Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Falcon Heavy, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hi Baldusi. Appreciate the update to the Falcon 9 spec you added, but we should really have a full citation along with that data change in the article. Else, we have an old citation that is in the article that does not support the new claim you made.

If I can be of any assistance in helping you learn how to add citations, just send me a note on my Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Baldusi. I think the follow-on edit you made on this was great, and fixed the problem. While the numerical change by itself was not supported, a change to the "date accessed" of a source with an edit comment that the source has changed the number without updating the title, rev no. or date of the document, is sufficient to back up the numerical change. Thanks! N2e (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your recent edits to improve Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 4. The Launch History table was a must in the article. Ninney (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:SpaceX Testing Merlin 1D Engine In Texas.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Stefan2, as you can now see, SpaceX has changed all their licenses to Public Domain, and as such I downloaded again from the Official SpaceX gallery that clearly states the license status. I understand that this closes the issue.

Hi there. Jus 5 minutes ago, I checked this pageMerlin_(rocket_engine_family) and it was unreadable, red background and a text "nice meme" on top, flowing when you scroll down and nothing else. No article. So I checked history you tried to fix the page. So copied the page code from 30th june where I edited Merlin 1D picture feature,adding |thumb, to make sub-info visible. Now it's readable again but my change does not show on history page, which is odd. I just wanted to inform you. Thanks. Bye.--Guyver (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This is quite strange. I just look it up and I see it fine and I don't see your edit on the History.Baldusi (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I wish I had taken a screenshot or informed you first--Guyver (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey there! Thank you for adding an awesome table of versions to the page. I was thinking about moving the references that you entered in the table to the title of the table rather than repeatedly next to each value since they use the same references. Will make it easier to read the values also, less clutter. What do you think? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer5000 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome Hammer5000. I have already done it. I've moved the main citation to a new row at the bottom of the table. Now I've got to go and do the same for the other articles where I've put tables. BTW, I would like to have your opinion on my proposed branching of the Template:Rocket engines. Please see the Template TalkPage Baldusi (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the RD-120 page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For you consistent work to greatly improve the encyclopedia's coverage of rocket engines used in spaceflight! In particular, for your work creating some 15+ new articles and making major updates to another 15+ rocket engine articles. N2e (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!Baldusi (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thans for your rocket engine articles! 游戏橙子 (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!Baldusi (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Amazing work! In the last couple of month you have contributed serious amount of effort. Thank you for doing many edits that I wanted to do (and more accurately) and also for creating many new pages that are related to rocketry in general Hammer5000 (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Baldusi (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Robin Ceres. I've found a more detailed series of articles for YF-100/YF-115 engine. But some information is a bit different from wiki pages and its references. http://www.shenkong.net/Explore/1410/ZGXYDYYMYFDJ3-YF100-115ZYTX26045110.htm

And I think maybe the relationship between YF-100 and YF-115 should be restudied. (Their appearance and parameter is different). Robin ceres (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Baldusi. You've done such great work on so many rocket engine articles I wonder if you might like to make an attempt to see what we can find on the NewtonThree and NewtonFour engines for LauncherOne, under development by Virgin Galactic. I believe NewtonThree has completed qualification testing, and I only just learned of NewtonFour (scaled up N3?) this month.

I took the material that had been slowly accumulating on LauncherOne in the Virgin Galactic article over the past three years, and have now started a stand-alone article on LauncherOne. It has the history (broad brush) of NewtonOne and NewtonTwo, but to date, very little about NewtonThree, and nearly nothing on NewtonFour.

Anyway, just wanted to bring it to your attention and see if you might be able to dig up some better info, since it looks like the n3 and n4 versions are actually aimed for flight, while the n1 and n2 versions may be merely development footnotes in rocket engine history. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I've created a stub to hold the limited facts we have about Raptor prototype upper-stage engine. Feel free to help improve it as we know more, and as you have the time and choose to do so. (for example, I did not add any rocket engine infobox, as we don't know much about this yet. But perhaps others might think it needs one.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I've actually written the article on Raptor on NASASpaceFlight.com that started all the craze about it. But the truth is that there's very little information in the open, and the info I get that's restricted speaks about it still not having defined the thrust level. But I will see if I can get any extra work on it. Thanks for the heads up! Baldusi (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! Yes, I've tried to keep the Raptor prototype upper-stage engine article very high level; for example, no thrust mentioned at all. Just the basic facts on a USAF contract for a prototype by 2018.

But you are correct, the main Raptor engine article, at least in the infobox, is way too specific about things like thrust when so very little is really known for certain. Moreover, the body prose of that article makes it clear that the thrust figure is all over the map. Maybe you'd like to delete the uncertain stuff from the infobox? N2e (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Soyuz MS page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Soyuz-TMA into Soyuz MS. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diannaa, I've wrote more than 70 articles, but usually I base them off my own work. This was the first time I copied this much. I've seen I can't change the Edit Summary of an edit, so I have put a whole section in the Soyuz-TMA Talk as well as the Soyuz MS Talk. If you would be nice enough to read them and tell me if it is a correct way of attributing, I would really appreciate it. Baldusi (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Baldusi, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Widr, thank you!!! — Baldusi (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I see why the move was made - there appear to be no other categories specifically dedicated to "earth satellites" by nation. Any such categories are further subdivided - see for instance Category:Communications satellites and its children. So it appeared to be an incorrect title - something to keep in mind, perhaps, when renaming and recategorizing things? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There is Category:Earth satellites of the Soviet Union. And then that separations is completely different from the original category. The issue is that the Soviet Union/Russia did had artificial satellites outside of Earth. That is why that category was there. The US categories have very poor layout, so they are no comparison.

Please read the rest of my reply on the category Talk Page – Baldusi (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

		The Space Barnstar
		It seems inconceivable that none of your barnstars are specifically for your wonderful work on rocket engines and satellites. Thank you for your efforts! grendel|khan 17:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you grendel|khan! I do this for historical record. But a tiny bit of recognition is a great motivator to keep going. – Baldusi (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Space Capsule Recovery Experiment II page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I quick-stubbed out an article section for this new launch vehicle, and created a redir: New Glenn

Much more to be done. I'm slammed with project work at present, so can't do a lot right now. Thought you might want to be aware. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I went much further, and stubbed out a new article on the New Glenn. I got the History of the thing finished (for now), as I probably wrote most of that material over on the Blue Origin article from which I started the New Glenn stub.

THere is a lot to add on the technical stuff, and you excel at that. Beside, I really have got to get back to work. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting over there and adding the tech info, infobox, and now today, a proper fair use image. FWIW, I wrote to Blue yesterday asking if they might consider releasing a subset of their images—essentially, part of the same set of public media they already release to news media—with an appropriate Wiki-usable Creative Commons license. We'll see. SpaceX media dept. ignored my similar requests in the distant past until, one day, Elon decided to make a vast amount of their image stuff more freely licensed. N2e (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

When I wrote to SpaceX PR they told me to use it and distribute it. But there was nothing written nor clarified on the website and yes, Elon's decision was important. But Flickr's licensing terms on each image have also helped a lot. Personally, I believe that Wikipedia is too extreme on the image requirements, press kit images are fair use for illustration purpose of articles. In space, there's simply no option of imaging a satellite by an amateur. And Wikipedia uploader makes this case excruciating to upload. I think that the IP zealots got in front of the information for everybody on this subject.

BTW, you are fast, I can't finish reading the article and you introduced four or five new edits! When the article is stabilized I will move all the references down to the refs section. That makes citing much easier and the code much cleaner. I don't use visual editors and I care a lot about the code look. ;-) – Baldusi (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I really don't want to spam you, but in case you hadn't noticed, two more things were new to me in this morning's reading.

• some editor has created a new article for the New Armstrong. It's got a little much for only a single sentence mention of its existence. I did a bunch of housekeeping, but the article pretty much still looks like the OP editor created it.

• new Proton variants: Talk:Proton_(rocket_family)#New_Proton_variants

Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen those, but I've got to work today. I will work a bit on those tomorrow, though. Thanks for all your work! – Baldusi (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comment.

A few moments ago, I just discovered New Armstrong is a bit of a mess. I put a note on the Talk page. N2e (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Mornin', Baldusi. Musk tweeted a storm of good specs on the Raptor engine, including thrust/bar/size/Isp etc.

I put just one of those into the Raptor article. Figured it would be better to let someone who understands it all better take a look at the article in context.

But the cool thing is we are getting some of the engine data the day prior to the meta-speech on MCT/ITS tomorrow. N2e (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on the article. I think I will take some time and I'm seeing if I can actually write an article for publications, so you can source it. The important part is that Elon tweeted the data for the vaccum optimized version (150 expansion). I had always calculated my models with a chamber pressure of 20.5MPa, but apparently it is 30MPs (the highest ever, btw). So I clarified that on the article but we will have to move most of the data on design to history and I am adding a second infobox to differentiate the vacuum and sea level versions. – Baldusi (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@N2e: I've been greenlighter to write an article. So for now I will concentrate on that. After the conference I will wrap up things and put an article on NasaSpaceFlight. Since I can't quote myself, I'm counting on you ;-)–Baldusi (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I will anxiously await a really good technical sort of article on NASA Spaceflight. As I recall, a couple of years ago, that source published the very first good article with technical info on Raptor, and I believe it was me who then used that article as a source in several Wikipedia articles on the Raptor engine. N2e (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So... you liked my previous Raptor article. I hope you like my next one. – Baldusi (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of work to create a new article for the launch vehicle, info that had formerly been contained in a subsection of the system-level article (was MCT, now ITS).

