjects became task forces of WikiProject Spaceflight, whilst WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight became a working group. A number of issues are still under discussion: Introducing better defined assessment criteria and an A-class review process Setting clearer importance criteria for assessing articles Establishing a joint task force with the Astronomy and Solar System projects to cover space telescopes and planetary probes Defining the roles of projects, taskforces and working groups, and processes for establishing new ones Improving the profile and activity of the project Much of the current discussion is taking place on the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page, however there is still some discussion on the original proposal page. User Activity Checks A series of checks are underway to establish the numbers of users who are still active within WikiProject Spaceflight, its task forces and working group. All usernames on the members lists were struck out, and members were asked to unstrike their own names if they were still an active member of the project. If you wish to do so, and have not already, please unstrike your name from the master list, plus the lists on any applicable task forces or working groups Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

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 16:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC).