This user may have left Wikipedia. MBK004 has not edited Wikipedia since 11 November 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Attention: MBK004 made his last edit on November 11, 2010 and is on an extended WikiBreak. If you would still like to leave a message, you are more than welcome. If you are seeking help, please consult either the Help Desk or the Military history Project during his absence. If you do choose to leave a message here your comments, concerns, or questions may be answered by MBK004's talk page stalkers if said stalkers can adequately address the issue(s) raised. Thank you.
Please feel free to leave a message (or email), but if you post here you I ask that you observe the following requests:
Due to vandalism from unregistered users, this talk page is semi-protected, if you wish to leave me a message and are not a registered autoconfirmed user or wish to post as an IP, please do it here: User talk:MBK004/Anon.
Place new messages at the bottom of the page, not at the top. This preserves the chronological order for the page.
Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header== and Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).
Please indent your posts with : if replying to an existing topic (or :: if replying to a reply).
If you are looking for a prior conversation, I usually archive conversations after one month of inactivity.
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBK004.
with respect to this: [1] - I have no idea what 'authorized' means in this context, or how to accomplish it. I was told by a sysop (who may have been misinformed) that I merely needed to withdraw. can you advise? please respond here or in my talk - I've unwatchlisted the arbitration pages, since I have no further interest in participating. --Ludwigs200:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re this diff, can you tell me where the "class article" is? I'm not seeing any difference in length between Cavalla and Sturgeon, and since I was the one that wrote the statement about Cavalla being longer, I'd like to be sure that know what I think I know. Thanks. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 03:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If you are going to change these notations, you cannot do it and put a citation needed tag as well, you must be able to properly cite it without resorting to original research." Yes, I'm aware of that. Not sure where the idea came up that I was thinking of doing anything like that. I was talking about the Cavalla page, not the Sturgeon Class page, and I'm glad it's resolved. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 13:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Titanic
I've exanded the edit note to state that spellings should no be changed from br-EN to am-EN. If you can improve the wording please feel free to do so. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAC for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945)
Hello,
Yes I am aware of the two week gap. The thing is, there were no comments that were unanswered. Its just that there were no reviews at all. It got archived for that reason alone. Perseus 71talk16:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Mathsci's topic ban actually passed
Hello, I just posted to the Arb Com noticeboard, but I wanted to make sure someone sees this, since the R & I arbitration proceedings are about to become closed. It seems there is a discrepancy between the vote tally for Mathsci's topic ban (number 6 under Remedies) and the finding that it passed. I think there are only 5 votes of support for this, out of the requisite 6, but it is listed as passing under the motion to close. It seems it should be listed under "failed remedies." Thank you, Lo, i am real19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Date format of the US Military
You learn something new every day. Sorry, and thanks for the info!
I am brand new to Wiki and cannot figure out the correct way to contribute. I have tried to read many of the How To aids but it is like, to me, reading hieroglyphics!
I would like to propose a change to LINE 114 (below). The way it is now written makes it seem that Phillips snapped at Evans for no reason, when it is actually Evans who had acted inappropriately. By the additions as suggested below, a fuller account is offered:
On 12 April, the wireless equipment aboard Titanic had broken down and Jack Phillips, along with Second Wireless Operator Harold Bride, had spent the better part of the day trying to repair it. Late in the day, Phillips was busy working off a substantial backlog of personal messages with the wireless station at Cape Race, Newfoundland, 800 miles (1,300 km) away. While in the middle of receiving a message, Phillips was interrupted by the wireless operator from the Californian, Cyril Evans, who transmitted that they were stopped and surrounded by ice. Evans had broken wireless protocol by interrupting, and the close proximity of the Californian's signal was like a shout in Phillips' headphones (both radio operators were using spark gap wireless sets whose signals bled across the spectrum and were impossible to tune out). Phillips, unable to hear the Cape Race message, rebuked Evans with: "Shut up, Shut up, I’m working Cape Race." Evans listened for a little while longer, and at 23:30 he turned off the wireless and went to bed.
I mistakenly did not add a Subject to my comments above. I repeat them here. Sorry!
Help!
I am brand new to Wiki and cannot figure out the correct way to contribute. I have tried to read many of the How To aids but it is like, to me, reading hieroglyphics!
I would like to propose a change to LINE 114 (below). The way it is now written makes it seem that Phillips snapped at Evans for no reason, when it is actually Evans who had acted inappropriately. By the additions as suggested below, a fuller account is offered:
On 12 April, the wireless equipment aboard Titanic had broken down and Jack Phillips, along with Second Wireless Operator Harold Bride, had spent the better part of the day trying to repair it. Late in the day, Phillips was busy working off a substantial backlog of personal messages with the wireless station at Cape Race, Newfoundland, 800 miles (1,300 km) away. While in the middle of receiving a message, Phillips was interrupted by the wireless operator from the Californian, Cyril Evans, who transmitted that they were stopped and surrounded by ice. Evans had broken wireless protocol by interrupting, and the close proximity of the Californian's signal was like a shout in Phillips' headphones (both radio operators were using spark gap wireless sets whose signals bled across the spectrum and were impossible to tune out). Phillips, unable to hear the Cape Race message, rebuked Evans with: "Shut up, Shut up, I’m working Cape Race." Evans listened for a little while longer, and at 23:30 he turned off the wireless and went to bed.
Hey. I was wondering if, sometime this week, you'd be able to promote a topic or two over at FTC. I believe the Hard Candy and Mesozoic animals have consensus. Mainly, I'm asking for this because I'd like to get you involved in that aspect in case I couldn't do it anymore due to time concerns; this way for now there's two people who can handle that. (It's pretty much foolproof, though if you're not positive on any steps you can check my edit history, as i just did an FT promotion). Meanwhile, I'm gonna try and figure out how to trigger the September 1 FTCmovement, I think it's through the template but I have no clue how I would do that. WizardmanOperation Big Bear03:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there; I have recently joined the project (long time in wikipedia) and have set myself the task of improving the stub-class articles. So far enhanced Collossus and Vanguard. I would appreciate a view as to whether these articles are now brought out of stub class, and if so, to where? --Anthony Bradbury"talk"17:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MBK, I want to upload some clipper ship images I've just digitized from a 1913 pamphlet. Last time I tried this, I got a bunch of messages that I hadn't specified the source properly. Could I ask you to look at a trial image when I upload it and confirm that I'm getting this right? Djembayz (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sale to Columbia not consummated in 1980. Ship was sold to Levin Metals Corp., on 19 November 1980 on IFB PD-X-1034 for $ 452,000.00 part of a two ship deal Source: PMARS Form MA-20, Record of Ship Sales. MBK004: You cannot access this site, as it's restricted to government use only, by MARAD. You can try though. This is one of the sources I get my information from, and also from the Administrator, of the NVR and from the NHHC of which the Head of the DANFS project is my cousin. I am a Naval Historian currently attached to Navsource working on listings of CO's and correcting information as to the fates of USN ships only. I come highly recommended. We pick up where WIKI leaves off. I am not going to edit the Midas' listing you do that after you attempt to verify what & if my information is correct. The information I put on the Sphinx, Lake Champlain & Tarawa come from the same sources, and from former crewmembers of those ships, plus the accumulated knowledge of years of study of Naval History, bios of Commanding Officers, ships narrative histories, logbooks, cruise books, programs of commissioning, decommissioning, unpublished manuscripts of Order of Battle for WW II, and so on. Evidently your grasp of US Naval History is not too good, and for instance the rejection of you to list the CO's of the Enterprise, is tantamount to revisionalism. Navsource lists complete listings of CO's where known on every page, to preserve for posterity this history otherwise not known to the layman wanting info on his ship where he doesn't know where to access such information. Do you know that NHHC is also going to add these lists to the revised histories of ships should there come a time not in our lifetimes I'll grant when a new set of DANFS is published. I'm gratified that I will be a part of it as long as I can lift a finger. I would like to get in touch with you, and have left you my cell, and email so hopefully you will. Pnsy17shop (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MBK004. I am interested in helping out as a clerk for the Arbitration Committee. You probably will say, "You have to little experience because you are new." I don't think that this is fair as I've read all of the policies and guidelines and like to help out. Also in the section about becoming a clerk at WP:AC/C it says nothing about needing to have a certain amount of time editing on the encyclopedia. Mr. R00tTalk02:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed, but the user is not a newbie as claimed. They are constantly trying to use sources which are either not considered reliable or those which are unavailable to people outside of the US Navy. They are apparently also editing Wikipedia for their work and do not care about our content policies ... their editing is so wikipedia articles look the way his boss wants them to look instead of following the MOS and proper referencing despite repeated warnings. I've not only left plenty of warnings across a variety of IP addresses as well as a few throw-away accounts but also some helpful advice from other users as well. They are also trying to ascertain my identity via telephone or email so he can report me for whatever reason. I do not see anything that would be good coming out of entering further discussion with this person until they stop IP hopping to avoid blocking for their repeated violations of our policies. -MBK00407:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, MBK 004: You question to origin of my information in your reply of 8 September, and suggest that there is ulterior motives for me asking for you to call me or email me. What is so secret about you that you do not want to talk to people ??? I assure you, my information is accurate, and I am sorry, that you have no way of verifying it, so it leaves me no alternative to not edit anything anymore on WIKI, and leave you to do the work. You call youself a Historian, well, my friend you're not, nor will ever be one !!! It is sad that WIKI will never know the benefits of my long and eventful career documenting the US NAVY, and I leave you to stew in your own juices... Pnsy17shop (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two minor things, alphabetical order on the newsletter and updating the count in the showcase (both I have taken care of). -MBK00404:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RMS Titanic
Hello! I noticed that you reverted my change to the hatnote. I was curious if that was intentional, or just a byproduct of the other cleanup you were doing. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a byproduct of the clean-up. It is unfortunate but a fact of life that sometimes good edits must be reverted as well on that article due to the volume of vandalism. -MBK00408:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that HMS Furious has been promoted, I'm ready to start the GTC for the class. One problem, however, is the lead article. There are really two, one each as battlecruisers and carriers. Is there anyway we can use both the BC and the CV articles as dual leads? If not, which would you recommend to be used? They were BCs first, but CVs for longer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I figured that there was a standard that people were following. I'm new to major ontributions in this area and really appreciate you taking the time to help me, as you have now on several occasions. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to try to conform to Wikipedia policy, but the sections I edited in the article on Reusable Launch Systems were poorly written, incorrect, or not relevant to the stated topic. I started by asking on the talk page for the article if anyone else was interested in improving it and there was no reply for months, so I assumed no one was interested. The sections I have edited had no relevant references and despite the immediacy of the topic haven't been maintained or updated. You don't have to go far in the current article to find logical absurdities. The very first section says "There are two approaches to Single stage to orbit or SSTO." Then it only gives one approach!! Where is the second???? Why is the word "Single" capitalized? Or consider this: "Also, lightweight implies small vehicles, which in turn implies small payloads, increasing the cost per kilogram of the payload." The previous sentence referred to "lightweight" structures, i.e. those with a high strength-to-weight ratio. This is completely unrelated to the total mass of the vehicle. The cost referred to is the launch cost per kilogram of payload, not the cost per kilogram of payload. There is hardly a paragraph in this article that doesn't have serious errors. I am mystified by the statement that all information must come from external sources. This is seldom the case in Wikipedia and there are virtually no references in the article currently. Where are the references to sources that presumably should appear in every sentence of the article?
I have worked in the space program for almost thirty years and have five degrees including both mechanical and industrial engineering. I have over twenty peer-reviewed publications including a recent paper in Acta Astronautica. I frequently review papers for peer-reviewed journals. I presented at the very first Case For Mars conference. I have personally seen most of the major components in the Space Shuttle and most of the prelaunch processing environment and operations. I presented briefings to the crew of the first Space Shuttle mission prior to STS-1 in 1981 and was on a console in the LCC for the Ares 1-X launch in 2009. I have supported more than 100 shuttle launches and also worked on the Constellation program and supported the ULA expendable program as well. There are certainly people who know a great deal more than I do about RLVs but they are obviously not contributing to this article at the moment. Wikipedia is a fantastic information source and there are certainly many articles which meet the highest scholarly standards of reference, but this article does not come close at the present time. If someone else is prepared to work on it I would be the last to duplicate their efforts. But I am at least somewhat experienced in this field and there is limited literature on this topic which is accessible, current, and peer reviewed so it's hard to see how everything in the text could possibly be referred to an external source as you suggest. Moreover if you apply those standards you will have to remove most of the existing text. If you don't plan to apply this standard to the existing text I hope you will at least let me improve upon it. This is an important subject and it should be properly described. Best regards, Danwoodard (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats!
Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2010-September 2011
In gratitude of your service as coordinator for the Military history Project from March 2010 to September 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. —TomStar81 (Talk) 23:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
Belated congrats (this is my first visit) on your becoming a sysop after 6 months!
To the point: I have a strange feeling that User:Shadow2700 and User:136.234.55.124 may be one of and the same, possibly to evade WP:3RR. Both have a history of drastic edits and arrogant, obnoxious edit summary comments. The case doesn't appear to qualify for a sockpuppet investigation. What to do? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I've been a sysop since January 2008...
As to your question, you are correct that there is not enough for an SPI. Just bide your time and acquire more evidence. -MBK00405:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's what I thought re the question I had.
Belated congrats (this is my first visit) on your becoming a sysop after 6 months!
You wrote on your talk page that you "first started editing Wikipedia in July 2007, and became a sysop in January 2008", but your response ("Hmm, I've been a sysop since January 2008...") sounds like I got the math wrong, which I don't think I did. Sorry if I offended you in in some way. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you take a look at this please; an anonymous editor wants to introduce a highly POV statement about the US Govt's letter in the lede of this article. Any opinion? --John (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MBK004. I noticed you use Twinkle for fighting vandalism. This is good, but please avoid using it simply because you disagree with other editors on some points. Further, try to respond to others users by responding to their arguments. -- 签名 sig at 18:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respond to others... you have not questioned the edits until now (and I left a summary in the function provided with Twinkle instead of a pure vandalism revert, look at the history that is all that is required, would you have been as harsh with an undo or just a plain edit which wiped the section?), so why accuse me of any malfeasance? The issue of listing the commanding officers of naval vessels, was brought up at WT:SHIPS earlier this year as I mentioned in the edit summary (incidentally by me), and the discussion resulted in the following agreement: There is/appears to be consensus for the lists to be removed/depreciated. If commanding officers of warships are to be mentioned, they should be mentioned in the relevant article text. It definitely appears that your addition of the section (unreferenced to boot) to USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) is against agreed-upon consensus. If you disagree, I suggest you bring this back up at WT:SHIPS. -MBK00405:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my edit summary and didn't use twinkle, you'd have noticed. Please try to separate regular editing from "twinkle" mode.
The discussion you are referring to didn't lead to the guidelines being amended as there was some disagreement about what you state as being consensus. The discussion seems to be about smaller ships anyways. Besides, if the lists is acceptable as a stand-alone list, there isn't really a reason why it couldn't be included in the article until it's longer. Unless you can provide other points to support your view, please refrain from removing things. If you think more references are needed, just add {{fact}} to the list entries you find problematic. -- 签名 sig at 02:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrations
I've noticed a couple of edit summaries on your part that seem to indicate frustration in regard to improper wikignoming, such as not sorting additions to the announcement template (example). May I suggest you invest in an editnotice? You have the mop and could throw up an {{Ombox}}, since the hidden text seems to be getting ignored. If not, at least a cold beer would keep your hair from going grey. bahamut0013wordsdeeds15:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baha, he's a college student. How dare you advocate for "a cold beer." You are a corrupter of otherwise fine and upstanding young American citizens. (obviously kidding -- MBK, an edit notice seems like a pretty good idea) Ed[talk][majestic titan]16:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Your advice will be appreciated
Dear coordinator, my edits about military/intelligence history of WWII were targeted by one and same editor – which simply blanked [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
Well referenced texts and refuse to provide an explanation at talk pages. Can you advice a solution. Regards Jo0doe (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
USer Jo0doe habitually misrepresents sources to bring them in line with his POV. The respective discussion pages cover that thoroughly.--Galassi (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jo0doe (talk), who had been blocked for a year (see here: [11] for block and comments) and then for 6 months from this wikipedia (check his block log) and who is permanently banned from Russian wiki (see here: [12]) for similar behavior has returned. Recent examples of misusing sources are here and [13]. Basically, his M.O. is to either push his POV by taking bits of info out of context or creatively misintepreting the content. He does this with foreign-language sources that are difficult to verify, although in the comments I quoted from those sources at length and provided google=translate versions for verification, so that Jo0doe (talk)'s falsification is obvious. I don't have time to go to A.E., the admin who originally blocked him for a year (user:Moreschi) seems to have retired, and other admins don't have the time to dig into this either. So it's up to other editors to clean up the messes he makes. He is complaining that people are cleaning up his messes.
I made an update at the biography of cosmonaut Dumitru-Dorin Prunariu who is ME. You deleted this update. Better then me nobody knows what I do and what new positions I have. So, please live that update in the text of my biography.
I seem to have caused you a lot of work yesterday. Please direct me to the guidelines I violated so I can understand thsi and not mess up again. Thanks.Busaccsb (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More on this
Upon reflection, seems like a presumptuous idea to move a page without consulting, I do some fish stuff where I have moved pages, but they were pages I made in the first place. You guys who are at this all the time have all this ship stuff organized the way you want it, and I just dabble. I'll stick to what I am good at, which is introductory paragraph development. Sorry. 18:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
"Lead too short" tags
MBK004,
I need some guidance. I often find articles with "lead too short" tags. Just now, for example, on the USS Shaw (DD-373) page. I expanded the intro to correct the problem, and removed the tag. The question is, should I have removed the tag, or is that something you guys with higher powers do? Similarly, if I see an artilce with an inadequate lead, can I tag it? Busaccsb (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, if you have corrected the problem which was why the tag was placed there then by all means remove it! As to tagging yourself, please do. I make use of WP:FRIENDLY for that (it is easy to use). -MBK00404:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated Parameters
MBK004, was looking at the project page's suggested list of things to work on and I kept stumbling upon references to "deprecated parameters". I can't find a decent explanation of what they are and what do do about them. Can you point me to something that would help me? ThanksBusaccsb (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know you are busy, so hate to keep asking you questions. Can you refer me to a general place I can ask these questions within Wikiproject Ships, or to other specific authorities like yourself (e.g. TomStar81)? Thanks Busaccsb (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The instance that you are referring to is when a certain template is used in an article. Over time the template may change in what the parameters within the template will support. These uses still have older versions of parameters. It is best to leave this to those users who know what they are doing with absolute certainty. Also, many bots are working on this exact replacement task. As to asking questions, there is no need to stop asking me or other prominent ship editors, or at WT:SHIPS. We are all willing to help. -MBK00405:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one that edited the Philmont Training Center page on 10/25.
I was the director of PTC from 1995-2000 and wrote the book "The Other Side of the Road" which is the history of PTC. What I wrote is from my research and experience, not from copywrited material.
AR2-3: Work with me on this one -- Magneticlifeform
I have been trying to solve the puzzle of what is going on with the X-37B orbital maneuvering system for about a year. I am retired from Rocketdyne and still have contacts there. I have been able to find out that it was intended from the beginning that the unmanned space plane not be powered by toxic NTO or hydrazine-based fuels due to ground hazards associated with the return to earth. A hydrogen peroxide based system using an already-man-rated AR2-3 was originally selected to be used on the first OTV. Inconsistant support for the program resulted in delays that made an alternate propulsion system necessary for the first orbital flight. Rocketdyne did not supply that alternate engine but has continued to work on the H2O2/JP-8 system. That is about all I know for certain. Please see the attached NASA/United Launch Alliance briefing chart which was presented in a closed military briefing in London just weeks before the X-37B launch. The chart adds to the confusion but seems to indicate the original plan for the operational maneuvering system still stands.
Apparently I cannot (or do not know how to) insert the briefing chart. If you would care to see it please notify me of an e-mail address where I may send it. My own e-mail address is magneticlifeform@gmail.com. I doubt (?) the ancient AR2-3 would be the engine of choice for an operational space plane. Rocketdyne has designed the RS-82 with much better performance but about the same thrust. Rocketdyne posts no data on RS-82 but there are two mentions, with an illustration, on www.astronautix.com/RS-82 and /H2O2/Kerosene. Between us hopefully we can break out some more definitive information.Magneticlifeform (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube not being a reliable source??
I don't get how thats not reliable? That was the CEO Of P&O Cruises Australia, how can that not be reliable but if so then I'll find another source.--Yankeesman312 (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the current situation at WT:HSF, I am retiring from editing on a matter of principle. Please can you finish TLS, and if you get a chance please have a look at some of the unfinished articles in my userspace. If you need anything you can find me at NSF. Thanks for everything and good luck. --GW…23:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with the fallout
Hey MBK; well, I've got to be honest I wasn't expecting the events of last night - personally I thought the discussion was going reasonably well (not fabulously, but we were getting somewhere) and, whilst I agree that Mlm's actions weren't exactly advised, I must admit it does seem to be a relatively minor thing to retire over - was there something else going on here that made it the straw that broke his back? Anyhow, I agree with you that he'll be greatly missed - I sent him a message on NSF but I doubt if I'll get any reply - what are your thoughts on the matter? Colds7ream (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spaceflight portals
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,
I followed your advice and I placed a proposal on the talk page of the article. I hope you can have a look and let me know your comments to go ahead. It's just adding more information about his imminent mission. Thanks. Superpi.nl (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Human spaceflight activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian from Houston. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors from the Houston area, to help with Wikipedia assignments at Texas Southern University. Classes at TSU will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester, and the role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.
Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!
Would you be interested in helping with a documentary on the Panama Canal?
Hello, I noticed that you have more than ten edits on the Panama Canal article. First of all I would like to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Secondly, I am writing to ask you if you would consider participating as an advisor to a group producing a documentary about the canal and its history. If this is of interest to you please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Psingleton (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to The Downlink · Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects · User Activity Checks
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Future issues will contain information on issues under discussion, newly featured content, and articles written by members of the project to appear in the newsletter. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter. If you were not aware of being a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, membership of the former Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight and Space colonization WikiProjects was merged into WikiProject spaceflight during the reorganisation of the spaceflight projects, for more details, please see below.
Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects
The ongoing discussion of the future of Space WikiProjects has been making progress. WikiProject Space was abolished on 5 December 2010, with the Spaceflight, Astronomy and Solar System projects becoming independent of each other. On the same day, an assessment banner, {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} was created for WikiProject Spaceflight to replace the generic space one which had been used previously. On 9 December, WikiProject Space Colonization was abolished, with its tasks being subsumed into WikiProject Spaceflight. On 12 December, the Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight WikiProjects became task forces of WikiProject Spaceflight, whilst WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight became a working group.
A number of issues are still under discussion:
Introducing better defined assessment criteria and an A-class review process
Setting clearer importance criteria for assessing articles
Establishing a joint task force with the Astronomy and Solar System projects to cover space telescopes and planetary probes
Defining the roles of projects, taskforces and working groups, and processes for establishing new ones
A series of checks are underway to establish the numbers of users who are still active within WikiProject Spaceflight, its task forces and working group. All usernames on the members lists were struck out, and members were asked to unstrike their own names if they were still an active member of the project. If you wish to do so, and have not already, please unstrike your name from the master list, plus the lists on any applicable task forces or working groups
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Hello there! There is an article called "Argentina-Brazil War", it's about an international conflict that occurred between 1825 and 1828 between the Empire of Brazil and the United Provinces of South America over the possession of the Brazilian province of Cisplatina (which had a mixed Portuguese and Spanish population). The problem is that is was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". An editor probably created this name for it.
Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to The Downlink·Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics·Salyut 2
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements.
Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content.
All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details.
Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal.
New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented.
Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it.
Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised.
One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{WikiProject Space}} and {{WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class.
News from Orbit
On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article.
On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles.
On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite.
17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles.
Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space ShuttleChallenger on mission STS-51-L.
Article News
It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight.
Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain.
Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.
Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited.
The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts.
Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics
There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic.
Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project.
One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative.
To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN.
This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided.
I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content.
Selected Article – Salyut 2
Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission.
The Salyut 2 article describes the station:
“
Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyutspace stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973.
”
The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
I'm trying to improve the material on Cleveland class cruisers, and noticed in working with the ones that had been converted to missile ships that several page names used CL-xx and others used CLG-xx or CG-xx. My understanding of the convention is that the initial designation of the ship is the one used in the title, so have fixed all except USS Little Rock. The current page is USS Little Rock (CG-4) and I want to move that to USS Little Rock (CL-92). That move is disallowed I think because the CL-92 page already exists and CG-4 was a move from it. Can you help?Busaccsb (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fargo class cruiser page
There's some weird spacing going on in the text too the left of the infobox. I can't figure out what is causing it,and have been unable to come up with a work around. Could you take a look?Busaccsb (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·The Charts·Yuri Gagarin
Project News
A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing.
A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles.
The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field.
Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list.
Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved.
A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them).
Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk·contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project.
News from orbit
Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article.
On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission.
The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January.
Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit.
A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating.
The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated.
On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space ShuttleDiscovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank.
At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February.
Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable.
Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria.
Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved.
A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle
Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article.
Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight.
There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories.
Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968.
His article describes him and his spaceflight experience:
On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky.
”
The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot00:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger.
An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project.
User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation.
News from orbit
Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites.
A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space ShuttleDiscovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not.
Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed.
4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data Systemcommunications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew.
On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear.
Article news
Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities.
Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected.
It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user.
Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed.
A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy.
A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain.
A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions.
It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested.
Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list.
Editorial: Direction of the Project
Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project.
Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far.
Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks.
Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.
In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-)
The Charts
Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off.
Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it:
Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage.
The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects :
Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches
Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch
Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred
Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled
The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed.
”
The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mapping the Russian Fleet
Hello
I apologise from the outset if i'm using the wrong message board or place to communicate my message which is just a very broad enquiry. I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor having just made this account for the purpose of making this enquiry. I am really just someone was has benefitted greatly in the past as a wikipedia user when doing researches and wondered if I might contribute in future ?
About 6 months ago, when I discoverd that the current resolution of the Keyhole Satellite photo-imagery used by Google Earth mapping, was now really good enough to locate and accurately identify individual vessels (or at least vessel types) [I have had past professional experience in this area] at all the principal Russian Naval ports, I thought that it'd be an interesting exercise to create a keyhole data file ('.kmz') identifying all the warships in the modern fleet which could be so identified - so that if reading up about either a particular vessel or at least squadron, or vessel class etc. I could then locate its latest clear image on GE, or in reverse could discover information about the particular vessel I was looking at in the GE image.
Several friends, with whom I've shared the file, equally also interested in the topic of fleet deployments as a purely innocent exercise in naval interests & mapping have suggested that it would be very useful if this locational detail could be added as either just earth co-ordinates at least or a 'clikable data source file' - to the respective current Wikipaedia articles dealing with the corresponding vessels/squadron/units etc.
Could this be done ? If so would it be helpful ? I realise of course that this is much more of interest to researches into in current naval deployment matters, rather than military history as such. So if this is not your area of interest, could you ask the right person for me, or point me in their direction ? Thank you.
I have nominated International Space Station for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Penyulap talk16:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated USS Kentucky (BB-66) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.. You are receiving this notice because you are one of three editors with the most edits to the article. Brad (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the WikiProject Military History disucussion page there is talk about a merge and eliminating WP:Espionage altogether. Would like your feedback there. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You or your Bot left a message on User talk:Neonorange
You or your bot left this message in my User talk:Neonorange on 21 January 2009
"Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Boeing 747SP, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia" -MBK004 22:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article concerned is Boeing 747SP
I edited a comment (that I had originally put on User talk:Boeing 747SP) to correct an error of format (replaced my IP address with my username), corrected a typo, and added two words). I characterized my edit completely (see line below copied from Boeing 747SP:talk Revision history).
17:31, 21 January 2009 Neonorange(talk | contribs) m (9,413 bytes) (deleted IP address, added a slash between was and is, added 'three meals')
Could you clarify the comment you or your bot left on User talk:Neonorange?
Hello, MBK004. I see that you are a member of WP:OMT. I am reminding you that there is a discussion [here] about whther or not to award Bahamut0013, a member of OMt who passsed awsay a short while ago, the Titan's Cross in silver. your opinion will be welcome. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts.
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xenotalk14:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated , please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xenotalk15:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.
If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
There are currently 15,862 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 345 unreviewed articles. Out of 439 total nominations, 24 are on hold, 66 are under review, and 4 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article! Even just reviewing one will help!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Social sciences and society (80 articles), Sports and recreation (70 articles), Music (63 articles), Theatre, film and drama (52 articles), and History (41 articles). Please consider reviewing articles within these sections.
There are currently 13 articles up for reassessment at Good Article Reassessment. Please help out and go to WP:GAR and review an article! Remember that anyone can review articles that are listed under "Community Reassessment" even if another user has already listed their opinion...the more opinions, the better!
Member News
There are currently 222 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to all the new members that joined during the past 17 months! If you aren't yet part of WikiProject Good Articles and interested in joining WikiProject Good Articles, go here and add you name. Everyone is welcomed!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
If you haven't done so already, please remember to add your name to this list if you are still interested/active with this WikiProject. If you are no longer interested/active you don't need to add your name anywhere, you're name will be moved into a "inactive participant" list at the beginning of November. Inactive users will not receive future newsletters from this WikiProject via their talk page.
GA Task forces
There is currently not much going on at this time but there is a very large backlog. Until the next backlog elimination drive, please help reduce the number of nominations by reviewing articles and helping other reviewers that may need second opinions.
Thanks to everyone who committed some time to help reduce the nominations backlog during the June-July 2012 backlog elimination drive. Most barnstars have been given out but there are still a few left. Participants that haven't gotten a barnstar yet should get it soon.
Possible Fall/Winter 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive
A discussion is currently being held on the WikiProject's talk page on weather another eliminations drive should take place within the next few months as the last one proved to be extremely successful. Please take the time to go to the the talk page and include your opinion on if you would be interested in taking part in a Fall/Winter 2012 elimination drive.
Good Articles of the Month
Each month, 5 random good articles will be choose to be featured here as the good articles of the month.
Having references included in articles is one of the most important aspects to a good article, let alone Wikipedia! Without them, no one would ever know what is true and what is false and Wikipedia probably wouldn't be where it is today. So this month, I will talk about how to check for references, how reliable they are, and so on and so forth.
The first thing to do when reviewing an nominee is to do a quick scan of the article. One of the things to look for is if the article has references! If you don't see a list at the bottom of the article page, quick-fail it.[2] For newcomers, quick-failing is failing an article when you spot a problem before actually conducting a full review. If you do find a list of references (and in most cases you will) make sure to look through each and every one. If you want to save some time, use this tool as it will tell you if there are any problematic references in the article you are reviewing.
Next, check the reliability and type of the references/sources. In terms of the type of reference, check to see how many primary and/or secondary sources are included. Primary sources are the ones published by the subject of the article. For example, if the subject of the article has to do with the iPhone 4s and the source is published by Apple, it is considered a primary source. Secondary sources are those not published by the subject of the article (or in close relation to it). Newspapers are examples of secondary sources and considered one of the better types to include in the article (not saying primary sources are bad). If you find that most/all of the references are primary sources, notify the nominator about this issue(s) and place the article on hold once you have completed the review. Only in the event that a secondary source can't be found as a replacement, then the primary source can remain. If there is a good mix of primary and secondary sources, that is perfect and no references need to be changed.
Now, reliability. Forums are generally not considered reliable and some blog's may not be reliable either. Newspapers, most sources published by the subject, some blogs, etc. are considered reliable. If you don't know wether the source is reliable, ask for a second opinion. For more info about how to identify wether a reference is reliable or not, visit this article.
Finally, one of the more basic things to look for is that every statement in the article has at least one reference! The only case that a statement doesn't need a reference is when it is common sense that the statement is defiantly true and/or in the case where the statement can't be challenged, as per what Wikipedia says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."
From the Editor
After a long 18 month hiatus, the third volume of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter is here! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue of the newsletter here or on the editors talk page.
Also, Happy Halloween...in advance!!!
PLEASE READ: If you do not wish to receive future WikiProject Good Articles newsletter's on your talk page, please remove your self from this list. If you are viewing this newsletter from the WikiProject Good Articles page or on someone else's talk page and want to receive future newsletters on your talk page, please add your name to the list linked above.
^Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing.
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Second Call)
You are reciving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the first message sent out in September, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The current deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. A third and final message will be sent out during the last week of the clean-up before the deadline. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)
You are receiving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the past two messages sent out in September and October, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. This will be the last message sent out before the deadline which is in 2 days. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012
Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanztalk00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)
Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012
Good Article Nominations Request For Comment
A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here.
At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support.
If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread.
Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. GilderienChat|Contributions03:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.
At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:
This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.
Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.
More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.
I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related content on Wikipedia throughout the month of June. On June 21, there will be a multi-national edit-a-thon, if you wish to participate. Here is the project page for Houston: Wikipedia:Meetup/Houston/Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Ways to help? Create or improve LGBT-related articles, host an edit-a-thon at a local coffeeshop, library or other location, or photograph LGBT culture and history in the Houston area. Visit the project page for more information, and if you are interested in contributing, just add your name to the list of supporters or add the results of your work. Thanks for your consideration! --Another Believer(Talk)20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of the citations needed tag from the Soyuz 7K-L1 article
If anyone managing or "stalking" this talk page for MBK004 is around would they like to checkout the Soyuz_7K-L1 page and see if there are enough changes and references now for the 'citations needed' tag to be removed ? ☭Soviet☭ 12:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Иронгрон (talk • contribs)
I've had a look and the current level of citation in the article does support a decision to remove the tag, which I have done. Any additional reference material can be flagged using the "cn" tag from here on. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!
TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.
If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.
At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.
As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!
As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:
For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.
For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).
The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.
WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.
Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.
Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User group for Military Historians
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
Hi! MBKoo4, I found this template ~ {User:MBK004/Pet peeve|STS-122|-} ~ (I suppose you created it) on a talk page and have put it in my sandbox. I was wondering if you mind that I also use it for applicable reasons? By the way nice to meet you and your stalkers. ~mitch~ (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
