Talk:Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex

Raytheon manages the CDSCC on behalf of the CSIRO and NASA--nixie 07:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Martyman 08:24, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Linking from 'm'

Is it really necessary to link the letter m to metre. Why not type in the word metre (unlinked)?

What does the site do?

The article pretty much just says:

• Here is the site
• Here are all the rivers around it
• These are the dishes there
• This is when it was built

What purpose does the site fulfill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.26.187 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Site location map

The site location map shows the location of the Tidbinbilla area with a red star, but it is quite a bit off the exact location of the CDSCC, as given by the official CDSCC webpage. On the high resolution version of the supplied map in this article, it is about 55 pixels to the right and 56 pixels up from the red star. Nelisdutoit (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent controversies

The Wikipedia user identity 'Bidgee' has taken an extreme and unreasonable stance to censure very important and relevant facts. 'Recent controversies' is a legitimate section topic.

There is nothing wrong with what I wrote under version id: 566408402

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canberra_Deep_Space_Communication_Complex&oldid=566408402

The user 'Bidgee' seems to be impressed with North Korean, Stalinist style censuring strategies.

'Bidgee' states in the history log that I have a WP:COI, WP:OR and some questionable sources. Also highly WP:UNDUE./

I would like to assure 'Bidgee' that I have deliberately adopted a BBC style journalistic approach were only facts without opinion is reported.

1. Having a 'Conflict Of Interest' does not negate the fact that I have something valuable to add to the Wikipedia article. No one would ever suggest that a Holocaust survivor should be silenced simply because they have a COI.

2. To say that my added content has 'No original research' is an outright lie. 'Bidgee' please substantiate you assertion. I make reference to original official documents (which might have comments added to provide clarification) which makes the content highly original research.

3. To say that my content has 'questionable sources' is an outright lie. The sources that I make references to are official original genuine documents.

4. To say that my added content is 'highly undue' is a matter of your opinion and not fact.

'Bidgee' before you go off on an illegal (with respect to Wikipedia rules) censuring campaign I would like you to properly address points 1 to 4 above. Your justification is unsubstantiated. Your behavior is that of someone who is trying to cover up a crime that has been committed.

You cannot tell me that 'Recent controversies' is an invalid section or that the heading 'Sacked over a Big Mac' is undue. The fact that this matter has been published is several leading Australian Fairfax newspapers and has been on national television, not to mention the 'internet footprint' makes this a 'Recent controversy'. The incident has become popularly known as 'Sacked over a Big Mac' in the media and it is very appropriate that this is what the heading should be called.

If you don't provide a legitimate response I will have no alternative to re-post my content. Why don't do something constructive and add to the discussion rather than trying to censure the subject. Hoffmanj (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry mate but there are WP:COI issues here. Also important is the fact you are giving the issue WP:UNDUE attention, this is an encyclopedia article on the complex, Wikpedia WP:IS NOT a news page/soapbox. I can understand that you would obviously be very upset about what happened, but Wikipedia isn't the place to air those concerns . -- Nbound (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking through your edit history similar edits have been made at other articles; unfortunately if you continue editing in this fashion, it is likely to get you blocked. -- Nbound (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There was far too much detail included. Really such a story only needs one sentence with a reference to the newspaper story. That is why I claimed that WP:UNDUE applied when I removed the content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Funding?

So what size is the annual operating budget for this facility? And how much of that is paid by NASA? ... by the government of Australia? ... by private sources? Anyone know where to look for this? It would greatly improve the article to have that information worked in. N2e (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone know where to look for this? – The same place we look for everything else of course, Google (or your favourite search engine).

Google search for "canberra deep space communication complex funding" finds, in the first three hits:

• The Complex is a funded entirely from NASA's space exploration budget.
• "NASA provides around $20 million a year to the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex"

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

 Article updated Mitch Ames (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

New dish installed

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-20/canberra-deep-space-communication-complex-antennae-upgrade/6711504 175.45.116.64 (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Article updated. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100711040301/http://intranet.aiaa.org/industryresources/PDF/AustraliaHistoricSitesPR.pdf to http://intranet.aiaa.org/industryresources/PDF/AustraliaHistoricSitesPR.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)