User talk:CRS-20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gial Ackbar (talk | contribs) at 08:23, 22 September 2021 (→‎Copyright). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Teahouse logo

Hi CRS-20! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Kosmos 111. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Good evening, what does Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. mean? and you have to do this for each reference, it must take a long time. And where do you take the names you assign to ref. as cosmos in Kosmos 111? Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works of the US Government are in the public domain. That means that it's legal for us to copy their material unaltered. Wikipedia rules specify that we must say so when we have copied public domain works. Hence the template. Each time you copy from a public domain work you need to say so. Any name you like can be assigned to a named reference. — Diannaa (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: What I did in Kosmos 111, is it good? — CRS-20 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay I guess. If you want feedback or general advice, I suggest you visit the Teahouse. See the link at the top of this page.— Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel 6

@Huntster: The references 4a, 4b and 8 are dead. Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: The references 4a, 4b and 8 are dead. Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a different type of citation; when you click it, it goes down to the references section and highlights the entry. When you click on the URL at that location, it will take you to Google Books, where, depending your location and other factors, you may be able to view the pages. Cheers. Kees08 (Talk) 06:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: I merged Notes and References and there we can see. — CRS-20 (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way that it was is an acceptable form for the references, see WP:SFN for a bit more on it. I have reverted it back to that version. Kees08 (Talk) 14:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it would be helpful if you left edit summaries explaining what you did when editing articles in the future. I want to undo some other edits but I have to go through them individually to figure out which ones they are. Kees08 (Talk) 14:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Progress MS-14

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Progress MS-14 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. - Flori4nKT A L K 00:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progress MS-14 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Progress MS-14, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. - Flori4nKT A L K 01:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flori4nK: I finished my draft, can you help me? Because he says that it will take 8 weeks and he says that there is another article of the same name, but it was I who created it, would you like to destroy this empty article? Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CRS-20.
I've already nominated the redirect (Progress MS-14) for deletion.
Unfortunately, I can't delete it myself, as I don't have the necessary user rights.
You'll have to watch the page and will be able to move your draft to mainspace as soon as the name is free.
If this is your first article and you aren't sure if it's ready for mainspace, I'd recommend submitting it to WP:AFC and waiting for it to be reviewed.
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! - Flori4nKT A L K 13:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Progress MS-14 (May 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sam-2727 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I don't think this spacecraft is notable by itself. How about you merge the information currently in the article to Progress (spacecraft) (under the "MS" section), or create an article for the entire MS series, not just this one spacecraft?
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Sam-2727 (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam-2727: This is the fourteenth in a series of 13 articles, from Progress MS-01 to Progress MS-13, this article is the continuation of the 13 others. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CRS-20, you're right. I somehow didn't see those articles. While I disagree with the creation of those articles, I'm not here to hark on articles already created. I will accept the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sam-2727 A very big thank you. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ESA

@Diannaa: Is ESA in the public domain? Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how to find out: go to their websaite https://www.esa.int/ → Terms and Conditions → Copyrights = NO. The answer is no.— Diannaa (talk)
@Diannaa: see https://www.esa.int/About_Us/ESA_Publications/Copyright and in my opinion, it is yes, if we don't sell them and if we don't use them for mercantile purposes. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a compatible license, because our CC-by license allows people to re-use our content for any purpose, including advertising and commercial use.— Diannaa (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: OK, the problem is Wikipedia and not ESA. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Spaceflight newsletter notification

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
WikiProject Notification
This is a one-time notification to all active WikiProject Spaceflight members.
The Downlink project page
I am notifying you, that thep The Downlink newsletter is starting up again, the first new issue will be published on the 1 November 2020.

Thanks, Terasail [Talk]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Downlink Volume 2 Issue 1

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 October 2020 — 31 October 2020

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a suggestion

Hi, thanks for the thanks re Michael Freilich, and thanks in general for your edits to space-based pages. May I suggest, however, that you don't need to use the PD-notice template every time you reference a NASA press release as a source. This uglifies the generated footnotes, to no purpose. Just a suggestion. Eleuther (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eleuther (talk · contribs) Diannaa wrote to me to do this. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, looking back on this talk page, it seems that Diannaa has been giving you some flawed advice. I will say more after I have studied it a bit. Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Eleuther. Attribution is required when copying public domain text. Please see Wikipedia:Public domain for more information. We need to provide attribution so that our readers are made aware that the prose was copied rather than written by Wikipedians. Taking credit for someone else's work is plagiarism; please see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for more information.— Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Diannaa. Text was not copied. The NASA press release was simply used as a source in the same manner as any other source. Attribution was provided by the footnote. The idea that I was plagiarizing when I wrote this article is offensive, and you should apologize for it. Eleuther (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, if nothing was copied you do not need the attribution template. Sorry if you thought I implied you actually plagiarised. I certainly did not say so directly, and only discussed what the rules are, and did not intend to imply any wrongdoing on your part.— Diannaa (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you are sorry that I felt bad about what you said, but you are not sorry yourself about what you actually said. That is lame, and a good argument for why people like you should not be admins. Eleuther (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Errors introduced on List of GPS satellites

I'm not sure what you were intending, but you have now twice incorrectly changed [1] [2] the SVNs of future GPS launches on List of GPS satellites without any mention in an edit summary or any sourcing. Please be more careful with your edits in the future. Thanks, Sailsbystars (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your new edits to this article are also in error. 76 GPS satellites have been launched because svn 12 was never launched. I'm not sure whether the current number operational is 32 or 31, but it's not 34 because there are only 32 possible PRNs. Please self-revert. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, looks like this message crossed your last edit. The numbers in the lede look good now, thanks! Sailsbystars (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sailsbystars: Sorry, but I did not put the number 80. You are kind in your comments. And thank you for correcting my mistakes. I started in March 2020 to edit on Wikipedia. CRS-20 (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:CRS-20 is consistently reverting my edits and accusing me of vandalism. Thank you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use edit summaries that are misleading, intentionally or not, you may be blocked from editing.
Let's be clear, removing blank spaces from infoboxes is not vandalism. Editors remove them in good faith. I understand why they do it, and I understand why other editors like all the parameters to line up nicely. Any further reversion of these edits under the pretext of vandalism will result in a block. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots might have mentioned the reason for their stern warning. At Wikipedia, "vandalism" has a precise definition given at WP:VAND. Further, assume good faith is policy and we must assume other editors are trying to improve the encyclopedia (until evidence shows otherwise, bearing in mind the definition of vandalism). Please stick to using edit summaries that describe why your edit is an improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: - I would have thought that it was obvious why the warning was issued, considering that the above post is in the section advising of the thread at ANI. The two are inextricably linked. The warning is to be read in conjunction with the thread at ANI and comments by other editors there. CRS-20, I confirm that Johnuniq's comments have my full endorsement. If you take the advice given, then this need go no further. Mjroots (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: I don't mind giving him the best of intentions, but when it's been 4 times since you've reverted him in a few days, and he comes back again with the same fault, then I call it vandalism. MB calls him this: fix convert error, MB did 2 revert to Ultimograph5, he didn't understand or can't read English, so I said to myself that he must understand. (see View history) CRS-20 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked him to refrain from those edits. Hopefully he'll comply now that it has been explained that they are of little benefit, although not harmful per se. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: I see what you mean now that those edits are of no benefit especially if they aren't showing up in the article. My concern was more with stuff like this, where I change an image's caption slightly and CRS-20 calls that vandalism. The infobox edits I can now understand being misconstrued as vandalism... but that image caption edit? Also, to CRS-20's point above that "I must understand" what I'm doing if you revert me a few times and I keep doing it - it would have been more helpful if in reverting my edits you would have explained why my edits were pointless instead of just saying "Vandalism" and leaving it at that. Anyway, now that I understand that removing blank spaces from infoboxes is silly, I won't be doing it anymore. Ultimograph5 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and thanks also for the good explanation of why using "vandalism" in an edit summary is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CRS-20: ...then I call it vandalism... Please understand that at Wikipedia you will not call edits vandalism unless they satisfy Wikipedia's definition at WP:VAND (in brief, it's vandalism if someone replaces text with "poop"). Editors are blocked for misusing jargon after warnings. Please read my above message again. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: @Johnuniq: I still have the same problem with Blackbirdxd for the structure of the infobox: Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich. CRS-20 (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently moved the article from Copernicus Sentinel-6 to Sentinel-6 Michael Frielich. Please do not undo edits without an explanation. "Edit unnecessary" is no help—what do you mean? I agree that there should be no edit warring over the alignment spaces in the infobox—Blackbirdxd why are you deleting those spaces? Are you doing that intentionally or is it some tool you're using? It's normal for infoboxes to have the equals signs lined up and you would need a very good reason to change that. I see there are substantive differences as well, but they would have to be resolved with discussion and by seeking participation from people watching a relevant wikiproject. At any rate, anyone disagreeing with edits must explain their objections on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the best was to settle this issue once and for all is by having a RFC to thrash the issue out. Would suggest that WT:MOSIBX is the best venue. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: @Johnuniq: I still have the same problem with Cohberg for the structure of the infobox: SpaceX CRS-21. CRS-20 (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped Cohberg a note. Now, how about starting that RFC? Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: What does RFC mean? CRS-20 (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Request for Comment, commonly abbreviated to RFC. Mjroots (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

­­@Mjroots: I still have the same problem with 69.120.159.106 for the structure of the infobox: Boeing Orbital Flight Test 2. CRS-20 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Downlink Volume 2 Issue 2

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 November 2020 — 30 November 2020

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Downlink Volume 2 Issue 3

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 December 2020 — 31 December 2020

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Columns in Reflist

Columns in Reflist are now handled automatically, so we don' use column numbers or em sizes anymore. Cheers. BilCat (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: Thank You for the information. Why doesn't that do for the Raiko article? CRS-20 (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a short list. That's how it works. BilCat (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for LauncherOne

On 21 January 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article LauncherOne, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Space Launch System

With all due respect, what were you thinking with these two edits [3] and [4]? Every single citation to a PDF now 404s when you click it. For example, I added a link to https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-012.pdf and you changed it to https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-012 and added format=PDF. Maybe you thought that would automatically add .pdf? But when you click the link it evidently does not do that. So you basically made every single PDF cited on the page no longer work. Your edit to this one: [https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/109th-congress-2005-2006/reports/10-09-spacelaunch.pdf The Congress of the United States. Congressional Budget Office, October 2006, pp. X,1,4,9.] is particularly ridiculous - it's a link and not a cite template, and you didn't add any format=PDF, you just removed the .pdf. Did you just delete literally every .pdf from the page?? Leijurv (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and fixed the 13 broken citations here. Please be more careful in the future and check with Show preview if your changes are actually doing what you think they should. Leijurv (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, that's not all of it! Still going through, I found seven other pages in just one page of your contributions (here) back in December where you removed the .pdf from a reference and caused the link to no longer work:
[5], citation 18 still broken today
[6], citation 11 still broken today
[7], citation 3 still broken today
[8], citation 10 still broken today
[9], apparently you noticed your own mistake, but did not realize that adding back ".pdf" would fix it, so you replaced the link with a general search link here: [10]
[11], citation 8 still broken today
[12], citations 8 and 24 still broken today
These edits almost look automated. Are you using some kind of citation script? I'm having a hard time imagining doing all this by hand. Leijurv (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More times you've done this: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] (<-- many), [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24].
I'm barely through the first thousand or two of your more than ten thousand edits. The citations don't work anymore, the links do not lead to the material they're trying to cite. They all appear broken. If I came across citations like these, I'm not sure I would think to add the .pdf. Someone might just think the entire citation is bad, and delete it or try and replace it. For example, what you yourself did ^^ in USA-66 as I described in the last message. Do you see the problem? Leijurv (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CRS-20: Please go through your past contributions and fix the references. I linked twenty articles ^^ and most of them are still broken. I found those twenty by clicking maybe one diff in ten in your December contributions. I'm sure there are dozens more for you to go through and find. Also, as Ed said, please WP:ENGAGE, have you read these messages and understood what I'm saying? Leijurv (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CRS-20: I assume you're ignoring this on purpose? You've made dozens of edits since that last ping ^, but still haven't replied on here, your own talk page. Since I now know what to look for, I'm seeing citations broken by you just browsing Wikipedia normally. For example this diff to Mars sample-return mission has left that citation broken to this day. I am not going to read through your entire contribution history, it's on you to clean up the mess you made. Leijurv (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, jdphenix wrote a script to go through your contributions and look for removals of .pdf, this is the output.

Here are the articles to be fixed:

I believe you have already fixed some. Leijurv (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have fixed all the .pdf links. Thank you! Leijurv (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing reference access dates to present day?

[25] Why? Leijurv (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leijurv: Yes, I have access to the sites. CRS-20 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But why are you changing the access date? They are meant to represent at what point in time the source was consulted. For example, it could be used with the internet archive to help with verifiability - if a site changes, knowing when it had that information is important if you'd like to verify the reference. Access date should not be randomly updated to the present day; only do that if you've added new content into the article from the source. Leijurv (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what I wrote is not quite right, actually you can also update access-date if you verify that the URL does support what's written in the article. My bad. Leijurv (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021 (again)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at SpaceBEE. --WikiHannibal (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiHannibal: Work in progress. CRS-20 (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as the article in question looks unfinished now after your recent edit ("SpaceBEE 8 and 9 (2 experimental satellites) were test models were launched on"), you might want to use a template for "in progress" Template:In use to place at the top of the page, or just write it in your edit summary (to the article). Otherwise, nobody can know. But what is more important, and what you have been warned about many times before, simply do not add unsourced info to the article. That is, add info only with a ref. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Starlink. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another incorrect change to a citation on Space Launch System

Please stop making find/replace changes to references. You're making quotes inaccurate to the source now. Previously it was breaking links to sources.

In this edit, you modified a quote from Congress as part of what looks like an automated script that changes the format of dates. The law passed in 2010 is quoted as not later than December 31, 2016 and you changed it to not later than 31 December 2016. I'm sure that that change wouldn't be a problem such as in a date= field or a access-date= field, but don't do that in a quote. Leijurv (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add additional numeric precision beyond what the cited source claims

In this edit you added :00 to the time of decay. The cited source just says 3:23pm, we don't know the seconds, so putting in the seconds like that implies we know the decay time was 3:23:00pm, while we really don't. Leijurv (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Downlink – February 2021

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 January 2021 — 31 January 2021

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work in Project Spaceflight

The Vanstar
For your work on Vanguard and other early space projects. Neopeius (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've started from the beginning and are working your way forward! :) I'd love to work with you on more early spacecraft -- I have lots of material from 1966 and earlier, if you're interested! --Neopeius (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: I agree. Cordially. :) CRS-20 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can find me on the Discord server in the Spaceflight channel. From there, if you'd like to add me as a friend, I'll be happy to shoot you what I've got. --Neopeius (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: What is Spaceflight channel? CRS-20 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on this button, it will take you to the Wikipedia Discord (you'll want to install Discord on your computer; the app is better than the browser version). Scroll down on the left to English Wikiprojects and you'll see WPSPACEFLIGHT. If you post in there, I'll find you. :)


WP Discord Server

(turns out the invite was expired -- I have updated the button so it works now! :) ) --Neopeius (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Neopeius (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see a problem...

While I appreciate rewriting citations so the date orders are consistent, the script you are using sets the access-date to the present day, which may be inaccurate. They should be preserved since they reflect when the article was looked up (and while you may be checking my work on Jonathan's Space Report, etc. I suspect you don't have an account to AvWeekly to check my work there). Can you confirm what's going on?

Thanks!

--Neopeius (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: I have an account with Aviation Week & Space technology. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, excellent. :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luna 28 interplanetary parm

I see you reverted my edit to Luna 28. I removed the first two "interplanetary" parms because there can be only one of any given parm. When there are more than one, WP ignores all but the last, and gives an error at the top of the "Show preview" screen. Notice that with three "interplanetary"s, only the rover (the last one) shows in the Infobox. The proper way is to have only one "interplanetary", followed by as many "Infobox spaceflight/IP"s as needed.

See the documentation for Template:Infobox spaceflight. Also, Apollo 11 is a good example. Davemck (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davemck: Thank you. Very interesting this article (Template:Infobox spaceflight). Sorry for the undo. I corrected Luna 28. CRS-20 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PRIME-1

Nova-C is the lander. Intuitive Machines use it for the mission October 2021 [26] and December 2022 [27].

PRIME-1 (Polar Resources Ice Mining Experiment-1) is a payload of the lander Nova-C for the launch December 2022 [28].

Barny22 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Downlink – March 2021

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 February 2021 — 28 February 2021

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manned Orbiting Laboratory

I saw that you reverted my edit in Manned Orbiting Laboratory. The article is supposed to be in american english. It is about an american subject and it says so in the line after the short description. Because of the removal of the line that I added, the box now contains the word pressurised with an s. This is inconsistent with the rest of the text and with american english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keesal (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add PD-Notice templates where text has not been copied verbatim. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PD-notice is not for copied. See user Diannaa. CRS-20 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Issuing a edit-warring warning. Do not re-add without consensus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CRS-20: Diannaa said if nothing was copied you do not need the attribution template earlier on this same page in November 2020. And the original explanation at the top of this page was That means that it's legal for us to copy their material unaltered. Wikipedia rules specify that we must say so when we have copied public domain works. Hence the template. Each time you copy from a public domain work you need to say so. Clearly, the template is only to be used when material is copied. So, PD-notice is not for copied. See user Diannaa. this is false. Diannaa said the opposite. PD-notice is for when we have copy pasted text verbatim from a source, but it is allowed because the source is public domain, so we explain what we did and why it's allowed by putting the template there. Leijurv (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Downlink – April 2021

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 March 2021 — 31 March 2021

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve PAS-3

Hello, CRS-20,

Thank you for creating PAS-3.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The satellite PAS-3 failed to launch. So this is a very important fact that is not mentioned. There also was a PAS-3R that replaced it. All this is mentioned in your reference!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Graeme Bartlett}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Rocketry

WikiProject Rocketry ended earlier this month. I revived it on 17 April 2021. You are welcome to help with it. It is currently considered semi-active. If edits continue often, please replace it with active. You are also invited to edit Draft: Wikipedia:WikiProject SpaceX (company) and add your username to the members list. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

Hello, and thanks for your work here. Please be careful of removing italics, I just reitalicized the title and an infobox entry on Tranquility (ISS module) after they were removed during your good faith edits. Is this the only one or were their similar edits on other modules? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just found another, Zvezda (ISS module). Can you please help reitalicize entries if you have a few minutes, thanks (and please notice that Space Shuttle names, such as Atlantis, are in italics, as are ISS module names. th.) Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And a whole crop of italics mistakes from your edits at Unity (ISS module). Please consider going over your past edits for italicization mistakes of Space Shuttle and ISS module names, lots of them seem to be popping up. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have probably caught most of the module italics. Actually good to reread some of those pages, most people don't know that these modules were sent to the space station over time, interesting topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Downlink – May 2021

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 April 2021 — 30 April 2021
Volume 1 — Issue 7
Spaceflight Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Open tasks • Popular pages • The Downlink
In the News!
Article of the month.

Michael Collins was an American astronaut who flew the Apollo 11 command module Columbia around the Moon in 1969 while his crewmates, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, made the first crewed landing on the surface. He was selected as part of NASA's third group of 14 astronauts in 1963 and flew in space twice.

Image of the month.

The unofficial flag of earth day which is made of the "Blue Marble" image taken onboard of the Apollo 17 spacecraft with a blue background.

Members

New Members:

Number of active members: 112.
Total number of members: 325.

April Launches
All times stated here are in UTC.

  1. United States Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L23 (7th at 16:34:18) Success Success
  2. China Long March 4B – Shiyan 6-02 (8th at 23:01) Success Success
  3. Russia Crewed mission Soyuz-2.1a – MS-18 (9th at 07:42:40) Success Success
  4. United States Crewed mission Falcon 9 – Crew-2 (23rd at 22:14:08) Success Success
  5. Russia Soyuz-2.1b – OneWeb 6 (25th at 22:14:08) Success Success
  6. United States Delta IV Heavy – NROL-82 (26th at 20:47) Success Success
  7. China Long March 6 – Qilu 1 & Qilu 4 (27th at 03:20) Success Success
  8. European Union Vega – Pléiades Neo 3 (29th at 01:50:00) Success Success
  9. China Long March 6 – Tianhe 1 (29th at 03:23:15) Success Success
  10. United States Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L24 (29rd at 03:44) Success Success
  11. China Long March 6 – Yaogan 34 (27th at 03:20) Success Success

May Launches
Launch dates can change. See a current list: here.

  • Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L25
  • GSLV Mk.2 – GISAT 1
  • Long March 7 – Tianzhou 2
  • Atlas 5 – SBIRS GEO Flight 5
  • Soyuz – OneWeb 7
 Article Statistics
This data reflects values from the 30 April 2021.
Spaceflight articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 7 18 4 7 36
FL 4 4 8
FM 97 97
GA 11 22 35 53 121
B 1 49 37 48 135
C 56 160 534 489 11 1,250
Start 37 158 1,115 2,235 373 3,918
Stub 7 244 2,191 226 2,668
List 14 130 79 211 1 435
Category 1,033 1,033
Disambig 48 48
File 202 202
Portal 55 55
Project 57 57
Redirect 1,131 1,131
Template 495 495
Other 38 38
Assessed 126 544 2,052 5,238 3,162 611 11,733
Unassessed 56 56
Total 126 544 2,052 5,238 3,162 667 11,789
Monthly Changes

Since March, 39 new pages have been added to Spaceflight. There is 1 less GA-class, with 3 more files, 4 more B-class, 6 more C-class, 7 more start-class and 5 new stub-class articles.

Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list.
Newsletter contributors: Balon Greyjoy and Terasail

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

You have been nominated by WikiProject Rocketry to be Rocketry Editor if the Year. Please leave your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Rocketry Editor of the Year.

Details

Users have time to nominate other users until May 31 at 23:59 UTC (6:59pm EDT). Then, voting for users will last until July 30 at 23:59 UTC (6:59pm EDT). The Rocketry Editor of the Year will be announced on July 1. StarshipSLS (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule Change:
Nominations: Ended
Voting: Until May 31 StarshipSLS (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starlink

Why you reverted my edits? Barny22 (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without refs CRS-20 (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. Total satellites launched: This is the sum of the tabele above. There is no ref necessary.
2. Deorbited (in the Table): The ref is at the top of the table. I taked a look on every for every launch to see the deorbited satellites and updated it. (Same method, as somebody made it on 19 January 2021, I only updated it). If you have a better Idea, please tell it me or implement it.
3. Total satellites deorbited: This is the sum of the tabele above. There is no ref necessary. I let the same ref as in 2. Deorbited.
4. Total satellites currently in orbit = Total satellites launched - Total satellites deorbited. There is no ref necessary.
5. Operational satellites Deorbited: As long as only deorbited satellites from one Orbital shells there are the Total satellites deorbited - the 2 test satellites. I let the same ref as in 2. Deorbited, because from there is the basic information.
6. Operational satellites On orbit = Total satellites launched - Total satellites deorbited - satellites in other orbits (This point somebody forgot again to remove). This are the maximum satellites who can be in this orbit. New launched satellites are in lower orbit and future deorbiting satellites also in lower orbit and both are no "Operational satellites". Here we need a discussion or a new ref frome where we can get this information (as latest SpaceX begin to fill next Orbital shells the current ref is useless).

Where you miss a ref? Barny22 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No answer is also an answer. I reincluded my changes. Barny22 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From where you have the number of deorbited satellites? Calculated from the "spaceflightnow.com"?

If yes: There are 1,677 launched satellites with the Saturday launch and "1,526 working Starlink satellites in orbit before Saturday’s mission". So the numbers of deorbited satellites are 1677 - 1526 - 52 = 99 deorbited satellites.
On the Constellation design and status you also have to remove the 2 test satellites (see above the table), so the numbers of deorbited satellites in this table has to be 97.

Barny22 (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for 97. CRS-20 (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You added Starlink 29 and 30 with 550 km and 53.0°. As this Orbital shell shoult have enought satellites i think SpaceX will use another Orbit altitude and Inclination for the future flights.Barny22 (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You won!

Both you and @Neopeius are now the Rocketry Editors of the Year! Congratulations! You are one of only two editors who received the first ever Rocketry Editor of the Year award! A template will be given to you in the future. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 17:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am very proud of this award. Thank you so much. CRS-20 (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, well deserved! Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and you are doing a great job too. CRS-20 (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketry Editor of the Year

Rocketry Editor of the Year
You have received the Rocketry Editor of the Year award! Thank you for all your hard work in rocketry articles! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Rocketry Project)

StarshipSLS submitted the following nomination for Rocketry Editor of the Year:

I nominate @CRS-20: to be Rocketry Editor of the Year for outstanding contributions to rocketry articles for years.

Thanks again for your efforts! StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reverts

Regarding the reverts you made to my edits of the Cygnus mission articles, and the lengths I went to to explain every single edit I made to them in my edit summaries, why did you go about reverting all of them and not leave any sort of explanation for your edits whatsoever? — Molly Brown (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you continuing to ignore me and revert my changes again without any explanation? This is starting to approach WP:LISTEN behavior. — Molly Brown (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All this: 35 days, 3 hours, 17 minutes for this: 35 days CRS-20 (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All this: [time interval|18 September 2013 14:58:02|23 October 2013 18:16|show=dhm|sep=,]
for this: 35 days CRS-20 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This barely explains the vast amount of other changes that were reverted, but at least it's better than complete silence. Would you much rather prefer I simplify the mission duration to just a number of days, rather than the full days, hours, and minutes that seems to be the status quo? What of the other changes you've made? What's with bloating the launch site and company names? Why are you insisting on depreciated pixel image sizes instead of the upright image sizes (MOS:IMGSIZE)? Why use the disambiguated article title for the mission name instead of actual mission names, such as "NG-14" instead of "Cygnus NG-14"? Why italicize "S.S." when ship prefixes are not italicized in English (MOS:ITALIC)? There's a number of things left unexplained. — Molly Brown (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CRS-20 you don't WP:OWN the Cygnus article. Molly put in a time interval template using the real data. This helps with WP:V because you can verify the start and end date, and trust that the template correctly calculates the duration. If there's a problem with said template, it can be fixed in one central place. When I look at the list of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, which are examples of behavior that violate Wikipedia policy, I think you're doing the first four. Stop reverting others edits without, at the very least, writing in a reason why. I might start supporting others edits such as Molly's if/when you continue spamming a half dozen undo edits at a time with absolutely no explanation, and ignoring requests for explanation. I hope you don't end up at WP:AN/3 for WP:3RR, but that might be what ends up happening. Leijurv (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It changes the names of spaceships without refs and other parameters in the infobox and in the text. CRS-20 (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Cygnus Orb-D1 for ref, and others Cygnus flights. CRS-20 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Antares A-ONE, he change launch vehicle for rocket, il change again rocket for launch vehicle, and so on. He changed the name of the missions in the infobox. CRS-20 (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Antares A-One, he changed the launch time in the infobox which is now incorrect. CRS-20 (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He has no experience in wikipedia, to make such changes on the site of the names of the missions, see his site, he arrived on March 11, 2021. Even if we explain what we are doing, do not mean that what one does is correct. CRS-20 (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's "she", by the way; it's literally on my user page. I'm exceptionally disappointed that you're more interested in drawing out personal attacks towards other editors rather than actually discussing and explaining your edits (WP:NPA). If you have a problem with the launch time, then just change just the launch time, and then note in your edit summary that you changed the launch time. Don't revert every single one of the changes to the infobox and then just say "updated". It only confuses and frustrates other editors and gives nobody insight into what the motive behind your edits are. I'll take aboard the suggestion to cite mission names more thoroughly, but this is really unprofessional behavior. — Molly Brown (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we explain what we are doing, do not mean that what one does is correct. Yes. But if you don't explain what you are doing, we don't know if it is correct. Especially so if someone asks you on your user page, and you ignore them and just keep reverting.
Also, frankly, you are in no position to call others inexperienced just based on the age of their account. I'd rather edit alongside someone who is, at the least, willing to talk politely about what they are doing rather than behavior such as User_talk:CRS-20#Edits_to_Space_Launch_System where for a week you literally refused to reply to me despite continuing to edit elsewhere after I pointed out that you had broken the citations on forty eight pages.
Look at WP:ENGAGE. It's policy, it isn't optional. If you keep up reverting with no edit summary and explicitly refusing to answer direct questions about why, and other WP:TE/WP:DE behaviors, you could get blocked from editing. Leijurv (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Antares A-one for my edits. CRS-20 (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He changed my edits without refs and changed Orbital Sciences Corporation to Orbital, and Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, Wallops Flight Facility by Wallops in the infobox. CRS-20 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He removed the website and names list, as well as the name of the next mission. CRS-20 (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's great that you're now explaining why you reverted those edits. It's better if you explain it on the talk page of the article, or, if it's short and simple, in the edit summary of the revert. Don't forget the third step of WP:BRD, which is "Discuss". Leijurv (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leijurv: I don't think they're actually listening to anything I say. Not only are they continuing to call me "he" instead of "she" after being told otherwise, they've been told an innumerous amount of times that the documentation for the spaceflight infobox says the "names_list" cell is meant for former names and not alternate names (Crew-1, Orb-D1, A-ONE), and yet still keep on adding alternate names to it (Crew-1, Orb-D1, A-ONE). The lack of citations for mission names was something they noted about earlier, and I took them up on that and have slowly started to add citations to verify the names, such as on Orb-D1. But guess what? They reverted that without explanation once again. I did exactly what they wanted and that wasn't enough for them to stop. Something needs to be done. — Molly Brown (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Unsinkable Molly Brown: I would suggest the following: bring it up at WT:SPACEFLIGHT to verify and build consensus about "names_list" and other WP:TE points that CRS-20 is engaging in. Not to just verify that you're reading the documentation correctly (I see the same thing as you), but to raise the issue to a greater audience. At that point, you would hopefully find greater support of editors who agree and are willing to edit in the same direction. For example, I took a quick look and have done this, but it would be better for people with more related experience than me to be making these judgements. If CRS-20 continues to edit against the consensus of other editors reverting, a Template:uw-3rr should be placed, and if it continues further, a report should be filed at WP:ANEW. Separate from edit warring (if/when such a thing takes place), the lack of WP:ENGAGEment is indeed concerning, and the eventual place to go would be WP:ANI with that, but I can't say for sure at what point to do such a thing, there is no hard and fast rule, so perhaps there too ask at WT:SPACEFLIGHT if it keeps up. Wikipedia:Communication is required and Wikipedia:Competence is required.
To CRS-20: I agree with Molly Brown here, in that it really doesn't seem like you're listening and replying to what's being said. You don't WP:OWN these articles, and if you disagree with someone, the solution is not to repeatedly revert them. The solution is discussion to try and reach a consensus. See WP:BRD for how it ought to work. When I read what you've written in this section here, what I see is a lack of understanding of what's being talked about. For example, you say that there was no ref for the updated name, then Molly edits again with a ref, but you revert anyway. Look at the documentation that Molly linked, here. You suggest that Molly has too new of a Wikipedia account, as a defense of your actions. Please look at the first example of Statements under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: "Are you qualified to edit this article?" / "You only have X edits." This kind of talk violates Wikipedia policy, as it goes against the fundamental pillar (WP:5P3) that Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute.
Just communicating with others and explaining yourself is indeed not enough, on its own. It is really just the minimum requirement for working collaboratively. WP:COMMUNICATE. Leijurv (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
names_list = list of previous names if the spacecraft has been renamed. Include the dates applicable if possible, and separate each name with a linebreak.
Omit if the spacecraft has only ever been known by one name. Do not include Harvard, COSPAR/NSSDC or SATCAT/NORAD/NASA designations as alternative names. NASA DESIGNATION is 2020-042A for example, NOT Cygnus-1. CRS-20 (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe both of you could go to WT:SPACEFLIGHT or even something like WP:3O to ask whose interpretation should be followed in such articles? Leijurv (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Downlink – June 2021

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 May 2021 — 31 May 2021
Volume 1 — Issue 8
Spaceflight Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Open tasks • Popular pages • The Downlink
In the News!
  • The Crew of SpaceX Crew-1 had a successful splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico on 2nd May at 06:56:33 UTC. After they launched in November 2020 and had spent 167 days in space.
  • A LongMarch 5B rocket had an uncontrolled re-entery into the atmosphere on 4th May. With any debris being reported to have landed in the Indian Ocean.
  • One of Rocket Labs Electron rockets expierienced a launch malfunction 2:30 into launch causing the mission to result in failure.
  • Images have been released after the landing of Zhurong rover on Mars on 14th May.

Featured Content

Article of the month.

Creola Katherine Johnson was an American mathematician whose calculations of orbital mechanics as a NASA employee were critical to the success of the first and subsequent U.S. crewed spaceflights. The space agency noted her "historical role as one of the first African-American women to work as a NASA scientist".

Image of the month.

Astronaut Clayton Anderson wis shown as a water bubble floats in the middeck of space shuttle Discovery during the STS-131 mission.

Members

New Members:

Number of active members: 116. Total number of members: 329.

May Launches
All times stated here are in UTC.

  1. United States Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L25 (4th at 19:01:07) Success Success
  2. China Long March 2C – Yaogan 30-08 (6th at 18:11) Success Success
  3. United States Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L27 (9th at 06:42) Success Success
  4. New Zealand Electron – "Running Out of Toes" (15th at 11:11) Failure Failure
  5. United States Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L26 (15th at 22:56) Success Success
  6. United States Atlas 5 – SBIRS-GEO 5 (18th at 17:37) Success Success
  7. China Long March 4B – Haiyang 2D (19th at 04:03) Success Success
  8. United States Falcon 9 – Starlink V1.0-L28 (26th at 18:59) Success Success
  9. Russia Soyuz-2.1b – OneWeb 7 (28th at 17:38:39) Success Success
  10. China Long March 7 – Tianzhou 2 (29th at 12:55:29) Success Success

June Launches
Launch dates can change. See a current list: here.

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from the 31 May 2021.
Spaceflight articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 7 19 4 7 37
FL 4 4 8
FM 98 98
GA 11 22 35 54 122
B 2 48 38 49 137
C 55 159 536 497 1 10 1,258
Start 37 158 1,112 2,238 372 3,917
Stub 7 245 2,190 231 2,673
List 14 130 79 211 1 435
Category 1,034 1,034
Disambig 48 48
File 202 202
Portal 55 55
Project 57 57
Redirect 1 1,133 1 1,135
Template 501 501
Other 1 38 39
Assessed 126 543 2,053 5,252 3,173 615 11,762
Unassessed 1 71 72
Total 126 543 2,053 5,252 3,174 686 11,834
Monthly Changes

Since April, 45 pages have been added to Spaceflight. 1 article reached FA-Class and 1 image reached FM-Class. There is 1 more GA class article, with 2 more B-class, 8 more C-class, 1 less start-class and 5 new stub-class articles.

Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list.
Newsletter contributors: StarshipSLS & Terasail

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palapa-C1 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Palapa-C1, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 00:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Links to draft articles

Information icon Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Paksat-1. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Palapa-C1 (June 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.
You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. Jupitus Smart 17:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing news 2021 #2

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Junior contributors comment completion rate across all participating Wikipedias
When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. (Source)

Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.

The key results were:

  • Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
  • The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.

These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.

Looking ahead

The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.

The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.

You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – July 2021

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 June 2021 — 30 June 2021
Volume 1 — Issue 9
Spaceflight Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Open tasks • Popular pages • The Downlink
Featured Content!
Article of the month.

Lisa Marie Nowak is an American aeronautical engineer, and former NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain. Nowak was selected by NASA for NASA Astronaut Group 16 in 1996. She flew in space aboard Space Shuttle Discovery during the STS-121 mission in July 2006. In 2007, Nowak was involved in an incident that led to her dismissal from NASA and the Navy.

This article was promoted to featured status last month!

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from the 30 June 2021.
Spaceflight articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 7 19 5 7 38
FL 1 4 4 9
FM 100 100
GA 11 24 34 54 123
B 2 48 39 52 141
C 55 159 544 509 1 10 1,278
Start 37 157 1,105 2,234 374 3,907
Stub 8 244 2,189 231 2,672
List 14 129 79 211 1 434
Category 1,032 1,032
Disambig 49 49
File 203 203
Portal 55 55
Project 68 68
Redirect 1 1 1,134 1 1,137
Template 501 501
Other 38 38
Assessed 126 545 2,055 5,261 3,181 617 11,785
Unassessed 1 76 77
Total 126 545 2,055 5,261 3,182 693 11,862
Image of the month.

Offical portrait of Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. (Buzz Aldrin) who was the pilot on the Apollo 11 mission.

This image was promoted to featured status last month!

Members

New Members:

Number of active members: 118. Total number of members: 331.
Monthly Changes

Since May 28 pages ahve been added to Spaceflight. 1 article reached FA-Class, 1 list reached FL-class & 2 images reached FM-Class. There is 1 more GA class article, as well as 1 more file page. There are 4 more B class articles, 20 more C class articles, 10 less start class articles & 1 less stub article.

BOOKS are no longer supported by the WikiProject and are in the process of being deleted! See WP:BOOKSDEP & here for more.

Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: Terasail

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are ya trying to do?

In the Nauka iss module article you keep on reverting typos, removing formatting, which is consistent with the style guide, etc. Do you have any good reason for doing that? Because otherwise the input is net-negative for the article Galopujacyjez (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the Nauka ISS module article you keep reverting my edits and inserting irrelevant sources and plagiarizing tweets. I have said in the talk page NO TWEETS!, no citations to subscription magazine websites such as Russian Spaceweb, Popular Mechanics, Aviation Today, and Aviation Week, and no citing social media pages or stealing their photos. This is false speculation those sources are not confirmed and what you are doing is violating Twitter rules and conducting vandalism. Please stop what your doing or @Galopujacyjez and I will report to the twitter administrators and you will be banned from all wiki family pages with an IP lock. (User talk:Geomodelrailroader|talk]]) 07:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I have user:Geomodelrailroader threatening me, can you take care of that. Thank you. CRS-20 (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please stop doing things for which you are doing, being similar to warnings you faced eariler today Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's wonderful you've asked for an admin, I also feel like their presence will help solve this issue. But you still have not provided an answer to why you're purposefully reverting copy edits, adding twitter references, and generally making the article harder to read and lower quality. Please provide an explanation. Galopujacyjez (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing edits like this are a result of the wiki engine failing to recognize an edit conflict: User:CRS-20 opened the editor to do some copyediting work, which took a while. In the meantime, Galopujacyjez made some copyediting of his own. Perhaps due to an overlap in edited text, or maybe just the time involved, CRS-20 did not receive a warning that his edit is going to overwrite someone else's. --illythr (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CRS-20's edits did not change anything in the text, aside from reverting to the previous version, a "soft revert" of sorts. If there had been any changes to the article done by CRS, and the edits overlapped, fine, but it seems like they either opened the editor and after changing one minute parameter waited for soooo long to publish, only to overwrite the copyedit, or purposefully "soft reverted" the edits. Galopujacyjez (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Downlink – August 2021

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 July 2021 — 31 July 2021
Volume 1 — Issue 10
Spaceflight Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Open tasks • Popular pages • The Downlink
In the News!
  • On 11th July Virgin Galactic had their first fully crewed mission to the edge of space with Richard Branson onboard in SpaceShipTwo VSS Unity.
  • On 17th July NASA announced that scientific observations from the Hubble Space Telescope had resumed on a backup computer after being placed in a "safe mode" since June 13.
  • On 20th July Blue Origin had their first fully crewed mission to the edge of space with Jeff Bezos onboard in a New Shepard capsule.
  • On 26th July The Pirs module was the first permanent ISS module to be decommissioned. After docking to the ISS on 17th September 2001, just under 20 years ago.
  • On 29th July The ISS was moved out of its normal orientation after the Nauka module (a new Russian module) was docked and started firing its thrusters.
Article of the month.

Shuttle-Centaur was a version of the Centaur upper stage rocket designed to be carried aloft inside the Space Shuttle. Two variants were developed: Centaur G-Prime and Centaur G. The powerful Centaur upper stage allowed for heavier deep space probes, and for them to reach Jupiter sooner. However, neither variant ever flew on a Shuttle.

Image of the month.

This is an Extreme Deep Field image taken from the Hubble Space Telescope, released by NASA on September 25th, 2012. With exposure dates from July 2002 to March 2012.

Members

New Members:

Number of active members: 120. Total number of members: 333.

July Launches
All times stated here are in UTC.

  1. Russia Soyuz-2.1b – OneWeb 8 (1st at 12:48:33) Success Success
  2. China Long March 2D – Jilin-1 (3rd at 02:51) Success Success
  3. China Long March 4C – Fengyun 3E (4th at 23:28) Success Success
  4. China Long March 3C/E – Tianlian I-05 (6th at 15:53) Success Success
  5. China Long March 6 – Ningxia 1 (9th at 11:59) Success Success
  6. China Long March 2C – Yaogan 30-10 (19th at 00:19) Success Success
  7. Russia Proton-M – Nauka (21st at 14:58:25) Success Success
  8. China Long March 2D – Tianhui-1D (29th at 04:01) Success Success
  9. United States Electron – Monolith (29th at 06:00) Success Success
  10. European Union Ariane 5 ECA – SO-D2 & Eutelsat (30th at 21:00) Success Success

August Launches
Launch dates can change. See a current list: here.

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from the 31 July 2021.
Spaceflight articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 7 19 5 7 38
FL 1 4 4 9
FM 102 102
GA 11 24 34 54 123
B 2 48 40 52 142
C 56 160 545 510 12 1,283
Start 36 157 1,106 2,244 374 3,917
Stub 9 244 2,188 233 2,674
List 14 126 79 218 1 438
Category 1,032 1,032
Disambig 49 49
File 207 207
Portal 55 55
Project 68 68
Redirect 2 1 1 1,134 1 1,139
Template 501 501
Other 31 31
Assessed 126 546 2,058 5,278 3,179 621 11,808
Unassessed 3 1 74 78
Total 126 546 2,058 5,281 3,180 695 11,886
Monthly Changes

Since June: 24 pages have been added to spaceflight. There are 4 more files. There is 1 more B class article, 5 more C class articles, 10 more start class articles & 2 more stub class articles.
The 2 additional FM class have been FM for a few years, they just registered this month.

Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: Terasail

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection

Hi, it appears that you tried to create a redirect at Ofeq-16, but didn't do it correctly. I've fixed it now. For future reference, the correct redirect syntax is: 

#REDIRECT [[target page name]]

You can check redirects with the Preview button before saving them. If you have created a working redirect, the preview will show the name of the target page alongside a bent arrow (or "Redirect to:" label in text mode). — Smjg (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tank you very much. CRS-20 (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject SpaceX

Hi. Would you be interested in joining a WikiProject SpaceX? If you are, can you please make a WikiProject proposal for it (I as an IP, can not make the proposal cause I would be stopped when trying to create the proposal page). @CRS-20:

What is your problem?

A year later, you are doing it again. You are undoing my edits and randomly accusing me of "VANDALISM", in all caps, before going in and making the exact same edit yourself. Cut it out.

I appreciate most of your edits to spaceflight articles, but you were directly warned by administrators last year not to go around accusing me (specifically) of being a vandal and reverting my edits.


Ultimograph5 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Downlink – September 2021

The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 August 2021 — 31 August 2021
Volume 1 — Issue 11
Spaceflight Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Open tasks • Popular pages • The Downlink
In the News!
  • On 12th August a GSLV Mk.2 rocket with the EOS-03 Earth observation satellite as a payload encountered a third stage failure and crashed back into the ground after reaching a maximum altitude of 140km (87 miles).
  • On 20th August a 5 hour 55 minute spacewalk was completed by chinese astronauts Nie Haisheng and Liu Boming on the Tiangong space station.
  • On 28th August an Astra rocket had an engine failure at launch, but managed to recover and fly to the upper atmosphere before leaving its flight corridor, resulting in flight temination.
Article of the month.

Apollo 7 was the first crewed flight in NASA's Apollo program, and saw the resumption of human spaceflight by the agency after the fire that killed the three Apollo 1 astronauts. The Apollo 7 crew was commanded by Walter M. Schirra, with command module pilot Donn F. Eisele and lunar module pilot R. Walter Cunningham.

Image of the month.

Official portrait of Ilan Ramon, an astronaut killed during the failed re-entry of the Space Shuttle Columbia.

Members

New Members:

Number of active members: 122. Total number of members: 335.

August Launches
All times stated here are in UTC.

  1. China Hyperbola-1 – Jilin-1 (3rd at 07:39) Failure Failure
  2. China Long March 6 – KL-Beta A/B (4th at 11:01) Success Success
  3. China Long March 3B/E – ChinaSat 2E (5th at 16:30:05) Success Success
  4. United States Antares 230+ – Cygnus NG-16 (10th at 22:01:05) Success Success
  5. India GSLV Mk II – EOS-03 (GISAT-1) (12th at 00:13) Failure Failure
  6. Europe France Vega – Pléiades-Neo 4 (17th at 01:47:06) Success Success
  7. China Long March 4B – Tianhui-2 02 (18th at 22:32) Success Success
  8. Russia Kazakhstan Soyuz-2.1b – OneWeb 9 (21st at 22:13:40) Success Success
  9. China Long March 2C – RSW-01 (24th at 11:15) Success Success
  10. China Long March 3B/E – TJSW-7 (24th at 15:41) Success Success
  11. United States Rocket 3 – STP-27AD1 (28th at 22:35) Failure Failure
  12. United States Falcon 9 – CRS-23 (29th at 07:14:49) Success Success

September Launches
Launch dates can change. See a current list: here.

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from the 31 August 2021.
Spaceflight articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 7 19 5 7 38
FL 1 4 4 9
FM 102 102
GA 10 24 34 54 122
B 4 48 41 53 146
C 57 160 546 530 1,293
Start 34 157 1,106 2,262 374 3,933
Stub 9 244 2,197 1 234 2,685
List 14 124 79 225 1 443
Category 1,033 1,033
Disambig 1 49 50
File 206 206
Portal 55 55
Project 58 58
Redirect 2 1,140 1,142
Template 504 504
Other 22 22
Assessed 126 544 2,059 5,333 3,170 609 11,841
Unassessed 53 53
Total 126 544 2,059 5,333 3,170 662 11,894
Monthly Changes

Since July: 8 pages have been added to spaceflight. There is 1 less file. There is 1 less GA class article and are 4 less B-class, 10 more C-class, 17 more start-class and 11 new stub-class articles.

Discuss & propose changes to The Downlink at The Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: Terasail

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Dragon C210

Hi, do you have a ref, that SpaceX Dragon 2#C210 is a Cargo Dragon? I don´t find such a information somewhere. Barny22 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Please respect copyright laws. The list in SpaceX Dragon 2 hat comments indecation not to include copyright proteced images. Those images can only by use under fair use with a fair use rational. Using those images in lists is not coverd b the fair use rational. So please refrain from commiing copright violations. Gial Ackbar (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop that. Using this image in the list violates copyrights. Gial Ackbar (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CRS-20&oldid=1045757185"