For right now, that article is still named MCT launch vehicle, as that is what all the sources have said. Musk has reamed the system to ITS, but until his talk and Q&A news conference later today, has neither specifically named the LV booster (formerly and informally "BFR"; and always called MCT launch vehicle here on Wikipedia) nor the spaceship (formerly and informally "BFS"). So I expect the name to change later today, but wanted to have an article in place for just the LV, like we already have for just the engines (Raptor (rocket engine)).

I'm not sure, but it may be that the "spaceship" might also have a separate article soon as it will be too advanced for a section, and it is so much more than merely a second stage or just a plain space capsule. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

We will have to see what does Elon unveils. But if it is anything like what it has been speculated, it will be an integrated stack. The first stage will clearly be a launch vehicle. But it is not clear if the second stage should be classified as a reusable second stage or a whole space vehicle. I've been talking about the issue of lack of reusable spacecraft infoboxes in the Spaceflight Project, and I think that whatever is presented will definitely not fit in anything we have. But Blue Origin will be making a presentation right before, and I suspect that whatever they talk about, won't fit either. So I would simply work on your article and leave the definitions for later. Everybody likes to mess with articles, but very few people works on categorizing, conceptualizing and arranging. So you will have to work like crazy on the initial onslaught of good intentioned edits, and leave how to separate it and conceptualize for a later date. At least, that's what I would do. I've gotta go back to writing! – Baldusi (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, agree on both counts.

1. I've created, and extensively expanded a start-level article on the LV. ... and already renamed it to the term that Elon seemd to use the most in his talk: Interplanetary booster; although I wish he had been real clear on the descriptors for all three vehicles that make up the LV stack in their current CONOPS for ITS. Lots more to do. Please take a look at it when you get a chance, and improve as you see fit.
2. I agree that the integrated second-stage/interplanetarySpacecraft (and the second-stage/EarthOrbitTanker) are integrated stacks, and don't really fit any of the standard categories of the past. They are, to my eye, a new thing. So not surprising that the existing Cats don't cover this new thing very well. Happy to work with you on the creation/whatever of new categories to deal with them. As you've probably noticed, I have worked wiki cats some before, but probably nowhere near as much as you have. Maybe we'll complement each other on that work. N2e (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:SpaceX#Category rethinking.... N2e (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I just looked again at the Raptor prototype upper-stage engine article. With your deep knowledge on all things propulsion, I wonder if any of the recent (Sep/Oct) sources for the Raptor engine generally have good information on this upper-stage prototype Raptor engine that the USAF is throwing US$33 million at? From a size class point of view, it appears that the project is highly-complementary to the (same? or similar???) upper stage engine that SpaceX is intending for its Interplanetary Spaceship and ITS tanker vehicles, but I'd like to find any sources directly connecting them. CHeers. N2e (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I was noticing that an increasing number of rocket engine/tank systems are autogenously pressurized or using autogenous pressurization. So maybe there should be an article on it. With all your great work on rocket engine cycles and rocket engines, what do you think?

Here are a few of the articles that would be able to benefit from a link to such an article on this esoteric rocket engine tank/engine concept:

• Firefly Space Systems
• BE-4
• Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage
• ITS launch vehicle
• Interplanetary Transport System

Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the best source for how autogenous pressurization works, but at least it is a source for it. It is Elon Musk describing it during his 27 Sep talk at IAC67. Here is an already used cite that I used on another page for the huge cost reductions that Musk is talking about.^[1]

The autogenous press description is at 28 minutes.

Do you perhaps have a better source we could use for an article or article section? N2e (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

This question would still very much benifit from your thoughts. I see that you, like I, have had little time for Wikipedia the past several months. But when you get back over some time, please leave your thoughts on this. N2e (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry but currently I don't have much time. Which is a shame because they are launching a lot of satellites that I wrote articles about. If I have time, I will try to tackle such an article. But it would probably be more of a fit for a section on a liquid propellant pressurization article. I don't think there is too much public literature on the subject of autogenous pressurization. But a nice article can talk about all the issues about rocket pressurization, like why you can't use Nitrogen with LOX, or by Helium makes such a difference, and then explain the advantages of autogenous. At least, that would be my first approach. Baldusi (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Very helpful. I, too, am slammed right now and have little time for WP; in fact, I turned on the Wikibreak template on my userpage earlier today.

I think your suggested approach is a very good one. Probably best, initially, as a section/subsection on the liquid propellant engines article (which I might find some time to start in the coming weeks), and then could become a standalone article on liquid-propellant rockets and pressurization, once we have enough sourced content there. Feel free to go for it yourself; or just stand by and see what happens in the great emergent order that is Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Baldusi. Just wanted to let you know that I finally created a redirect to the concept of autogenous pressurization. So at least our global readers will have something to describe it when the concept is broached.

Feel free to have a look, or improve any part of the description, or where the redir points to. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Baldusi! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 22:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Galaxy 2 (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galaxy 2 (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Energia-100 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energia-100 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JFG ^talk 20:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Blue Origin New Glenn 2016-Sep Introduction-Non Free.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 07:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(I updated the image with the latest paint scheme) – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 07:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)