This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nasa-verve. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
For your recent timely report of an error made by xenobot during task 6.1, I award you the Bug Squashers' Award for Excellence in bug squashing efforts. Thank you for catching this error so quickly! –xenotalk14:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hoagland at Goddard
I'm one of the editors of the article on Richard C. Hoagland. Do you have any way of researching his claim that he was a NASA Goddard consultant at one time? More info, including a link to an image of his temporary ID badge, is here. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Ill look around and see what I can find. That image of his badge looks pretty suspicious to me. And if it is real, it does not mean much, just being a contractor at NASA does not mean that you speak for NASA. The janitors have NASA contractor badges.... Nasa-verve (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nasa-verve, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Generation we has been removed. It was removed by Bmswan with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Bmswan before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
In the future, please consider letting the creator of the article (and substantial editors) know, when you nominate an article for deletion. See more here. Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I knew nothing of this past history, so if a decision has already been reached I can respect that. It would be nice though if knowledgable people could propose fixes and create a path to a accurate diagram instead of just propping up deletionist tendencies. Nasa-verve (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's removal wasn't so much based upon inaccuracies so much as it was considered to be original research as the diagram was not published elsewhere (in a peer-reviewed journal). --Thoric (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I just read that discussion. The consensus would seem to be that not only does the diagram constitute original research (which, unfortunately, is enough reason to exclude it), it also has some inherent factual problems. Really, even the basic premise of this chart, that stimulant and depressant effects or psychedelic and antipsychotic effects are ultimately mutually exclusive is unsourced. Even if this is assumed, we can't expect to be able to plot all (or any) psychoactive drugs on a chart like this, since their effects will vary significantly depending on dose (many, many drugs behave like a stimulant at low doses and like a depressant at high doses, and vice versa), person (everyone's brain chemisty is different and this is often acknowledged and taken advantage of when prescribing drugs), and countless other factors. Personally I have a keen interest in pharmacology and would frankly love it if a classification like this could be produced, but we have to be realistic.. – Acdx (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The "factual problems" are not agreed upon. Some people have issues with some of the placements, and others do not. Of course there are going to be differences of opinion, but substances are placed under their medically accepted groupings -- these are not to be contested (nobody is debating that cocaine is a stimulant or not) -- it is the overlaps of course that raise eyebrows, and perhaps a venn diagram is not the best representation. If you're going to argue that no drug should be classified into any of these categories (stimulant, depressant, etc), then there is absolutely chance at discussing more complicated categorization. --Thoric (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
What's so effective about Wikipedia's 'no original research' policy is that these factual problems don't really need to be agreed upon at all. Until someone publishes definitions for what "various degrees of sedation" mean or where different psychoactive drugs rank on such scales, all guesses are equally pointless.
A personal note about the diagram itself: It's a fact that only a small fraction of drugs can be trivially assigned a position on a diagram like this. Cocaine, which you happened to mention, may be one of them. Most drugs might occupy some sort of region on this graph, with various conditions describing different areas (dose-dependent, tolerance or duration of treatment dependent, patient's brain chemistry or metabolism dependent, etc.) – Acdx (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
MTV Generation
Hi,
As you have shown an interest in the subject in the past, I was hoping you could comment on the current discussion at Talk:MTV Generation. I am hoping to finally settle the validity of the topic of the MTV Generation for Wikipedia. There have been two previous nominations for deletion, here, and here.
Those discussions chose to keep the article, with the caveat that the article would have to be "cleaned up" and purged of original research. Coming up to four years after the original request for deletion, I see little evidence that this has been accomplished. The article is still rife with unsourced claims and speculation. MTV Generation is a term in use around the internet, but it is "not clearly definable, and has different meanings to different people," wikipedia's own description of a neologism, which it clearly says are to be avoided.
Based on my search of available internet sources, I cannot find any single authoritative definition of the term. I believe that the article currently fails WP:NEO. To quote: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)
Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles."
I have no axe to grind against this term, but I think it is high time that we included some actual sources to support its claims. I have made an honest effort to find some, that talk about the term MTV Generation, rather than simply mentioning it, but have failed to do so. If you can find some I would really appreciate if you could present some, as I would like to settle this issue soon. Otherwise, if you could simply comment on the potential for this article I would be grateful. Thank you very much.
I see you put a standard infobox into Moomin in place of the non-standard one that was there, and I thought I would let you know why the non-standard box was there. There was some time ago a spate of repeatedly replacing correct references to Swedish by incorrect references to Finnish. At least some of the changes were made by an editor whose edit history elsewhere shows Finnish-nationalist and anti-Swedish tendencies. A suggestion was made that this disruptive editing might stop if the Finnish translation were given some prominence. The standard infobox does not, as far as I know, have any facility for listing translations into two different languages, so a custom-made box was used. I never liked the custom box, and I also never liked the idea of giving special attention to the Finnish translation, which is no more significant than translations into any other language. Nevertheless, since the custom box was put in place the disruption does not seem to have continued. I propose to leave the (much better) infobox you have substituted for the time being, but if the trouble starts again I shall restore the custom box. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:General Dynamics Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of NASA Headquarters, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.education.com/partner/articles/nasa. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:5790 play.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:5790 play.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan(Talk)19:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Rim957-messenger.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rim957-messenger.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan(Talk)19:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You put a {{Cleanup}} tag on this article shortly after it was started. I have added some content, but there is a lack of good sources. Perhaps you could put a note on the article's discussion page saying what you think should be done. Otherwise it is sort of like flagging the article with "I don't like it". Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Nasa-verve. I'm from Azerbaijan and I hope that you can help me. I want to find photo of Ibragimov crater, which was made by NASA. I find photo of this crater in AZERBAIJANI ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL, but I don't know can we upload it to commons (photo possibly made in Shamakhi Astrophysical Observatory). Do U know is there any photo of this crater by NASA, and can we upload it to commons? --Interfase (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Page moves
Please use the move tab to move or rename pages, not cut & paste. This is easier (it creates the redirect for you), but more importantly it also preserves the edit history. That's a requirement of the GFDL that applies to Wiki content. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I just discovered the NASApedia conversation and would like to learn more and to help! I work at NASA Ames Research Center. Let's talk!
Pmjones (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)pmjones
This Image Was NOT Taken in 1994 (it was really taken in 2000) Because It says on the bottom of the image that the page was last edited in 6 November 2000. I Also See That This Sayes PHP WIKI in the Top of the image, However, WikiWikiWeb Is A Perl-Based Wiki (NOT A PHP-Based Wiki). This Interface Was Never On WikiWikiWeb. this page Is The WelcomeVisitors Page In WikiWikiWeb On 4 February 1998 & here Is The WelcomeVisitors Page In WikiWikiWeb On 4 June 2002. The Interface is The Same On Bolth (& All Points in the middle.) (also note WikiWikiWeb Was Not Lanched until 1995)--S1312 (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Usairmailstamp-C68.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Usairmailstamp-C68.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
Fair use rationale for File:Lemonadestand-Page24 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lemonadestand-Page24 1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Fcnuts.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fcnuts.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Laser-mic-diagram.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
So here it is: My five-colored, five-pointed, five fingers typedhandwritten barnstarfor your creating of much needed WP-documentation.-DePiep (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When copying content from public domain sources, please be sure to acknowledge that duplication in a manner consistent with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. While citing your source certainly shows no intention to deceive, the community consensus is that full disclosure to our readers requires acknowledging explicitly when content was authored elsewhere. There are a number of attribution templates that can help with this. When copying content from NASA, {{Include-NASA}} serves. It can be expanded to include additional information or used by itself, so long as a more complete reference is offered with the text. I've added this template to the article above; you can see where and how it is placed by looking there.
With respect to that article, I'm afraid that I have not been able to confirm that all of the text is public domain, and some of it has been removed pending more specific identification. Please see that article's talk page. If we can verify PD status, the content can be restored with the proper attribution.
As a general note, it is helpful, where possible, to link references to the specific page on which information can be found rather than to a compendium page. I have not removed the link you originally provided, but I have added a link to a specific page from which most of the text seems to have been taken (or at least on which it appears). This can help readers quickly verify the accuracy of information for themselves and can also help clear up later copyright confusion in case, as in this case, the original reviewer cannot locate the precise text on a PD source.
I'll be watching the article and your talk page for a time, in case there is further conversation on the matter. Please feel free also to come by my talk page. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
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.
You, and your alter-ego, Jonverve appear to have done most of the editing on the List of United States airmail stamps. We recently had some discussion here on the use of stamp catalog numbers, such as Scott or Stanley Gibbons numbers and the possible overuse that could be construed as copyright violations. This article was specifically mentioned and I had a look at it with the view of removing all the Scott numbers but due to the complex table formatting, and additional information under each Scott number, I though I would ask you to remove them instead of my messing up the tables or removing too much text. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I read through some of the discussion. If the decision is reached to remove the scott numbers, all you have to do is edit the template which is used as the header for each table -- and just remove that column. There are two table headers, one which includes a column for number of stamps issued and one without...just make sure to update both. I'd help but I don't have much time to help on wikipedia for the next few months.
I don't watch every talk page, so missed your reply, though I usually drop a {{talkback}} notice to the postee. Anyway, if I were to remove the column as you suggest then all the plate number header info would be lost, so, as I did not know that was your suggestion, I have remove individual numbers from each table as well as the entry in the header templates. BTW, just removing the header entry does not remove the actual catalog number. If you get time check it out and fix as necessary. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Lincoln Lab Logo.gif
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Lincoln Lab Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
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.
I liked the template {{Tl-nav}} you created. I made a small edit to it. Will you add {{Tlp}} and {{Tlps}} also? And why do you have {{Lts}} and {{Tlxb}} below as see also's? And what about {{Tlb}}, which is the "father" of {{Tlxb}}? Debresser (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:Warchivenav
Imho, the comments you added back are awkward and unnecessary, and also distracting (navigation templates are meant to allow for quick overview and links, which purpose is defeated when we start to add comments). Just my two cents. --87.78.137.133 (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Do remember though, that these are meta-nav templates, so they are for power users, by definition, so the purpose is slightly different than nav templates for general WP users. Nasa-verve (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Lincoln Lab Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Lincoln Lab Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ukexpat (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Back in April 2011 I removed all the Scott numbers that you had added to List of United States airmail stamps following the consensus reached at the discussion about the extensive use of copyright numbering system as a copyright violation, but with this edit a few months ago, described in your edit summary as general cleanup, you added them all back appears to ignore the consensus on the matter. I removed them again today, so please do not readd them. You are of course welcome to improve the list in other ways like cleaning up the other details that are still in the column you used for the Scott numbers. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately/Archive 8#Catalog numbers as references. We don not accept copyright violations and the opinion of Moonriddengirl, who is one of Wikipedia's most experienced copyright experts should be enough for you. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Honest mistake! Sorry, I totally forgot about the Scott numbers being in violation. But I went back and read through our discussions from 2 years ago. Thanks for fixing it. Won't happen again! Nasa-verve (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem at all. An occasional catalogue number may be ok as fair use, especially in individual stamp articles, but extensive use is not good. Some of the details in List of United States airmail stamps may need tidying after I removed the numbers from the article. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Mrs. Incnis, Having been in the situation of needing to know the context of binary encoding methods, I think its pretty relevant to have an About Template to clarify. I agree with your use of WP:NOTBROKEN. Cheers! Nasa-verve (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nasa-verve, thanks for taking an interest in the article on the Tower of London. I wondered if you might reconsider using an infobox. They can be useful, but for a building of this type with such a complex history I'm not sure it can be condensed into a handful of infobox fields. The Tower's history goes back 950 years, with regular additions, renovations, and remodelling from its foundation until the modern period, so saying it was built in the Middle Ages doesn't tell the full story. Similarly, there are many architectural styles involved and to describe a structure built in the Middle Ages as an example of the Gothic revival is conflicting as it was only developed in the 18th century.
Then we have information on the Tower as a World Heritage Site. The field for criteria aren't particularly helpful as there is no explanation what they relate to. The fact it's a cultural site isn't particularly informative to someone coming to the article for the first time. Arguably it's worth including the year it was designated, but when writing the article that information was not considered important enough for the lead (though is in the main body of the article) so I'm not sure highlighting it in the infobox is worth the trouble. While the articles on the Palace of Westminster and St Margret's Westminster carry the same infobox, I would argue that they are similarly uninformative.
I'd like to remove the infobox because I think it ultimately oversimplifies things and promotes information which is not important enough to be at the top of the article, but I don't want to get into an edit war about this. There are some useful infoboxes out there, but the World Heritage Site one is amongst the least useful, and overall I don't think a building with as complex a history as the Tower can be satisfactorily reduced to the size of an infobox. What do you think? Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for you message here. I took out the details about the WHS, because I agree they are marginally helpful, at best. But I would like to discuss keeping the infobox, but perhaps modifying what data it contains. Here is a proposed implementation. Please let me know what you think. Nasa-verve (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I could claim it was a labour of love, but with such a vivid history it was quite fun to read about.
Your proposed infobox is a great improvement on the WHS one, so if you want to add it I won't object. Thanks for coming up with something, I have very little experience of editing templates so wouldn't have known where to start. Nev1 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Future Crew Logo usage in Russian article about Second Reality demo
Hello, I'm making a translation of English article about Second Reality demo and ask you for permission to use this file in Russian article. Ренат Насыров (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Second-reality-screen.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Second-reality-screen.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colleen Hartman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Frontiers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Line code may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Unfortunately, several long-distance communication channels have polarity ambiguity.{{fact}
Thanks for uploading File:Finder10.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Looks like there were a few careless mistakes in edits where good images were removed along with deleted image comments. See this link. Please do not remove the following files, all of which you tagged with {{di-orphaned fair use}} which no longer applies.
Thank you for doing a bunch of work making the Wikipedia better.
I'm a little confused about one recent edit:
I see you slapped a bunch of {{fact}} tags on the "line code" article.
Most Wikipedians use that particular tag when they find a statement so surprising that they suspect it is not true.
After line coding, the signal is put through a "physical channel", either a "transmission medium" or "data storage medium".
Most line codes eliminate the DC component – such codes are called DC-balanced, zero-DC, DC-free, zero-bias, DC equalized, etc.
It seems to me that those sentences simply summarize the definition of channel (communications) and DC-balanced from the corresponding articles.
Do you think the definition in those other articles also incorrect? Or do you think their definitions are correct, but the line code article doesn't correctly summarize them?
Hi David. I inserted those {{fact}} tags on that article because I was trying to move forward the activity of providing Inline citations. That way someone could take the action of inserting inline citations where I placed the fact tags. They may not be in the right places, but I do have an EE background, so I put some thought into where I put them, but not a ton. Does that help? If you want to remove them, I have no heartache with that, but someone will eventually have to insert Inline citations in the article somewhere to help substantiate the claims made. Cheers! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. That template makes it look much better.
p.s: After reading the "Line and paragraph breakage" section of Wikipedia:Text editor support, I started always putting a carriage return immediately after each <ref> tag and immediately before each </ref> tag that I add to an article. I see that many people delete those carriage returns -- such as in the edit you pointed out.
Deleting those carriage returns makes no visible difference to people reading the article normally. So I am mystified. Why do those people go to the effort of deleting those carriage returns? --DavidCary (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Finder (software) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
){kind=link}
