Fotoguzzi

Fotoguzzi, on the NASASpaceFlight thread you made mention of the DIRECT article being too long. One possible fix to this is to split the article. Consider moving the Jupiter technical specs into "Jupiter (rocket)" and keep the overall history and policy discussion in the DIRECT article. I see that this already exists as a redirect, but it wouldn't difficult to replace the redirect with an article and place a hat note in regarding the other Jupiter out there. Going forward, it may be possible to split this history out into "History of DIRECT if the main DIRECT article is still too long. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. By too long, I mean mostly that it is repetitious. Your idea is good, though. I was trying to make it look a little more approachable because with the PBS interview and the Committee, a lot of eyes might see the page. I will try to make a Jupiter_Upper_Stage stub, so that people don't try to bolt an Ares V EDS to a Jupiter.

Thanks for your suggestion today and yesterday! Fotoguzzi (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I would recommend going with a Jupiter Upper Stage article for now. Start with the Jupiter (rocket) article that has a section on the Jupiter Upper Stage. Possiblly even create a redirect from Jupiter Upper Stage to the section of the rocket article discussing the upper stage. Once the amount of content specific to the upper stage reaches a couple of screen fulls, then split it out into a separate article. Stubs should really only be used when the entity is unique enough that it doesn't fit neatly into an existing article. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking the stub would lead people to DIRECT. I'm not so sure I want to make the split at this time. I'm not the most organized, and I don't want to end up with two bad articles instead of one. I agree that the JUS article should die as soon as possible. There is nothing on WBC and Aces, so, it's a bit of an orphan wherever it goes. If you really think it horrible, I will pull the article. I, personally, don't mind stubs as long as they have a lot of links. -- Thx! Fotoguzzi (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

One more option would be to make Jupiter Upper Stage a redirect to a section of the main article. You can have a redirect point sraight into a section using "#REDIRECT ARTICLE NAME#SECTION NAME" syntax. My concern with creating a separate article for JUS is that someone else will come along and either propose a merge or deletion as it is such a specialized child subject. If you start with it in the main article, then it can be easily separated out later when the content reaches a large enough quantity and quality. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. If I can summarize it briefly, I will insert it into the DIRECT article. For now, I really don't know enough about it to say much. I wonder if the EDS could work as-is on DIRECT v3.0. 131.252.209.89 (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Fotoguzzi. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox Rocket.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW… 10:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Another --GW… 15:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • And another --GW… 07:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Fotoguzzi. You have new messages at Nsaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 

Hello, Fotoguzzi. You have new messages at Aalox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again Aalox (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your question at WP:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1 ("22:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)") which you have rephrased at the article talk. I hope you don't mind but I wanted to ask about this here because there is already too much material on those pages. I don't know enough to be able to answer the question, but it looks like you acknowledge that it is not specific to the FAC? In other words, whatever the answer, no action is required in the article? My feeling is that details about whether some Oxfordians reject some works belongs at Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. If you agree, perhaps you would consider undoing your edit at the FAC (diff) using some edit summary to indicate you don't think the comment is needed for the FAC. If I have missed something, perhaps you might explain further at the article talk. Thanks (btw, there is no need to reply but if you do, I won't need talkback). Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Gregor Grant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely unsourced bio of living person(BLP)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Edwin M. Stanton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peterson House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

You might now want to check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Highway_401 as there's a nice KML implementation which might work for you, as well as a pointed to a commons template, the status of which on en.wiki I'm a bit uncertain about. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Fotoguzzi/Thomas Gargrave (soldier) has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Gargrave (soldier), this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that, I never considered that the book would be out of copyright, but yes, I'm sure it is, due to it's age. I put the content back and resubmitted it. I'm going to leave this one for another editor to review though. Millermk90 (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Gargrave (soldier).
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  :- ) Don 01:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fotoguzzi,

Sorry about the mix up on my talk page. I meant to say I'm not on IRC for now. Talk page is still the preferred contact method. I have removed my little note.

As to your article, an article should never be rejected because it is a stub. I have approved some articles with only 2 sentences. The problem is WP:MILNG. If you can find an exception or some other rational for acceptance, I will have no problem approving your article.

 :- ) Don 15:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Re' the pre-existing damage and misalignment of #7 Slat -- that was NOT in the Logbook, nor in the prior "C" Check. That pre-existing damage was determined AFTER the mishap, by various (NTSB & TBC) metallurgists.

Hope the TALK page shows the sources (several), who presented the evidence of pre-existing damage.

THANKSIGhhGI (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Responded to two questions, dated 10July2012. THANKS--IGhhGI (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Fotoguzzi

I hope you are in highest degree of healthiness. I have been looking for an answer for old Grammatical Question! That could be your kind if you reply it.

we say: Abraham Lincoln was 16th President of the United States. now wecan ask: who was 16th President of the United States? the answer is Abraham Lincoln. I have been searching for the question that answer is <<16th>>. Alborzagros (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is there really a question here? Fotoguzzi (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Okay, I think I understand your question. Q: "Of what rank was President Lincoln in the order of Presidents?" A: Sixteenth. <- That's the best I can do. Not sure if there is an elegant way to ask that question in English. Where did Lincoln rank numerically among the Presidents? Sixteenth. <- Better, perhaps? Fotoguzzi (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

maybe I am ill-requesting you. could you plz fill the gap?

.......................................? 16th President of the United States.

Alborzagros (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Heminges, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seacoal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to MRAP may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the Marines reported in 2004 that no troops had died in more than 300 IED attacks on [[Cougar (vehicle|Cougars]] <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-08-01-force-protection-mraps_N.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thomas Gargrave (soldier), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ford Model T, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply