User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2010/July

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just a note that this user did not remove their block notice or their declined unblock request. They simply placed the new request at the top of the page, pushing everything else down. I've restored it for them to allow another admin to review the situation. If you have any questions, please let me know. TNXMan 18:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. They had replaced their talk page with only the unblock request previously, looks like they didn't the second time. My mistake.--RadioFan (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I followed your suggestion without thinking to check; but the fact is that both

I missed that, my mistake. Our cleaning up after the spam from the record label went a little too far there, thanks for fixing that.--RadioFan (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Radiofan. Could you restore the deleted Richard J H Matthews to me for my own future reference. Thank you for your advice.Rick570 (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not an administrator so I cannot help you here. You can try your question at Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention.--RadioFan (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

RadioFan:

Thank you for your invitation to create a template of some sort for space shuttle wake up calls; however, our discussion has become sidetracked. To summarize: You first contacted me because you disagreed with my contention that this practice did not date back to the Gemini program. I then agreed to your proposal to have others in the Human Spaceflight Project weigh in on that specific issue. Those who did comment agreed with me. I then asked if you would proceed with your apparently-related offer to create a template, which I assumed would also resolve the inaccurate characterization of what the NASA PDF cited states about the history of wake-up calls. You have not followed up, however, and as a result, the inaccurate information remains in Wikipedia.

It is not my goal to have a template; rather to have Wikipedia accurately reflect the sources cited in its articles. To accomplish that, it would now be my intention to again change any references to wake-up music being a tradition dating back to Gemini to reflect the content of the cited source, which is that the tradition dates to Apollo 17, with its first use during Apollo 13. Please let me know if you have any objection.

Thank you, RadioBroadcast (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I still do not agree with you. The phrase "dates back to Gemini" is acturate per the NASA reference (see pages 1,3-4). While that reference opens with a quote from a NASA Congressional Relations staffer which states that the practice dates back to "at least the Apollo days", the document also lists songs being sent beginning with

Gemini 6 and continuing through Gemini 12 with some gaps. The template will only make things easier for new articles which is a bit moot at this point as the shuttle program is ending in 2 more flights and this wake up music practice is a decidedly NASA one.--RadioFan (talk

) 18:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A few days ago

Looks much better, I've moved your latest version with the additional sources back to the main article space. Thanks for doing that.--RadioFan (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article you recently flagged should be removed immediately. Another, similar article already exists, and has more information. 76.116.137.55 (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer,

standing Ovation (2010 film) though that article has some issues as well.--RadioFan (talk

) 17:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--RadioFan (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir,Much obliged.Your prompt response and kind suggestions have been very helpful.I now know where I stand.I have moved the quotations from the main article but I cannot shed them because they confirm my statements a requirement which is insisted upon.It is not possible to further reduce the article mainly because then there will be very little material for any one else intending to conduct a research on Zia Fatehabadi.Already there are on record three persons who have done research for grant of PhD.Degree.The subject was a very learned person who had acquired expertise in many diverse fields,therefore,there are mentions which seem to cause a deviation.Please tell me whether now the article in its present form clearly meets all Wiki.standards.If not,what more to do.Thanks.Best Regards.Tarun marwaha (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear RadioFan, I think Jack Santino is clearly notable and now evidently so. Could you have another look and see what you think. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

I agree that the article has been significantly improved to the point where it can meet at least

WP:PROF--RadioFan (talk

) 00:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, the information has been adjusted to meet this.--RadioFan (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much better. I've just made a minor change to the wording to clarify what was meant by reuse, but I don't think there's an issue any more. --

W…

16:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks for looking at that. I made one more slight update changing the first use of "spacecraft" there to "craft" to prevent any nitpicking over comparisons of a Gemini capsule (most often referred to as a spacecraft) to the X-15 (most often referred to as an aircraft).--RadioFan (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have put a note to the effect that you now think it "can meet at least

WP:PROF" on the AfD page. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk

) 13:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC))