User talk:Hal Nordmann

November 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to DeLorean time machine, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. GSK (talk • edits) 13:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Redacted II (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Redacted II (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Starship Neutrality (RedactedII forced POV) for the direct link Redacted II (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Thor Heyerdahl, you may be blocked from editing. You removed sourced material replacing it with original research Doug Weller talk 19:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted it to properly reflect the theory talked about. But I might've been too rash in being bold, yeah. Brought it to the article's Talk page as a suggestion for a change, and will refrain from editing the article until there's a consensus. Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There are quite a few sources discussing his racism. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eg Heyerdahl's Kon Tiki Theory and the Denial of the Indigenous Past.

Academic Journal By: Holton, Graham E. L. Anthropological Forum. Jul2004, Vol. 14 Issue 2, p163-181. 19p. DOI: 10.1080/0066467042000238976. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Victory marking. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did note it was not the best, sorry. But you could've just removed it. Why the hostility? What happened to WP:BOLD? Hal Nordmann (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t trump the need for reliable sources. And of course I see a warning about this at the top of your talk page from last November. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry. I often get a bit too excited about adding a fun fact I saw somewhere that I forget about sourcing, and assume it being a bold edit is enough Hal Nordmann (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your request at Pages needing translation

Hello, the page is for articles already on EN-Wikipedia, not those on other Wikipedia you want to have translated...You linked to the Dutch article. Help:Translation has more information. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but the page says it is also about badly translated pages, no? Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but you linked to the Dutch article directly. I have redone the request linking to the English article. Lectonar (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm kinda new to this stuff Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also help me in another way? I forgot about linking the articles, and don't know how to make it so the English and Dutch articles appear properly as language variants of each other. EDIT: Nevermind, solved it myself Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hal. One more thing: if you want to propose a merge, then you need to start a Merge discussion, and link it from the {{Merge}} template at the article, and an identical one at the Draft where it is currently just a red link. Please see WP:MERGE for instructions. However, given the existence of Draft:Integrate-Transfer-Launch Complex, there may have been no reason to create the translation, as the Draft looks mature and ready for mainspace. Is there anything in the translation that isn't already in the Draft? If not, they can just be swapped, no need to merge. If you need help with that, I can swap them; let me know. Mathglot (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can swap most of it. There are few bits in my version that the draft doesn't have, but it's easier to add those to the draft. I only found out about the draft after finishing my version, by the way Hal Nordmann (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might have been the case. Just to be clear: a swap is binary—the two pages change places: the draft becomes the article, and the previous article becomes the draft. After that, you can of course move any unique information from the page you wrote into the pre-existing one. If you have no objections, I will carry out the swap. Can you confirm you are on board with this plan? Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. I can copy over parts of my one later Hal Nordmann (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped. The page you created is now located at Draft:Integrate-Transfer-Launch Complex, and the former draft is now in mainspace. Courtesy-pinging Ngpiii as well.

Copyright note: Note that when you copy information over from one Wikipedia page into another (draft, article, or anything else), you are required by Wikipedia's licensing requirements to credit the authors of the original page in your edit summary. However, there is one exception: when *you* are the author of (every word of) the content you are copying over—in that case, you don't have to add such attribution. I usually add a standard, boilerplate attribution notice to the edit summary anyway, even when copying my own words over, because some alert editors who watch for copyright violations might wonder why you *didn't* leave an attribution in the edit summary, so it is easier to just leave it. So, bottom line: my advice is to add this phrase to any edit where you copy words over, regardless who wrote it; you can use these words:

Content in this edit was copied from [[Draft:Integrate-Transfer-Launch complex]]; please see the history of that page for attribution

, along with any other wording in the summary you wish to add. That way, you are covering all bases. (And don't forget to *always* use such a statement when copying words authored by someone else; that is a strict requirement, and will get you into hot water if you ignore it.) Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what is your level of knowledge of Dutch? Mathglot (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, it's pretty much zero. I mostly used my knowledge of German and English to take some educated guesses, Google Translate for some parts, and the primary sources for the bulk of the text Hal Nordmann (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much thought so. Please do not do that; WP:MACHINETRANSLATION is considered problematic for numerous reasons that I can go into in more detail if you wish, but you can think of it in terms of your adding content to the encyclopedia that you have no way of verifying if it is accurate or not; see WP:Verifiability—a core content policy at Wikipedia. Now that your MT content is in Draft space, there is no longer any reason to worry about it as long as it stays there, however, if you copy any material over from your page to the article, please do not rely on any MT content on the page without verifying that everything you copy over is verifiable in reliable sources, preferably by including in-line citations to those sources. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned, I mostly used the primary sources in the end (as they are pretty interesting themselves!), only relying on the auto-translated version for the overall layout and the like. So exactly as you mentioned I should. Hal Nordmann (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hal, I've moved the material you were working on to Draft:Integrate-Transfer-Launch Complex 2 in order to move the other version back to draft space. Once you have integrated whatever material you wish to the other Draft, please ping me or leave message on my talk page and I'll delete this version so there aren't two floating around. Thanks for working on this topic, as it's an important part of the Cape's history. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Unfortunately couldn't find good (or indeed any) sources about the Satellite Integration Building or Solid Motors Checkout Building, aside from Dutch Wikipedia (which lists no sources). So while I would've liked to note down their location on the "layout" image, that's something for later. You can delete the draft now. Hal Nordmann (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hal, I've responded to this question about what those buildings are, at Talk:Integrate-Transfer-Launch Complex#Additional facilities. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects

Given your interests, you might be interested in looking into one or more of these: WP:WikiProject Spaceflight, WP:WikiProject Rocketry, and WP:WikiProject Aviation. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just joined Project Spaceflight, thanks for the tip! Hal Nordmann (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cha 1107-7626

Hi, Hal. I just heard Neil de Grasse Tyson talking about his new book ("Just Visiting This Planet"), and among many interesting topics, he spoke about Cha 1107-7627 [sic], a planetary object acting like a star, including accretion of billions of tons of material per second, the strongest growth rate ever recorded for a planet. Although we have an article on Cha 1107-7626—which is apparently another name for the same object (to be verified! deGrasse Tyson called it 7627)—none of that is in there, and I thought maybe you might be interested in researching it, and updating the article. Here is a starting point: MSN article, Yahoo article, CNN, Phys.org. Regards, Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Hal Nordmann! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 10:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Hal Nordmann! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict, which includes discussing articles on talk pages, unless you are logged into an account that is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs) 08:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Burrobert (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does all of this also apply to the Talk page? I only made a post in there Hal Nordmann (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it applies to talk pages. There is a warning at the top of the page which says "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)". Burrobert (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, sourcing, and verifiability

Hello, Hal, I just wanted to reiterate the comments made above regarding citing sources for content added to articles, in order to support Wikipedia's key content policy of WP:Verifiability. It seems to me that your passion and interest on topics like Integrate-Transfer-Launch Complex is outracing your diligence in complying with these policies, as I have found large swaths of content there unsourced. I have tagged some of it as needing citations. In another case, I found content with specific assertions followed immediately by a valid citation to a reliable source, which however verifies none of the preceding content. I tagged this one {{failed verification}}. This is in some ways worse than totally unsourced material, as at least in the latter case it is obvious to anyone that it is unsourced; whereas when there is a citation there that doesn't actually support the content, that cannot be easily determined at a glance, and makes material look sourced, that actually isn't. If you remove that citation from the article, you can remove the following tag; but the content will still need to be sourced.

I have a feeling that you may be extremely knowledgeable about rocketry and the U.S. space program, perhaps you even spent a good amount of time intimately involved with it. Am I anywhere close? If so, it's great to have someone like you with an inside track working on these articles, being able to see what is lacking, and knowledgeable about where to best place our efforts to fill in the gaps. But it is extremely important to understand that the content you add may not be based on your own knowledge and experience, no matter how well informed and accurate. Everything we add must be verifiable in published, reliable, secondary sources, and the way to demonstrate that is to add inline citations. I know you have been doing that to an extent, so thank you for that; now please continue that good work by adding citations to the parts of the article that don't have them. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the reminder. I mostly just added stuff you put on the Talk page, and assumed the people putting that list together would have the appropriate sources (yes, that is not the proper procedure, but thought it would be better than it just missing altogether). As for your second question, I do not work in the industry (though I do know a few people that do, but know already they wouldn't make for a verifiable source), I have just been reading about this stuff a lot. Hal Nordmann (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "reading about this stuff a lot" is probably better anyway. It means you do have access to the sources, and aren't just remembering it from past experience. So, that's good news, because you can just add the citations from what you have read. Regarding "...thought it would be better than it just missing altogether": it's better to leave the material out until you can cite the source it came from. You are welcome to put half-remembered facts onto the Talk page as a kind of worksheet or tickler list to remind yourself (or to ask others about), but if you don't have the citation handy, please do not add the content to the article. That is pretty core practice at Wikipedia, and a good habit to get into, because if you get into the habit of doing it the other way, you may eventually get yourself into hot water. You probably noticed the tags I added about missing citations, those are a courtesy to you, but per WP:BURDEN you are responsible for citing the material that you add to an article, and if not sourced within a reasonable time, I may remove it. How much time do you think you would need, a few days, a week? Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. But it seems @Ngpiii already added a few refs. Plus, it should be noted that the one you taged as failed verification isn't in part of an article I wrote. I mainly claim responsibility for the post-Titan and infrastructure sections - I only contributed minor tidbits to the rest of the article Hal Nordmann (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries then. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]