User talk:PhilipTerryGraham

(talk · articles · reviews)  

Hello. My name is Philip Terry Graham! I am an avid Wikipedia contributor, with over 26,000 edits, 160 new pages, and 7 years of service to my record. I started out contributing to music-related articles, in which I have the most experience in. Though, since then I've moved on to other subjects, such as astronomy, politics, video games and transport, amongst other things. Morally, I am not an editor who does his best to follow the rules, and can and will break rules in the name of a better Wikipedia. I also help to maintain an easy-to-navigate and easy to read graphic design for all articles. If I see an article that I'm interested in and it's a complete mess, I'm there to fix it! This is my talk page, so if you want to bring up a discussion about my edits, articles I maintain or other things I do on Wikipedia, be sure to click "New Section" at the top of the page and start writing! Discussions will be moved to the archive after one month without reply. Stay bold, people!

(7 May 2020) Discussion: Lunar Gateway

What does POV mean? CRS-20 (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: If you're asking why {{POV section}} was added to the "Criticism" section of the article, you're gonna have to refer to Jadebeen and their entry on Talk:Lunar Gateway, as they were the ones that added the message boxes in the first place, not me. The message box itself tells readers and editors that "relevant discussion may be found on the talk page", so please be sure to check talk pages before poking other editors about it next time. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

On Spaceflight Now from May 6, 2020, he has a very nice photo of NASA representing the Gateway, can you import it for me, I can't do it and thank you in advance. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to know what the letters POV mean. CRS-20 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: I've added the new artwork of the Gateway to the article's {{Infobox space station}} per your suggestion! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The ESPRIT module has been funded, but it will not be launched until 2025. CRS-20 (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: That is correct, though I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That the ESPRIT module should be in the "Proposed" section. CRS-20 (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: Please do not make modifications to my signature like you did in this edit. I fail to see why it should be kept in "Proposed" when it's a fully-funded module that is currently under development; it is no longer a proposal but an active project. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for this error, I don't know how it could have happened. So we must add the iHAB module which was also funded in December 2019. CRS-20 (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: My concern with that is I couldn't find sources to verify that JAXA have also funded their contributions to iHAB; that particular module is a joint venture, after all. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I found a source in the article "H-II transfer vehicle": http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903190005.html CRS-20 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: This is a news article from March 2019 detailing the announcement of the iHAB proposal. It does not verify that Japan's contributions to iHAB have been funded by the Japanese government and/or JAXA, which is something I do not believe has happened yet. There needs to be a source that explicitly states that Japan's iHAB contributions have actually been approved and will be going forward. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(12 May 2020) Discussion: Category:Space Shuttle missions

Hi again. I've noticed you've been goin through the early shuttle images articles and updating the lead images to highlight the mission. I do appreicte that, but could you also remember to keep the launch pictures in the article: just move them lower down to another section such as highlights, rather than replacing the lead image and discarding the launch photo from the article. Thanks. User:Raphael.concorde 10:27 PM UTC (May 12, 2020)

@Raphael.concorde: Apologies for that. I guess I found that a vast majority of the Shuttle mission articles were a complete mess of images, so I felt that it was not my business to shove yet another image into articles' prose sections. However, I do concede understand in certain cases, such as the unique view of Columbia with Discovery launching at the start of STS-35, it would be valuable to keep such images in the article, but then again File:S90-48650.jpg already exists in the article and is a much better image. I am confused by your reasoning for the revert of the lead image in STS-28, though. You argued in favour the current lead image in the STS-134 mission because, despite its irrelevance to the mission, it was a unique historic image that should be used to represent the mission. File:SILTS Image.jpg not only satisfies my preference for mission-relative photography – it's a photograph taken by a notable scientific instrument (SILTS) carried by Columbia during the mission – but your preference for unique historic images too; it's an exceptionally rare photograph of a Space Shuttle orbiter during reentry from the exterior of the Shuttle itself. Thus, I was caught off guard by your comment that "Original image better, remember the unwitten rule of good quality lead images." I'm unsure of what you'd like lead images to be now. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Thanks for your reply. Yeah I know the STS-28 image showing the SILTS is a good science camera image, but typically shuttle lead image highlights are taken in natural wavelength (visible light photographs), and thought it seemed out of place. In the message where I restored the previous version, I also made a note where I'm currently sifting through NASA's various image archives for a suitable replacement to suit the mission highlights. When I find one I'll upload it to wikimedia commons and hopefully you'll like it. I guess you and I love the shuttle program (which is great to know), but I'm also a photographer of one that cares to display HQ images. Hope this helps. Take care. User:Raphael.concorde 7:24 AM UTC (May 13, 2020)

@Raphael.concorde: I will note that since STS-28 was a Department of Defense mission, you'll find it exceptionally difficult to find high-quality in-flight photography, since most of the mission is classified. At best you'll find these sorts of missions documented overwhelmingly exclusively by Earth photography conducted by the crew; and even the Johnson Space Center's Flickr archive for STS-28 photography illustrates this. Good luck, I suppose! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(29 May 2020) Comment: Space Launch System

@PhilipTerryGraham: Hi, I would like to solicit your input on a debate around the launch cost of the SLS rocket. Jadebenn made an edit here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=929316586&oldid=929241314 And since no one challenged his edit at the time he now considers it a consensus and refuses to revert back to old (and most importantely real) figures. He refuses to debate my argument therefore I solicit your input into this. Thanks - Moamem (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Moamen: I'm concerned that you've come onto my talk page soliciting an "input on a debate" by complaining about another editor instead of making a case for your argument... but I'll take a look at it nonetheless, I suppose. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I'm honestly more confused by the fact he didn't even link the discussion on the talk page. Essentially, the argument boils down to him wanting to use a figure for the total yearly programmatic cost plus a launch as the "cost per launch" figure, when the article already has a separate "cost per year" category to address it. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 05:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

wikigod Thanks, (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(26 June 2020) Comment: Commercial Crew Program

You manually reverted my grammar-related edits at the aforementioned article. Please do not revert my edits so as to implement grammatically incorrect text. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@MrThunderbolt1000T: Apologies. There has been a handful of editors adding uncited information into the article as of late, and unfortunately your edit was caught up in a blanket revert of edits from another user who added a launch date for Crew-1 with no citation. I'm terribly sorry for that; I'll definitely be a lot more careful with my weeding next time! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Understandable. I appreciate your mature response: not a whole lot of Wikipedians are as helpful and grown. The system has its quirks and I imagine that you've experienced plenty, according to your edit count. I've been doing lots of grammatical corrections lately and that revert kind of irked me. Although, I did find one of my corrections was erroneous, so I suppose it wasn't a complete wrench in the gears. Anyways, thank you and have a good one. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(16 July 2020) Comment: Space and Missile Systems Center

Garuda28 is threatening me, can you handle it. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk page stalker Comment, CRS-20's concerns appear to be related to warning posted on User talk:CRS-20. OkayKenji ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: I am unsure as to what you mean by "threatening" you. From what I can see from the edit history of the Space and Missile Systems Center article, and your talk page, you had simply been rightfully warned against engaging in edit warring. You had been the one to make a change of the topic's name from "Space and Missile Systems Center" to "Space & Missile Systems Center", and thus when Garuda28 reverted your changes, it was then your responsibility to discuss your proposed additions on the article's talk page per the BOLD, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Unfortunately, you decided not to do this; you ignored Garuda's request after your second attempt at changing the title to "go to the talk page to justify these changes" and insisted upon your version of the title by making a third attempt. I simply cannot help you here. I can only give you my opinion that you're in the wrong here and that you need to study the BRD cycle if you don't want other editors to be upset at your behaviour. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)