CRS-20

  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

@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

@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

 

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

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 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.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

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

@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

  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

  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

[1] 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

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

		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

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

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

Nova-C is the lander. Intuitive Machines use it for the mission October 2021 [2] and December 2022 [3].

PRIME-1 (Polar Resources Ice Mining Experiment-1) is a payload of the lander Nova-C for the launch December 2022 [4].

Barny22 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

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 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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, on Space Launch System. See what happened to the references on your revision of the page. On TOP of that, stop reverting me on Template:SLS_launches/future and LOOK at the effect you are causing on Space Launch System! Giant red errors everywhere, so don't do that okay? 02:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD in the future. When I reverted your changes saying that you had broken another page, I wish you had thought "maybe that's correct". Instead you reverted me back within the minute, with no edit summary, and re-broke the SLS page.

If you're curious, it's because you moved the {{Reflist out of the <noinclude>, which caused a reflist to appear in the middle of the SLS page. "noinclude" means "this section shouldn't be included wherever this template is substituted into another page". Since we use reflist-defined references on that page, this overwrote about half the references over on the SLS page, since that template is substituted into the middle of the SLS page.

There's nothing I can do about this but ask you to not do that in the future, so, here I am, doing that. See you around. Leijurv (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

This edit is fine since it doesn't move the reflist out of the noinclude. Leijurv (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help. CRS-20 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rearranging the contents of refs and citation templates makes your diffs impossible to read. ProveIt puts Cite in upper case, other plugins put cite in lower case. Changing some of them from upper case to lower case or vice versa (without actually changing their cite template bodies, and without making all citations consistent to each other) is annoying, there's no reason to do it, and it makes your diffs harder to understand, so please don't. The next time someone with ProveIt touches the citation, it changes one way, the next time you or someone else using that dreaded 2017 wikitext editor messes with it, it changes the other way. Leijurv (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I really don't know what to say, other than to say it again: PLEASE look at what your edits are doing. Either use "Show preview" and visually look at what the outcome is, or just look after hitting publish changes. In this one, you added an extra ]], so the image caption is dumped into the body of the article. You can see it right after the "Construction" heading: tank for Artemis 2 under construction, as of August 2020]]. This is on top of the constant changes you make to spacing, newlines, the order of citation template fields, that buries what you actually changed among a whole bunch of nothing. It's quite frustrating. Leijurv (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

In this one, you changed a bunch of spacing and template capitalizations and such. I cannot for the life of me tell why? But anyway you changed "Cvt" to "cvty", which doesn't exist, so now the SLS Block 1 payload mass to TLI renders as Template:Cvty instead of 27 metric tons (60,000 lb) like it should.

You replied to me just a few hours ago, can you reply again please? To this question: why do you make all of these changes to "cvt" versus "Cvt", "cite" versus "Cite", spaces in the refs, spaces in the cites, the order of the cites? None of them actually do anything. The page ends up the same. It makes your diffs incredibly annoying to read but I read them anyway since buried in them is commonly one actual mistake among a bunch of changes that do nothing. Leijurv (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Esthetic CRS-20 (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

cvty is my error CRS-20 (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I really wish you wouldn't. I don't agree with your aesthetic. The point of why we're here is for the encyclopedia as it is read. Please read WP:COSMETICBOT and WP:MEATBOT. Making these kinds of cosmetic changes annoys everyone else and doesn't make the encyclopedia better. The problem is that I can't trust that the edit is JUST cosmetic, so I always have to read the whole thing. If I could trust that the edit was good, there would be no issue. And if you ONLY made the actual edit (not all the cosmetic fluff), that would also be okay. Leijurv (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

A cosmetic edit is an edit that doesn't make the page look any different. It's an edit that has no effect, to a reader of Wikipedia. This edit IS cosmetic, because even though you added a blank line, it doesn't actually make the resulting article have any more or less space between those sections. Source: WP:COSMETICBOT. Agreed? Leijurv (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed you've changed numerous articles that were originally in MDY format into DMY format. For example this series of changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crew_Dragon_Demo-1&type=revision&diff=961549916&oldid=960686136

Don't do this. I'm going to go through and revert these changes. Ergzay (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

All Spaceflight dates are DMY, find out. CRS-20 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why do you say that? NASA uses MDY in every article and post they write. Ergzay (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

See user N2e. CRS-20 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand. Ergzay (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) @Ergzay: My assumption is that this has to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide, which follows from a NASA style guide that prescribes day-month-year dates. Personally, I think MOS:DATETIES takes precedence over a WikiProject essay, since the MOS has broader consensus behind it. clpo13_(talk) 00:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Clpo13: However, MOS:DATETIES says In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles: for example, articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage. Perhaps the same concept should be applied to NASA, as applied to the US military? Leijurv (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's a possibility. It was previously brought up by FlightTime here, though that edit was apparently overwritten. clpo13_(talk) 23:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, in your expansion of Explorer 25 did you write the new content from scratch (perhaps with reference to or copy from another article already in wikipedia. If the former, then there is no problem, but if the latter then appropriate attribution is required in the edit summary. Also the photo provided is of Explorer 20. Polyamorph (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Per your revision, it is NOT the same satellite: see here - it is different! Polyamorph (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is the same type of satellite: Explorer 20 was Ionospheric Explorer-A and Explorer 25 was Ionospheric Explorer B CRS-20 (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, of course. But the photo is incorrect. They do not look the same. If you're going to include a photo it should be of the actual satellite. Polyamorph (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I will not reinvent the wheel. CRS-20 (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

What a bizarre response. All you need to do is use the correct image! The two satellites had a similar function but they did not look the same and so you can not use a photograph of Explorer 20 claiming it is Explorer 25. Polyamorph (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Polyamorph: The text is pasted from the NASA.gov website. For example, compare this to this. Since the source is cited, said citation invokes Template:PD-notice, and the source is indeed public domain, this is fine. (It also explains how CRS-20 makes these edits so fast, appearing to add a paragraph like this every few minutes at some points). In my opinion this is fine and good. Leijurv (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Leijurv:, CRS-20 does need to be careful they include appropriate attribution. They did not do so initially at Explorer 30. There is nothing wrong with using NASA content provided attribution is carefully considered. The note about the photograph was a strange one, as it was knowingly introducing factual innacuracies. So in my opinion this is good work but please be careful to ensure the information provided is accurate, with appropriate attribution to the NASA source - both in the references and preferably in the edit summary when they add the content. Polyamorph (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I was just wondering why you removed most of the citations from the infobox? Thanks.

Sincerely,
Rafaelmanman (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Too many unnecessary references CRS-20 (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you provide an explanation as to why you reverted my edit on the LICIACube article? I believe that the infobox individual space vehicle is more appropriate than Template:Infobox spaceflight as LICIACube is part of the Double Asteroid Redirection Test mission and not a separate one -- LICIACube is one of two spacecrafts involved in the mission. This is similar to Ingenuity (helicopter)'s and Perseverance (rover)'s infoboxes: they're infobox individual space vehicle as they're part of the Mars 2020 mission and are not at all separate from it. Thank you. Nigos (t c) 12:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, can you help me change this image to this image:? Someone added an unapproved nasa patch, please change to the real one, change it at SpaceX CRS-23.

Please don't delete non-breaking spaces, like you did recently. They are useful to prevent awkward line breaks, such as in

... SpaceX's Falcon
9 launch vehicle ...

and are almost mandatory between numbers and units in quantities. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why are you doing this again? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Useless CRS-20 (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your opinion contradicts MOS:NBSP recommendations and common practices. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

You have the wrong client. CRS-20 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I don't think you are really here to edit Wikipedia, since you are being uncooperative when being reminded. I suggest you to be more receptive, but you do what you want. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

CRS-20, you've twice now said "you have the wrong client". What do you mean? They are indeed talking about you. There is no mistake. Leijurv (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've tried to communicate with them before, assuming good faith they may not be a native English speaker. Nigos (talk | contribs) 13:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I believe CRS-20 is French, see here. Diffs are 1, 2, 3. Leijurv (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Someone is threatening me. Can you take care of it. Thank you. I think he's a troll. CRS-20 (talk)

No one is threatening you. In fact, quite the opposite: you are being disruptive and unreceptive to others. You need to change, or else you will be blocked by others. I hope this is not the case for you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Let's see what Leijurv thinks of the situation then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, CactiStaccingCrane is not a troll. CactiStaccingCrane can't block you from editing, but they can report you to somewhere where an admin could. I am also not an admin. CRS-20, your continual edits with no explanation confuse everyone. Including me. You should read WP:ENGAGE. Wikipedia doesn't work if you don't talk to people and don't explain what you are doing. You can see this, up and down your talk page. From myself and others. I see that you replied a few times in French, are you using a translator? I really think you should make more of an effort to reply in good faith to when people come to your talk page, even if it seems like they are threatening you, and even if it is annoying and tedious to translate their messages then translate your reply. You could be blocked if you keep refusing in this way (see the first, third, and fourth bullet points of this page). Instead of asking someone else (me) to "take care of it", just reply to them yourself. If they're right, try and change your behavior, if they're wrong, tell them so. CactiStaccingCrane is frustrated with your edits to a few pages (at least), maybe you could explain why you made the edits you did, and definitely you should include edit summaries in the future. Leijurv (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Je pense que le modèle {{Infobox individual space vehicle}} est mieux pour 2 raisons: LICIACube est un véhicule spatial individuel, et il n'est pas une mission tout seule, la mission est Double Asteroid Redirection Test. Ne pas défaire les modifications de The Unsinkable Molly Brown, s'il vous plait. Merci. Nigos (talk | contribs) 15:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I did rollback your edit as declaring him dead requires reliable source; Sadly all the other changes were reverted at the same time. _→AzaToth 22:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I've seen on several occassions with various Space related articles that you've reformatted tables incorrectly. Rather than having the -| that marks the beginning of a table row at the beginning of the table with a preceding newline, you move it to the end of the previous row and add a following newline. I've fixed this several times only for you to revert it. Could you please discontinue doing so? Here is one example where you have done so. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starlink&diff=1055800634&oldid=1055725687 Ergzay (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Where is your reference? CRS-20 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you are unaware how table formatting works, here is an article you can read. Help:Table The article talks about row headers and how to begin a row in a table. Ergzay (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Very interesting. Thanks. CRS-20 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

What is the problem in my edits any reason you are not specific it in edit summary so I want to discuss the matter here Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

No refs CRS-20 (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am using the data that the site is currently using that is of Jonathan McDowell what the problem in that CRS-20 Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

No refs CRS-20 (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

And I am giving refs then why you are telling no refs. Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Where refs of Jonathan McDowell? CRS-20 (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by no refs explain clearly Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

See this is used "Starlink Statistics" https://planet4589.org/space/stats/star/starstats.html Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good ref CRS-20 (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Now any problem CRS-20. Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

They have a tendency to revert other people's edits without leaving an edit summary and giving vague reasons like "no refs" or "wrong information" when asked on their talk page. I'd suggest just going ahead with the edits. They do not seem to be an English speaker as well, hence the extremely vague and short responses. Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you've changed the name of a number of astronaut's pages to include their middle initials. As I mentioned on John Young's talk page, WP:MIDDLENAME specifies that this should only be included if the middle initial was the primary way of referring to someone. Looking through WP:RM#C, it doesn't look like any of these page moves were requested there. Please look for community consensus and Wikipedia guidelines before making these name changes. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make unexplained changes to information on Wikipedia. This include articles such as the Space Shuttle and List of Starlink launches. Thank you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is not the first time you have being like that. I suggest you to engage in discussion and use edit summary intensively. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@CactiStaccingCrane: please don't use the standard warning template messages, you could take it up to WP:ANI instead. Level 4/4im templates can be perceived as a threat and may not be so helpful when disruption like this occurs. Nigos (talk | contribs) 02:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher)@Nigos: Then it should be CSD'd, don't you think ? - FlightTime (open channel) 02:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not really, they can be used somewhere else, but I don't think standard templates should be used in cases like this. Nigos (talk | contribs) 05:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

In my experience, ANI is the worst place to resolve disputes. Better take it here to solve the thing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

We could take it up to dispute resolution as well, but I agree we can keep it here for now Nigos (talk | contribs) 05:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've replied above. Leijurv (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please stop changing the date format on pages to use dmy rather than mdy. Per MOS:DATERET, it shouldn't be changed across the article if there is already one standard format being used. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Spaceflight is DMY always. CRS-20 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not aware of any such policy that spaceflight date format is DMY. From where are you getting this information? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

See Please don't change date format of American Spaceflight articles from MDY to DMY above. CRS-20 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing on American spaceflight on MOS:DATERET. The US typically uses MDY, why are you changing it to DMY? Nigos (talk | contribs) 05:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

See CRS, CYGNUS, SpaceX crew, etc... CRS-20 (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is because they were always like that. There is no need to change the others if they were already using MDY. Nigos (talk | contribs) 13:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Multiple editors have asked you not to unilaterally change date formats on US space articles from "mdy" to "dmy", with the reason being that US-centric articles should use conventional US formatting. You have continued to make these changes without getting any additional input from other editors. While you may disagree with the usage of the "mdy" format, it does not change the Wikipedia MOS to use the country's preferred formatting. Please stop with these changes. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Space Shuttle. Please don't change existing date format of articles. This is your last warning. BilCat (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please don't change the format of dates. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. HurricaneEdgar 11:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

{{helpme}} CRS-20 (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@CRS-20 Hi I've seen that over the past few months you have changed the date format on US Spaceflight articles all over Wikipedia. Please go back and revert all of them (it's too difficult to find them all). The Spaceflight MOS page has now been changed so you should not be changing mdy pages to dmy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Style_guide US Spaceflight pages should be using mdy date format. Ergzay (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank your edit in the article (2022 Hunga Tonga eruption and tsunami) fist of all is unnecessary add 14 Janaury 2022 if the new report enter the new year should add 14 December 2023 for more information see example. (Typhoon Bopha, 2021 Semeru eruption) HurricaneEdgar 12:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

to avoid the edit confict read Wikipedia:EDC thank HurricaneEdgar 09:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. CRS-20 (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stop removing nbsp tags between month names a day/year number. It is listed as one of the example reasons to use a non-breaking space at MOS:NBSP. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's not his function. CRS-20 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@CRS-20: You have continued to remove nbsp tags since your ban was ended, as demonstrated here. I don't understand why you are removing this template/tag that is explained at MOS:NBSP. Please stop with this behavior. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The &nbsp tag is designed for end of line so not anywhere. CRS-20 (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is true that it is designed for the end of a line. As different screen sizes and display settings are used by readers, there's not standardized points that are the end of the single line. We add the nbsp tags so that an unintended line break doesn't split up two characters that should be on the same line. It doesn't negatively impact the article to have nbsp tags at places that are not the end of the line in your display, but they may be beneficial to other readers. Follow the guidance in MOS:NBSP and stop removing nbsp tags in accordance with the MOS; it is a disruptive edit. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It is true that it is designed for the end of a line. That's enough for me. CRS-20 (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little confused by your response. Does this mean you will not remove nbsp tags that are in accordance with MOS:NBSP? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean That's enough for me? Have you actually read MOS:NBSP? Look at all the examples it gives It is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward. For example:17{{nbsp}}kg AD{{nbsp}}565 2:50{{nbsp}}pm £11{{nbsp}}billion May{{nbsp}}2014 {{nobr|5° 24′ 21″ N}} Boeing{{nbsp}}747 123{{nbsp}}Elm Street World War{{nbsp}}II Pope Paul{{nbsp}}VI. You need to stop removing usages of NBSP that precisely match what the MOS says is desirable. Leijurv (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

These are all examples for the end of a line. CRS-20 (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

CRS-20 Those line breaks may not appear to be at the end of a line for you, but your screen settings are not universal. We add those tags in so that line breaks do not affect users on a wide variety of screen sizes and settings. Just because something is or is not at the end of a line for you doesn't mean there isn't a line break for someone else. There is an MOS for this; please follow it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

"N B S P" means Non Breaking SPace. It means that at the end of a line, these phrases will not be broken apart into one line and the next. So yes, NBSP is meant to affect the behavior at the end of a line. The key issue is that what appears to be the end of a line for you, is not for everyone. Some people use Wikipedia on their phone. Or a different font size.

More importantly, your opinion is not more important than the MOS. Follow the manual of style. Leijurv (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's not the line in EDIT but the line in READ. And you tell me that there are different types of readers (telephone, tablet, etc.); then Wikipedia should put NBSP after each word. CRS-20 (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The point of nbsp tags is to not divide words/characters that should not be broken up with a line break (a unit after a number, a multi-word proper name, a date). Please just stay in line with the MOS, even if you disagree with it. My personal recommendation is to just stay away from inserting/removing nbsp tags. There is plenty of unrelated work to do on Wikipedia, and the presence of unnecessary nbsp tags doesn't "harm" the article in the way that a mispelling, incorrect information, or unrelated picture does. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

And you tell me that there are different types of readers (telephone, tablet, etc.); then Wikipedia should put NBSP after each word. No, because it is okay to put a breaking space between most words. It's just that there are certain phrases such as "17 kg" or "Falcon 9" or "May 2014" where it would be confusing to break in the middle of the phrase. The reason is that it's one phrase, with a space in the middle. "Falcon 9" is practically one word. It would be confusing to have "Falcon" on one line, then "9" on the next. However, there is no worry if a newline break happens anywhere else in the sentence, that is normal. Does that make sense? Leijurv (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned below, I have posted this issue to the ANI noticeboard. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stop removing the nbsp tags from the infoboxes that are in accordance with the MOS. The MOS does specify that the nbsp tags may be "unnecessary in a short parameter value in an infobox (where a break would never occur anyway)", but that is not the case with the mission duration parameter that almost always results in a line break. The nbsp tags before days/hours/minutes/seconds help prevent the values being broken up from the units in that line break. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

As shown in this diff and this diff, you are still removing NBSP tags in between times and the am/pm or timezone. You may not agree with it, but MOS:NBSP make it clear that is an appropriate use of the tag to prevent a breaking space. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. JAXA held a press conference on January 21, 2022 and announced that the H3 launch schedule will be postponed. They say they want to launch as soon as possible, but they can't decide when. Currently, only press releases published in Japanese are available. I hope this link[5] will help you.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Very interessing. Thanks, CRS-20 (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Help, What did I do? CRS-20 (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Help, what exactly did I do? CRS-20 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

{{helpme}} CRS-20 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

As you can see in the discussion preceding Special:Diff/1069352539, as well as in the various notices on this talk page, several other editors have taken issue with your editing, particularly your changing of date standards on US-related articles. Communicating with other editors is not optional. I am willing to lift this block as soon as you acknowledge the aforementioned concern and commit to engaging more constructively with other editors' concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's been a week since I changed dates from MDY to DMY. CRS-20 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your absence at the ANI discussion was interpreted as your ignoring the issue. If you can confirm for me that you will not repeat this pattern of editing, I am happy to unblock. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I confirm that I will not repeat this pattern of editing. Thanks. CRS-20 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Clarification: I did not change the date on U.S-related articles but only on NASA-related articles. CRS-20 (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

If I'm understanding Rosguill correctly, you weren't really blocked for any specific edits, but rather for a long-term pattern of ignoring other editors: generally refusing to communicate or explain yourself. You can see the discussion that led to the block here. Even though I did contribute to that discussion, I am sad to see you blocked from editing. I said I would request that they also do something (such as a final warning, ideally) about how CRS-20 simply does not communicate, so I only asked for you to be warned, not blocked, but it appears Rosguill decided to block you. But, they have also said that they will lift the block if you acknowledge the aforementioned concern and commit to engaging more constructively with other editors' concerns which I think is reasonable. Leijurv (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I confirm that it's reasonable and thanks for your efforts. CRS-20 (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Information: '''Dates''': All full dates should be in a day-month-year (DMY) format (ex: 7 July 1983). (ref: https://history.nasa.gov/styleguide.html Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors). CRS-20 (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not bound in any way to follow NASA's style guide. While I understand that WP:SPACEFLIGHT has said to use DMY format in NASA-related articles, it's been challenged as a violation of Wikipedia's MOS. But the fact you keep bringing it up makes me wonder if you intend to go back to changing NASA articles that use MDY to DMY. You need to make it clear that you will not be doing that again. BilCat (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Surely not, since you write that Wikipedia takes precedence over NASA. CRS-20 (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@BilCat: Just wondering - we aren't bound by it, but doesn't the MOS say that we should follow it? MOS:DATETIES: In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles: for example, articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage. The US military uses day-month-year, so we do that in military articles. As CRS-20 links, NASA says the same thing. So perhaps we should use day-month-year in NASA articles, per the third bullet point of MOS:DATETIES? Leijurv (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It could, but there needs to be a consensus that it applies to NASA. At this point, it only applies to the US military, while NASA is civilian. BilCat (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok. After seeing the discussion here and the edit history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide, I see that this is already trodden ground. Leijurv (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I'm satisfied enough with the engagement here and have gone ahead and removed the block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your commitment. Thanks. CRS-20 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @Rosguill: As shown with this diff, CRS-20 has continued to change date formats following this discussion. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This is FALSE. Look in EDIT SOURCE and you see {{Use dmy dates|date=January 2022}}. I just followed this statement. CRS-20 (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  CRS-20 I have changed the template at the top of the page to be in line with MOS:DATETIES. Please still consider the MOS before making these changes, rather than using only the template at the top of the page as guidance. That template was also put in place by a user who may or may not have been following the MOS. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines

  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Jump to navigation

  Jump to search

  {{supplement|interprets=date formatting guidelines for Wikipedia|WP:DATEOVER|WP:DATEOVERVIEW|WP:DMY|WP

  Wikipedia's months and years|guidelines for formatting dates]] (MOS:DATEFORMAT) set out the three date formats acceptable for use in Wikipedia articles, namely:

  • Day–month–year (DMY) format—e.g., 9 February 2022 or 9 Feb 2022;
  • Month–day–year (MDY) format—e.g., February 9, 2022 or Feb 9, 2022;
  • Year–month–day (YMD) format—e.g., 2022-02-09 (also called the "all-numeric" format; used only where space is limited, such as in references and some tables and infoboxes, but not in article text proper).

  The appropriate format for a particular situation is determined by the (somewhat confusing) interaction between three sub-provisions of MOS:DATEFORMAT. The priority among these provisions can be summarised as follows:

  1. ' Each article should use either DMY or MDY consistently, except that in references, the format used by the citation style chosen for the article is used consistently. However, the only all-numeric style allowed in citations is YMD.
  2. Strong national ties to a topic (MOS:DATETIES): Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. This generally means:
     • articles on US topics use MDY, except articles on modern US military topics use DMY in line with modern military usage;
     • articles on Canadian topics may use either DMY or MDY;
     • articles on topics relating to other English-speaking countries use DMY.

  There may be other exceptions for particular topic areas.

  Note that MOS:DATETIES does not apply to topics related to non-English-speaking countries. For example, existing forma: If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, don't change it except:

  • to conform with strong national ties (in accordance with MOS:DATETIES, as discussed in 2 above); or
  • for good reason, by consensus on the article's talk page (see below).

  Think carefully before changing established date formats of existing articles, especially multiple articles in a particular subject area. Consider whether the proposed change would improve Wikipedia (beyond conforming the articles to your personal preference) and whether editors who have contributed to the article(s) may have reached a consensus to use a particular format. Other editors may feel justified in reverting date-format changes made without prior discussion, even when those changes are supported by the above guidelines.

  As with any guidelines, occasional exceptions will apply. If there is good reason to diverge from the guidelines in the case of a particular article, use common sense and seek consensus on the article's talk page.

  • articles on US topics use MDY, except articles on modern US military topics use DMY in line with modern military usage;

  CRS-20 (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at STS-31. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Stop removing nbsp tags that are in accordance with MOS:NBSP. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stop adding Template:PD-notice unless text has been directly copied from a public domain source. Per the template's guidelines, "This template should be placed in the References section of an article if the article incorporates text from a source that is not under copyright". This means that a public domain source should not have this tag unless the article incorporates text copied directly from the source. A spot check of your additions to it on Space Shuttle and Glenn Research Center shows that you are adding it to references even when they are not copying text. This has already been brought up on your talk page here. I ask that you consult and follow the template's guidelines. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

For the record, this has been explained to CRS-20 several times, most recently I believe here, but it did not get a reply, and was removed here. I can now add you to the list of editors who have told CRS-20 to stop it with the PD-Notice spam: myself, Diannaa, Hawkeye7, Eleuther, Balon Greyjoy

To CRS-20: this is another example of what Rosguill was talking about when they blocked you. Please stop ignoring, start actually reading, understanding, and replying. It shouldn't take a block. Maybe start by replying here, or, perhaps more importantly, to the previous section about WP:CCI ^^^^ Leijurv (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Stop adding Template:PD-notice unless text has been directly copied from a public domain source. So if I understand you correctly, I have to copy a sentence in the reference to make it correct. CRS-20 (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

That made me laugh, but, not quite.

IF you directly copy/paste something from the source into the article text, THEN put PD-Notice.

IF you notice that someone else has directly copy/pasted something from a source into the article text, and they forgot to put PD-Notice on the reference THEN you can add it.

Otherwise, never put PD-Notice.

Does that make sense? Leijurv (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how you can put a reference from NASA and not take information from NASA. If we put a NASA reference without taking any information, wouldn't that be a false reference? CRS-20 (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You take information from sources to write an article, regardless of if they are public domain or not. The information should just be put into your own words. In the case of public domain sources, you have the option to directly copy the wording rather than put it in your own words. If the wording is copied, only then should you put PD-notice template. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is a difference between using information from the source in your own words, and directly copy/pasting phrases, sentences, or paragraphs. Leijurv (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

If this is listed (Include-NASA) (see STS-43), Can I put PD-notice? CRS-20 (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad it made you laugh. You are intelligent. CRS-20 (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think that if it has Include-NASA then that is good enough and you should not additionally add PD-Notice because that would be redundant, saying the same thing twice. Leijurv (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, I remove Include-Nasa and add PD-notice where needed. CRS-20 (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Even though the information is rephrased, it still comes from NASA. You cannot distort the truth. CRS-20 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, I remove Include-Nasa and add PD-notice where needed. What??? Why???? Include-NASA is more specific and more truthful.

Even though the information is rephrased, it still comes from NASA. Correct. That is what the point of the reference is. Putting in Include-NASA (or PD-notice) goes one step further and says "not only am I citing this page, I have additionally directly copy/pasted phrases from it".

It's just a fact of how copyright law works that direct copy/pasting is one thing (that we HAVE to attribute correctly), but saying the same information in your own words is something else. It's not a decision you get to make. It's just how it works, so you have to follow it. Sorry. Leijurv (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is what the point of the reference is. Putting in Include-NASA (or PD-notice) goes one step further and says "not only am I citing this page, I have additionally directly copy/pasted phrases from it".

This sentence should be in MOS, PD-notice section. Everything would be more understandable. CRS-20 (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This has been explained to you over and over by five other editors over the course of over a year, here and here and here and this section. Why did you ignore all past times? You never even replied to that first one, even though I explained it fully. It wouldn't be a big deal if you only made a few edits but you have made over twenty thousand, and the fact that since someone first told you that you were citing wrong and misattributing copyright in November 2020, you have never actually engaged with people telling you you were doing it wrong until now, means that your tens of thousands of edits have been damaging Wikipedia and it comes across like you don't care so much about what other people have to say, given all this ignoring, even when they are trying their best to prevent you from getting blocked and correct you instead. I really wish you would actually reply to what people say, and not give one sentence dismissals or copy/pastes from policy pages. Leijurv (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You can find an explanation at WP:PDCOPY which is linked from Template:PD-notice. Leijurv (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

• @CRS-20: Warning I will block you indefinitely if there are any further examples of you continuing to edit without consensus. It's great to have an opinion and you might even be right. However, Wikipedia requires a collaborative community and people who are unable or unwilling to collaborate have to be removed in order to prevent disruption and wasted time. I will note this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:CRS-20 repeatedly removing nbsp tags. Another administrator may care to issue a block without waiting in view of the recent unblock after similar problems. Such a block would be fine as far as I'm concerned, I am just indicating my intentions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  We should get consensus for each sentence of the MOS to EDIT what we are going to do. That's what you tell me. CRS-20 (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  All editors should follow the MOS when making edits. If you do not understand something in it or think it should be changed, please ask a question or propose a change. But you should not make a large number of edits counter to MOS guidance simply because you disagree with it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please review the comments on this talk page made by other editors. If you cannot understand that there is a problem, you should not be editing Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

In this edit you reverted a category change by a very experienced editor. You added Category:American astronauts which was probably removed due to the article being in Category:NASA civilian astronauts which is in Category:American astronauts. I don't have an opinion on the issue, but using an edit summary of "VANDALISM" is incorrect and is a personal attack. At Wikipedia, "vandalism" is defined at WP:VAND and has a very specific meaning. Do not use inflammatory and mistaken edit summaries.

You moved Henry Hartsfield to Henry W. Hartsfield Jr.. Another editor reverted and you repeated your move with no attempt that I can see to discuss the issue. Move warring is disruptive and must not occur.

Why have you changed the date format at that article, for example diff, diff? Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This one is at least partially defensible because the article was using DMY at that moment in time. Otherwise, I have no comment. Leijurv (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

My choice of a diff might not have been good. Here is how the article looked at 29 December 2021 before CRS-20's first edit. The article has always used mdy. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but it's a biography of an American serviceman (USMC) and NASA. So DMY. CRS-20 (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

In an infobox there should be no 'nbsp' according to the MOS. So can I remove them in an infobox. CRS-20 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure you are reading the situation correctly. I am not interested in whether a particular article is dmy or mdy or whether an infobox contains nbsp. I am responding to the ANI report linked above and the numerous complaints on this page. If necessary, I will issue an indefinite block in order to prevent further disruption. The problem is that you are repeating edits when other editors have raised objections. Do you think it would be a sustainable situation for individuals to be able to declare that their judgement overrides everyone else? You must engage in serious discussion regarding the contested issues and not repeat them unless there is a positive consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You have once again changed the date format of a Space Shuttle mission article at this diff. I understand that the date format template at the top of the page says "dmy". MOS:DATETIES supersedes any template on the top of an individual page. You have been repeatedly told to follow the MOS for date formats on US-centric articles, yet you continue to make these edits. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's a big diff. I don't see any change in date format. Are you aware of a wikiproject discussion on the issue? {{Use dmy dates}} seems to have been in STS-47 for a long time. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Johnuniq: The date format change was in the sentence describing the launch: "STS-47 launched from Pad 39B at 10:23:00 a.m. EDT on 12 September 1992". The {{Use dmy dates}} has been in place for years, but, as I understand it, the article should be using "mdy" as that is the norm in US dates. There has been been discussion about the appropriate date format in US spaceflight articles on this talk page, Talk:Space Shuttle, and at WP:Spaceflight. As I understand the consensus, there's no exception for date format for US spaceflight articles, and they should align with MOS:DATETIES. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Corrected link: here Leijurv (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. CRS-20 (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the links. It appears that Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide included the advice "Dates should be in day-month-year format" for years. That advice was removed on 11 January 2022 with a discussion on project talk. That discussion includes a note that the NASA style guide says "full dates should be in a day-month-year format". The discussion disputes that but the situation is too unclear to justify blocking CRS-20 at this stage. In particular, I see that the large diff above shows that, for example, launch_date was given as "12 September 1992" before CRS-20's edit. I'm sorry to be tedious but the only way to settle the matter is with an RfC. Unfortunately MOS:DATETIES is vague and that NASA style guide, despite the shortcomings mentioned on talk, will be a hurdle. Having said all that, an RfC would not be needed for a particular article such as STS-47—if a discussion on its talk showed, say, two editors for certain date formats and one against, that would count as a consensus for that article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

NASA is DMY. Is my interpretation correct? CRS-20 (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, the situation is much less clear than that. As I wrote above, there is a NASA style guide saying dmy, but the wikiproject talk points out certain facts that mean their guide may not applicable. Also, what happens at Wikipedia is only guided by a NASA document. I doubt if any external style guide has ever been accepted as the last word for what should happen in articles here. The situation is as I described it above. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

So we need a consensus. CRS-20 (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Johnuniq: Would this need to be a RFC at MOS or at WT:SPACEFLIGHT? There was some discussion about how a wikiproject can't override the mos, but I also question about how the list in the MOS for exemptions (just "us military") is not exhaustive, perhaps a wikiproject could add another item to that list? Leijurv (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

What does RFC and WT mean? CRS-20 (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

RFC is a decision making process that is sometimes used on Wikipedia. Generally it is used when a group of editors cannot all agree, so they call for more comments. That is why it stands for R. F. C. = Request For Comments. You can read more here: WP:RFC.

WT is a shortening of "Wikipedia_talk". So, WP:SPACEFLIGHT is a shortcut for Wikipedia:SPACEFLIGHT which is a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight. Similarly, WT:SPACEFLIGHT goes to the talk page, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. Leijurv (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I asked what should be done at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#NASA vs. MOS:DATETIES. @CRS-20: I mentioned this talk page discussion there. Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep up the good work both of you (Leijurv and Johnuniq). It's very appreciated. Thank you. CRS-20 (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a ref for the tomorrow launch? Barny22 (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.4400 CRS-20 (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

New launch date is Late February 2022. CRS-20 (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

February 20 - Starlink group 4-8 (x49) flight 37 [v1.5 L08] - Falcon 9 (S) - Canaveral SLC-40 ~15:00 (or ~19:00) - NEXT LAUNCH CRS-20 (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Did this help you? CRS-20 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The comment at 15:24, 13 February 2022 above points out that diff at STS-60 and diff at STS-61 remove non-breaking spaces. They also change the style in which the wikitext is written, for example by changing the case of existing templates ("short description" → "Short description"), inserting spaces ("==Crew==" → "== Crew ==", inserting blank lines after [[File:...]] and generally changing the wikitext to your favored version. That is disruptive because people are different—some like "short description" and some like "Short description". There have been numerous cases at Wikipedia of gnomes making thousands of edits like this which irritate other users (why should one person's preference be forced on others?). People who make a habit of changing styles are indefinitely blocked, eventually. You must not change existing styles. I haven't examined the non-breaking space issue but the fact that an editor has raised the issue on this page means the change is disputed. If you continue to change styles or remove non-breaking spaces without first gaining a clear consensus to do so I will block you indefinitely. This back-and-forth cannot be allowed to waste more time. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight for nbsp; Shorth description is capitalized like Use; File replaces image;

UTC replaces EDT, CDT, PDT, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. Is your editor a troll? CRS-20 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Short description takes a capital S because it's the beginning of a sentence or description. Will a consensus be needed for this too? CRS-20 (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's your editor who wants the whole world to conform to him. And for == Crew ==, it's the norm, see SpaceX crew, Cygnus, CRS, Explorer 1, etc, etc... CRS-20 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why in the examples of STS-60, STS-61, and all the others, there are no references, I will tell you, because it is material copied verbatim from NASA. I found his source and will add a reference to every paragraph of every STS and with PD-notice that he doesn't want me to add. CRS-20 (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are missing the point. My preferences regarding spacing and letter case of templates is not relevant, neither are alleged facts about the norm. People have been arguing for years at Wikipedia regarding disruption like this and the conclusion is that it is disruptive and must stop. Someone wanted "short description" and "==Crew==" (and it is definitely the norm that there is no blank line after an image). Therefore, your changing these items is you imposing your judgement on other editors. It is irritating (for editors maintaining those articles, not to me). If you cannot edit Wikipedia in a collaborative manner, you will be blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Where do you see white lines? CRS-20 (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the first diff above, you inserted a blank line after

[[File:STS-60 Launch.jpg|thumb|upright=1.0|left|Launch of STS-60]]

The result is that there is a blank line in the wikitext before "After External Tank (ET) separation...". That sort of thing is trivial and I wouldn't mention it except that the insertion of that blank line, if intentional, is an editor imposing their preference for how wikitext should be arranged on others. If you want friendly and independent advice, ask at WP:Teahouse. Some people there would be horrified that I'm talking about blocks for such edits. However, experienced editors know that systematically changing the style of articles that others have created and without a positive agreement after a discussion, is disruptive. It has to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This editor, not these editors, You don't find it strange that it's always the same. I have over 20,000 edits and this is the first time someone has told me that this blank line bothers them. This blank line is only seen in Edit and not seen in Read. CRS-20 (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see those norms. CRS-20 (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I can't continue donating my time to you. At some point you will have to show whether you are able to collaborate with others and discuss problems rather than impose your preferences. I'm not saying your preferences are wrong in some way. Whether they are or not is irrelevant. The point is that they are causing disruption. Several editors have disagreed with various aspects of your editing, as shown on this talk page. The only reason that the ANI report on you (see above) was closed is that I said I would monitor the situation. The way disruption regarding changing wikitext works is that it irritates several editors (while some might be pleased because your changes agree with their preferences). It is common that most people just grind their teeth and try to ignore it, leaving only one editor to take up the issue with you. If you don't believe what BoldI have written above, ask at the Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@CRS-20: I know this is hard to hear, since many of your edits change trivial things (lowercase versus uppercase templates, template field order, spaces, blank lines), but you need to stop doing that or johnuniq will (rightfully) block you. I asked you to stop doing this in October, and you said that you do it because of your personal "aesthetic", but that is not how Wikipedia works. I would take this seriously because instead of me asking nicely, it is now an admin telling you have to stop or you will be blocked from editing. Leijurv (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This blank line is only seen in Edit and not seen in Read. Also this is not true, you can see it in Read. And the whole point is that if your edit only exists in Edit, you should not do it. You should only make edits that show up in Read, from now on. Leijurv (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This blank line is only seen in Edit source and not seen in Read. Template field order: (infobox)? And I guess I will never have my norms? CRS-20 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Rather than treating this like a Twitter thread, you should be asking questions. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't have Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or smart phone.

You should be asking questions. So I thought you were talking about the Teahouse that you talked about before, sorry. CRS-20 (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

And I guess I will never have my norms? Sorry, but generally no. This is a collaborative website and your preferred format for wiki source (for example, using template "cvt" versus "Cvt") is no more valid than anyone else's preference. See WP:OWN. It is disruptive to make these changes for no reason, or to make edits that bundle real changes with these cosmetic changes, because, if that were allowed, another editor would come in a few days later and change everything to the way they like it. This would clutter up the edit history with many massive diffs of cosmetic changes, which is disruptive, annoys everyone, and doesn't make Wikipedia better. Leijurv (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Examples of ownership behaviour[edit source] if an editor consistently demonstrates behavior similar to that shown in the following examples in a certain article talk page, then they probably have issues with page ownership. Shortcuts

• WP:OWNBEHAVIOR
• WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR

Further information: Wikipedia:No personal attacks Actions[edit source]

1. An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include the routine maintenance of article consistency, such as preservation of established spelling or citation styles.)
2. An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
3. An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
4. An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior.
5. An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary to edit the article (see the first two comments in the Statements section just below).
6. An editor reverts any edit with a personal attack in the edit summary.

CRS-20 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Despite discussion on this talk page, over at the Teahouse, and a warning from Johnuniq that says that nbsp tags are appropriate for the mission duration, you have decided to remove nbsp tags here and here. Adding br html tags are not the equivalent; they force a line break regardless of screen settings rather than just not allow a line break at a certain point. Leave the nbsp tags where they are; they are in accordance with MOS:NBSP. You may not agree with it, but deciding to use your own method with br tags is not the solution. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, I don't recall saying that nbsp are appropriate, just that removing them without consensus when other editors have expressed a contrary view is disruptive and would lead to a block. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is what we were doing before your blockage. CRS-20 (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Johnuniq: My apologies, I didn't mean to misrepresent what you have written; I grouped together the different messages/conversation and didn't draw a distinction between them. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's true. There is a difference. CRS-20 (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Johnuniq (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@CRS-20: This is your third sanction (a two-week block) after having been blocked for 48 hours four months ago (permalink), then indefinitely two weeks ago (#February 2022). This talk page is full of editors asking you to do things differently. When I mentioned the Teahouse, I meant to check "what I have written above", not to ask about spaces. I see that the Teahouse was also recommended for "feedback or general advice" at #March 2020 above. When this block expires you are welcome to edit constructively but collaboration is required. Please examine the comments on this page and plan how you will do things differently in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's only me who is disruptive and not him? CRS-20 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Inserting spaces "==Crew==" → "== Crew ==" : see Polaris Dawn. CRS-20 (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) It's only me who is disruptive and not him? Yeah. You should stop making edits, no matter what they are, if they are being continually disputed by other editors (e.g. removing NBSP tags despite many other editors asking you to stop, making MDY/DMY changes, PD-notice, making cosmetic edits, etc). No matter what it is. That's just how Wikipedia works. Please read Wikipedia:Communication is required. Leijurv (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

For Polaris Dawn can you link to the specific diff you're talking about? I wasn't able to find it quickly. Leijurv (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

For me it works, after clicking 3 times on it. That way I'm totally black and he's totally white and I'm not talking about Johnuniq. CRS-20 (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Cia Pan Is this correct? (see in my Edit source) See STS-1, STS-2

2 days, 6 hours, 20 minutes, 53 seconds (achieved) CRS-20 (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I believe this follows MOS:NBSP. However I am worried about just saying "yes" because then I worry you would start putting {{nbsp}} between every unit on every page you see.

It would look bad if there was a newline betweeen "2" and "days". Generally it would look bad if there is a break between a number and its unit. However there is no problem if there is a break between "2 days" and "6 hours", so that is a space, not a nbsp. Leijurv (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think you are perhaps focusing too much on this specific NBSP policy issue. That is not really why you were blocked. You were blocked because of the pattern of behavior where you continually made edits (in this case, removing NBSP) while ignoring everyone else saying to stop. If you figure out how to properly handle NBSP, that is good, but then there will be some other editing pattern in the future that others will take issue with. Instead you should focus on how to better communicate. I still am curious if you use a translator (like Google Translate) or if you are actually writing these in English. I wonder this because a few times you wrote on this page in French. Leijurv (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm blocked because someone issued an ANI about NBSP. CRS-20 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Am I not communicating well with you? CRS-20 (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Am I not communicating well with you? No, you are not. For example, I asked: I still am curious if you use a translator (like Google Translate) or if you are actually writing these in English. I wonder this because a few times you wrote on this page in French. Please answer. Leijurv (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sometimes I asked you a 2 or 3 part question and you only answered me on one. If I'm not an English speaker you'll block me indefinitely I guess. CRS-20 (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sometimes I asked you a 2 or 3 part question and you only answered me on one. Where?

If I'm not an English speaker you'll block me indefinitely I guess. It's just about how well you can read/write English, not about whether it was your first or second language. This is policy, see here. Leijurv (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This blank line is only seen in Edit source and not seen in Read. Template field order: (infobox)? And I guess I will never have my norms? CRS-20 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]Reply

Template field order: (infobox)? You did not answer me.

CRS-20 (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Inserting spaces "==Crew==" → "== Crew ==" : see Polaris Dawn. CRS-20 (t CRS-20 (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Blank line: There's nothing to say, you don't see a blank line in your browser, others do. Believe them or don't.

Template field order: Yes, I listed that among trivial things that you should stop changing. I don't know what the question is.

Polaris Dawn: I asked for a link to a diff as I could not find what you were talking about, I don't see any link to a diff. Leijurv (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is only one way. CRS-20 (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Template field order: in the infobox or everywhere? CRS-20 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is only one way. I don't understand what this means. Only one way to do what?

I don't think you (or anyone) should change the order of templates anywhere. Because changing the order has no affect on Read. The point of Wikipedia is Read. Just don't do it. It annoys other editors in quantifiable ways (makes the diffs very hard to read) and there is no upside. Just stop lol. Leijurv (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Polaris Dawn: There is only one link CRS-20 (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It reads better, because it's in the same order as the template. CRS-20 (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The community disagrees. Leijurv (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is better (Date and time notation in the United States): see Edit source. CRS-20 (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll comply. CRS-20 (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Press the Edit source button at the top of this page and you will see that ALL sections are of type == XXXXXX ==. CRS-20 (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, I don't recall saying that nbsp are appropriate, just that removing them without consensus when other editors have expressed a contrary view is disruptive and would lead to a block. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC), and the edit after I was blocked. CRS-20 (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

See STS-1, STS-2 CRS-20 (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

What a waste, this user should of been indef'd months ago. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why are you reading me? CRS-20 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Balon Greyjoy change dmy in mdy in STS articles. There is no consensus. CRS-20 (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Balon Greyjoy puts NBSP all over STS articles. There is no consensus. CRS-20 (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please don't remove spaces from citation templates, as this makes the source code less readable (sometimes much less, when this leads to very long unbreakable lines that can't fit in the editor window). This your edit was particularly harmful because it not only converted a well readable line-by-line formatting to an unspaced string, but also removed some essential information (that the cited source is an M.S. thesis). The change of the template to {{cite web}} was also unjustified because its documentation says that it is intended "for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template", so the appropriate choice should have been {{cite thesis}} (I've corrected this already). Please also pay attention that all the examples at these template documentation pages do have spaces before each parameter, so your removal of such spaces goes against the established convention. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@CRS-20: You have again removed spaces from a cite template. Without any explanations and completely ignoring my request above, as well as previous warnings by Leijurv (#Same thing, again), CactiStaccingCrane (#Warning), and Johnuniq (#Last warning regarding style changes) not to do so. Please at least explain: why do you feel such changes necessary or beneficial? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

And by the way, CRS-20, why have you completely removed the author information (|author=Mark Carreau) here? Why do you change things like |author=William Harwood for CBS News to |author=William Harwood - CBS News? Such formats are both incorrect (yours is worse, violating MOS:DASH), but if you want to improve such references, please read the {{cite web}} documentation and use the appropriate parameters (separate |author= and |agency= or |via=). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Corrected CRS-20 (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I came here to see what was happening with this user, but it seems better to check ANI first, seems to be there more than anywhere else. I can not believe the number of chances given this user, this user has always been a net-negitive, indef them and be done with done. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Examples of ownership behaviour [edit source] if an editor consistently demonstrates behavior similar to that shown in the following examples in a certain article talk page, then they probably have issues with page ownership. Shortcuts

WP:OWNBEHAVIOR

WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR

Further information: Wikipedia:No personal attacks Actions[edit source]

An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include the routine maintenance of article consistency, such as preservation of established spelling or citation styles.)

An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.

An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.

An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior.

An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary to edit the article (see the first two comments in the Statements section just below).

An editor reverts any edit with a personal attack in the edit summary. CRS-20 (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Press the Edit source button at the top of this page and you will see that ALL sections are of type == XXXXXX ==. CRS-20 (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and ignoring issues raised by others; no response at ANI but paste a non-response here.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Look at user:Flight Time's edit on STS-126, I've never done anything like that. CRS-20 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The user:FlightTime has never made a single edit on STS-126 and it comes across me by hazard?, it's a troll I think and revenge as he wrote below:

What a waste, this user should of been indef'd months ago. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC) CRS-20 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why is it you and not another administrator who is supervising my block. CRS-20 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think that FlightTime is an administrator? Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Where do you take that? CRS-20 (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

User:Johnuniq is administrator of my last block and this one. CRS-20 (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to be my administrator and review my case independently, please. CRS-20 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Press the Edit source button at the top of this page and you will see that ALL sections are of type == XXXXXX ==. CRS-20 (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CRS-20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Revenge CRS-20 (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Look at user:FlightTime's edit on STS-126, I've never done anything like that. The user:FlightTime has never made a single edit on STS-126 and it comes across me by hazard?, it's a troll I think and revenge as he wrote below: What a waste, this user should of been indef'd months ago. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC) CRS-20 (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Look at user:FlightTime's edit on STS-126, I've never done anything like that. The user:FlightTime has never made a single edit on STS-126 and it comes across me by hazard?, it's a troll I think and revenge as he wrote below: What a waste, this user should of been indef'd months ago. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for disruptive and not continue to cause disruption, and I will make useful contributions instead. CRS-20 (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

CRS-20 (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The {{admin help}} template is not how you request an unblock, and even if it were, this copy-and-paste request is not likely to convince anyone. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just noticed that in one of your recent edits you added a space either side of the word "References" in the section heading so "==References==" became "== References ==" which you have previously been told is disruptive editing. Gusfriend (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's wrong. CRS-20 (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Press the Edit source button at the top of this page and you will see that ALL sections are of type == XXXXXX ==. CRS-20 (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Now, imagine if someone decided that they didn't like seeing the spaces in the section headings that you have on this page and decided to remove them. I am guessing that that would annoy you as you had created them with the space in them and like it that way and you would want to change it back. In fact you would probably be annoyed with the person who made the change. Now think of the person who created the ==References== heading on STS-126 and created it without the space when you changed it to add the space.

Rather than having people going back and forth adding and removing spaces and annoying others, the consensus is to (generally) leave the headings as they are rather than starting something that disrupts Wikippedia. Gusfriend (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It would be enough, quite simply, to add it in the MOS. CRS-20 (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Instead of being proscriptive and listing every possible way of editing Wikipedia pages that doesn't change how it appears, the MOS concentrates on what is presented. If you think about it from a practical perspective, each agreement on style that ends up in the MOS takes effort to implement to consider and implement and the effort is not worth it for something that is not seen. As an example, nbsp is in the MOS as where the line breaks can affect how readable the page is but a space on either side of the text in the headings doesn't change how the page presents so it is not in the MOS. A good way of thinking of the policy is that everything that doesn't change how it appears to users (and in fact most of the MOS as well) can be summarised as work with others and don't make changes that annoy other people. In particular, don't mess with the non visible style that someone else has chosen and trust that they won't mess with the style that you have chosen. Gusfriend (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

But it shows for publishers. So why did you tell me I had to change == References ==, that it was disruptive? CRS-20 (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your edit falls under the category of don't mess with the non visible style that someone else has chosen and it is something that you have been warned about on this page before. I wrote it in the hope that you would understand that changes like that are not helpful and work with others. Gusfriend (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

For the millionth time, CRS-20, your edits that tweak the source of the page (that don't show up in Read), are not appreciated by anyone. Leijurv (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I think you may be interested with the WP:Constellation program, where currently articles about private spaceflight gets improved. Happy editing, Starship SN20 (talk) 021:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC) @CRS-20Reply

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list

 

The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

23:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

 

The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

 

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

 

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply