HiCRS-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).
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 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]
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]
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]
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]
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 helporreference 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 nominationbyvisiting 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 K00:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 K01:25, 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]
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.
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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Progress MS-14 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Progress MS-14, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
@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]
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]
The Soyuz MS-17 launched on 14 October 2020, 05:45:04 and docked after a "two-orbit rendezvous flight plan" to the ISS only three hours later at 08:48:47 UTC.
The OSIRIS-REx probe successfully makes brief touchdown and collects a sample from the asteroid Bennu at 22:13 UTC on 20 October 2020.
Expedition 63 ended on 21 October 2020, 23:32 UTC after 187 days, 21 hours and 38 minutes duration.
John Herschel Glenn Jr. (July 18, 1921 – December 8, 2016) was a United States Marine Corps aviator, engineer, astronaut, businessman and politician. He was the third person and the first American to orbit the Earth, circling it three times in 1962. Following his retirement from NASA, he served from 1974 to 1999 as a Democratic United States Senator from Ohio; in 1998, he flew into space again at age 77.
Image of the month.
Captured on Oct. 20, 2020 during the OSIRIS-REx mission’s Touch-And-Go (TAG) sample collection event, this series of images shows the SamCam imager’s field of view as the NASA spacecraft approaches and touches down on asteroid Bennu’s surface, over 200 million miles (321 million km) away from Earth.
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]
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]
@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]
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]
@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]
You recently moved the article from Copernicus Sentinel-6toSentinel-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]
The ISS has been continuously occupied for the last 20 years! Expedition 1 arrived on 2 November 2000 with the first long-term residents. That’s longer then Wikipedia has existed.
Arianespace had a launch failure after liftoff of its Vega rocket on the 17th November. Two satellites were lost due to an integration error of the fourth stage.
This is an image of the ISS from December 9, 2000. Almost 20 years ago, this image is one of a series of 70mm frames taken onboard Space Shuttle Endeavour. With the ISS being continuously occupied for the last 20 years, this shows how the space station has developed over the years.
Since October, 43 new pages have been added to Spaceflight. There has been 2 more images which have reached FM class, both GA and B classes have 1 more article. 5 more lists have been added to the project. While 25 articles have been improved to C class as well as 24 articles reaching start class and 5 new articles added to stub class.
Discuss & propose changes to The DownlinkatThe Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list.
Newsletter contributors: OkayKenji and Terasail
The Chang’e 5 lander landed on the moon on December 1st, and started to gather lunar samples.
The Chang’e 5 ascent module launched from the moons surface on December 3rd and later docked with the service module in lunar orbit.
Hayabusa-2 has successfuly returned samples it collected from the asteroid 162173 Ryugu. It landed in South Australia on 5th December after a 6 year mission.
SpaceX Starship SN8 completed a 12.5km flight and successfully made it back to the launch pad however was unable to slow down and hit the ground creating an impressive fireball.
China becomes the third country to terurn samples from the moon. After the Chang'e-5 return capsule lands in Inner Mongolia at 01:59 local time on December 13th.
Mary Jackson (néeWinston, April 9, 1921 – February 11, 2005) was an American mathematician and aerospace engineer at NACA, which was succeeded by NASA. She worked at Langley Research CenterinHampton, Virginia, for most of her career. She started as a computeratthe segregatedWest Area Computing division in 1951. She took advanced engineering classes and, in 1958, became NASA's first black female engineer.
Image of the month.
With China becoming the third country to return moon samples back to earth, this is an image of the Apollo 11Lunar Lander being worked on by Buzz Aldrin. This mission was the first time moon samples were brought back to earth. This image was taken over 51 years ago on July 21, 1969.
Since November, 99 new pages have been added to Spaceflight. 1 new file, with 2 more files reaching FM class. There 3 more articles have reached FA class, with an increase of 2 GA class articles. 4 more lists have been added to the project. While 13 articles have been improved to C class as well as 2 articles reaching start class and 66 new articles added to stub class.
Discuss & propose changes to The DownlinkatThe Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: Terasail
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:
[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]
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]
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 difftoMars 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.
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]
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]
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.
Inthis 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
Inthis 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 NASASpace Launch System test-fire of the core stage on 16 January triggered a shutdown due to an hydraulic system issue. The test which was intended to last eight minutes, lasted just over one minute.
Space X sets a new world record for the number of satellites launched. 143 small satellites were launched on a Falcon 9 on 24 January.
Since December, 23 new pages have been added to Spaceflight. Including 1 new file. Unfortunately there are 8 less GA class articles however there was an increase of 13 articles at C class.
Discuss & propose changes to The DownlinkatThe Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list. Newsletter contributor: Terasail
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]
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]
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. :)
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?
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.
The Hope orbiter reached mars on 9 February 2021. Seven months after its launch on 19 July 2020.
Confirmation of the Perseverance rover successfully landing on Mars was recieved at 20:55 UTC on 18 February 2021. With the first photo from the same day.
The Mars Pathfinder is an American robotic spacecraft that landed a base station with a roving probe on Mars in 1997. It consisted of a lander, and a lightweight wheeled robotic Mars rover named Sojourner, which became the first rover to land and operate on Mars.
Image of the month.
The first 360-degree panorama taken by Mastcam-Z, on Perseverance.
Since January, 44 new pages have been added to Spaceflight and 1 file has become featured. There are 2 new files as well as 1 more C class, 4 more start class and 3 more stub class articles, with an additional 3 list articles.
Discuss & propose changes to The DownlinkatThe Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: Terasail
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]
@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]
On March 7 the Wide Field Camera 3 on Hubble Space Telescope entered safe mode after a software error was detected. And took days until the camera was fully active again. read more
The Space Launch System completed a full-duration (8 minutes and 20 seconds) static fire of the core stage on March 18, after an earler test in January failed to complete the test.
Featured Content
The Apollo 12 article was promoted to a Featured Article on March 27, 2021. After being nominated by Wehwalt who is a significant contributor to the article.
The Hubble Space Telescope was launched into low Earth orbit in 1990 and remains in operation. It was not the first space telescope, but it is one of the largest and most versatile, renowned both as a vital research tool and as a public relations boon for astronomy. The Hubble telescope is named after astronomer Edwin Hubble and is one of NASA's Great Observatories.
Image of the month.
Astronaut Roger B. Chaffee is shown at console in the Mission Control Center, Houston, Texas during the Gemini-Titan 3 flight.
Since February, 28 new pages have been added to Spaceflight and Apollo 12 has been promoted to featured article! 1 more article has reached GA-class, with 1 more file, 6 more C-class, 14 more start-class and 8 new stub class articles.
Discuss & propose changes to The DownlinkatThe Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list.
Newsletter contributors: Ninney & Terasail
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.
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]
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.
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]
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).
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
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. Onel5969TT me00:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Links to draft articles
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 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.
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.
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 DownlinkatThe Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: Terasail
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)
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]
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.
Shuttle-Centaur was a version of the Centaurupper 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.
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 DownlinkatThe Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: Terasail
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]
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.
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.
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 DownlinkatThe Downlink talk page. To unsubscribe from the newsletter remove your name from the Mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: Terasail
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]