Hi Neopeius - nice to see someone else contributing to the aircraft info here!

I moved the D.510 page to Dewoitine D.510 to bring it more into line with aircraft naming conventions here. The general pattern (apart from US military aircraft) is the manufacturer name followed by the name or number the aircraft is best known by. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft)

You might like to put your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft and check out some of the discussion.

When you add a new aircraft type, you might want to also make sure it's listed on List of aircraft which, for now, is a master list of all the types written up here (and a few others as well waiting to be done). Other aircraft-related lists are:

• List of aircraft manufacturers
• List of aircraft engines
• List of aircraft engine manufacturers
• List of aircraft weapons

The List of aircraft of the Armée de l'Air, as you can see, started out only to list World War II types. All other national lists include all eras, so I thought the French one should do the same - I changed the article title, but no text yet.

The data tables are supposed to contain two columns, one for metric units, the other for Imperial. There are lots of articles to copy from - Messerschmitt Me 262 has a fairly complete example.

One question - where are you getting your images from? Are you sure that they are not copyright?

Regards, --Rlandmann 11:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Neopeius, I wanted to give a more thorough explanation on GA reviews to act as a rough guide on how to improve your articles to get them to that level. I always compare my articles to the GA criteria, and when I feel that they pass, I decide to submit it on the page. As a reviewer, I start every review by posting the criteria:

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I then work through this section by section. Some of them (such as images and stability) are very short, while my "prose is clear and concise" section usually serves as the meat of the review. Not all reviewers do this, but I think it's a good way to keep me honest and make sure that I check all of my boxes while doing the review. If you want some examples of what to expect on a review, check out the reviews for Scott Carpenter, Tom Stafford, Wally Schirra, GOES-16, and Landsat 4 to see what different reviewers are looking for. Hope this helps! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are scholarly and gentle, sir. I'm committed to making all of my articles exemplary, with your help. :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it; the more active WP:SPACEFLIGHT editors, the better. I saw on your user page that you are a professional space historian. What does that entail? May I ask for whom you work (and are they hiring?)? I don't want to doxx you, but I would be interested in reading some of your published work. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered at the interest. I'm on the history committee of the American Astronautical Society, and I've published articles in Quest Space Quarterly, which is the peer-reviewed journal for spaceflight. You can see my works here: [1] Drop me an email when you get there, and I'll be happy to tell you more. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cup of coffee. I've been meaning to get back to extending and improving some of the NASA articles, especially in Heliophysics, which is my specialty. Glad you like ACE! I've been working on it since 1990, and it has been a fantastic mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.r.christian (talk • contribs) 14:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're happy to have you back. It's important to have real professionals working in their fields (and, of course, I'm partial to spaceflight...) Speaking of Heliophysics, I'm working on the SOLRAD series. If you've got any good references for them, I'm all ears! :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a userbox on my userpage that says "This user uses the Wikipedia Citation Tool for Google Books" and has a link to a tool which I use constantly. You can copy this (see below when you edit this page) and paste it somewhere (such as on your userpage):

This user used the Wikipedia Citation Tool for Google Books before it broke in July 2021.

• There's a little explanation on the tool page, but you hafta play with options a bit. Forex, there are options to separate the given name/family name (first name/last name in Western cultures), there's an option to add ref=harv (I recommend it) etc. Copy it, play with it, ask if you have questions. ♦ Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, if you're into science fiction magazines, you might wanna befriend Mike Christie ♦ Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks so much for this. Anything that makes the generation of content easier/less tedious is greatly appreciated! (and I reached out to Mike, thank you :) ) --Neopeius (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use the Wikipedia library card platform to find sources on satellites. I specifically use Newspapers.com religiously. Thought I would let you know in case you want additional sources for your articles. Cheers! Kees08 (Talk) 22:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent. Thank you. I will use any and all resources I can get (though I'm finding I have to limit my time on Wikipedia or I'll just spend all my life here. And I have other writing to do!!!) --Neopeius (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like some help with your article at FAC? I can help address comments if you wish, or I can try to review the article instead. Kees08 (Talk) 08:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am appreciative of any and all help you have time to offer. :) If you want to coordinate in real-time, please hit me up on Discord. --Neopeius (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; I currently have Slack and IRC up, might as well complete the set! I will try setting it up sometime this week. Kees08 (Talk) 23:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Neopeius, thanks for your advice! I've been working some in the Pintle injector page. The header has been improved, I've added images, references, a more complete table of users, and added a TODO's section in the talk page.

History is currently a mess as I work on expanding it, but anyways I wanted to ask you to please take a look at the changes that I already did and please let me know of any further improvements to the sections that have been already worked on

Thanks, 13:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

... for the Vanguard Barnstar. It is much appreciated. I have a slightly childish penchant for barnstars.

I was concerned that I had upset you when my barnstar to you disappeared from your page. Possibly over my use of "disappointment". But then I noticed it on your new Awards page. "Disappointment" as in one works hard on an article, believes it to be up to FA standard, nominates it, and then half a dozen people point out flaws and bits they dislike. I am always disappointed, and I had assumed that this was general; possibly mistakenly.

Your FAC seems to be ticking along. As you say, you may well be able to roll the rest of the series through in its wake. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, goodness no. I am an editor for a living. I very much appreciate the well-deserved scrutiny and excellent comments. And I was very grateful to get your barnstar. I'll walk over glass for a little recognition. :) I'm glad you liked the Vanstar. I've been custom-making awards for the Wikiproject. Thank you so much for your help! --Neopeius (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee! I have a unique (currently) barnstar? Now I feel smug. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment here, my nomination of The Infinity Gauntlet isn't getting much attention. Any suggestions or comments you have would be greatly appreciated, if you have the time. The discussion is here. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Today is packed but I've given it a once-through and it looks solid. I will help you out soon. --Neopeius (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're still interested, I have a new one up for Ashcan copy. It's significantly more brief. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very interested! Unfortunately, I'm about to head to Japan and I'm recovering from carpal tunnel. I promise to help out come September (I know -- a long ways away... I'm sorry :( ) @Argento Surfer: --Neopeius (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you have a safe trip! Argento Surfer (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SOLRAD 1's FAC is looking good and hopefully will get over the line soon. I am impressed at your jumping it into FAC so soon and the progress it has made there.

If you wished to award another editor a barnstar, say the civility barnstar, then you should paste ((subst:Civility Barnstar|1=message ~~~~|2=alt)) onto their talk page, deleting "message" and replacing it with whatever congratulatory message you felt appropriate. IHTTH. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I was just teasing. The dark before dawn. The FA is finally getting attention again. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template ((PD-notice)) after your citation. I have done so for SOLRAD 2. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 22, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 22, 2019.—Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, @Wehwalt:! Thank you. :) (there will be some minor upgrades pending the completion of SOLRAD 2's FAC) --Neopeius (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And on that subject, SOLRAD 2 will run on September 25. Congratulations.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

SOLRAD 1 2 3

Thank you for quality articles around space flight, including today's timely Solrad 1, Solrad 2, Solrad 3 and more, planned to be continued, for Project Vanguard, all from the perspective of a historian, for service from 2004 when you and Wikipedia were young, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness! This flatters me more than I can say. Thank you so much. I am taking a break because I am travelling and resting my hands from carpal tunnel, but I will be getting back to work on Wikipedia by September. It is a pleasure to meet you, @Gerda Arendt: --Neopeius (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to meet you ;) - best wishes for your hands and break! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see SOLRAD 2 on the Main page today, happier about the coincidence that a little article related a bit to flight propulsion that I wrote is on the German Main page today (lower right corner, Schon gewusst? - their Did you know ...?), happiest that I had the honour of having known the person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Gerda! You make me want to write more. :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do so. A year ago, you were recipient no. 2232 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we hold this DYK for the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 mission. There is plan building up to run many DYKs during the week or so starting on July 16. See Template talk:Did you know/Approved#July 16–24 (50th Anniversary of Apollo 11)? Just say the word and I will make sure it happens. If that is not desirable to you, things will proceed as usual. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind. :) It'll be a FA by then anyway. @Coffeeandcrumbs: --Neopeius (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your second FA. Nice work. Relax and enjoy your pie. (But once that is done, I note that SOLRAD 3 is well on its way .) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I do love pie. Sadly, I am going to be out of position for much of the summer, so big projects will have to wait until September. And I've got quite a backlog! Thanks for all of your help. :) @Gog the Mild: --Neopeius (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article SOLRAD 2, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the destruction by range safety officers of the satellite SOLRAD 2 over Cuba in 1960 sparked international protest and compromised American missile security? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/SOLRAD 2. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to reach out and say that I hope you're doing well during the COVID-19 pandemic. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: That's very sweet of you, Captain! Thank you. :) We're actually doing just fine. It's like a long houseboat trip: Great food, great company. I only wish the bookstores were open; my book launches next week! How are you doing? --Neopeius (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the book launch! Are you self-publishing? Will it be available on Amazon? Things are fine for me; Japan is hit hard but Okinawa is relatively safe. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's interesting. And hey, I've got a good friend based on Okinawa right now. I wonder if I could introduce you two :) Here's the link to the publisher We are available in e-book and physical form, from the website, Amazon, and Ingram -- when the bookstores open again, we'll be in a lot. Rediscovery ended up in 330 bookstores before the virus hit. --Neopeius (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've left you a message on the Review page for Elektron (satellite). Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of LES-1 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calistemon (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for your attention! I apologize for submitting the DYK beyond the 7-day window. Things have been...hectic. Also, I was under the mistaken impression that I had 30 days, not 7. Calistemon --Neopeius (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article LES-1, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the communications satellite LES-1, launched in 1965, spontaneously began transmitting again in 2012 after more than 40 years of silence, making it one of the oldest zombie satellites? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/LES-1. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Elektron (satellite program) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elektron (satellite program), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1964 Elektron satellites, launched in pairs to simultaneously measure the upper and lower Van Allen belts, marked the first time multiple satellites were orbited on a single Soviet rocket? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elektron (satellite program). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neopeius! Just noticed that you haven't been as active lately on Wikipedia, and I just wanted to reach out and say that I hope that you're doing well! As someone who is guilty of letting real-life stuff pull him away from editing for awhile, I just wanted to let you know that I hope all is well and any real-life distractions are good ones! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking up on me. It's been really busy. I want to get back to WP but between writing and the new release and Worldcon coming up (and issues with COVID and such) it's been a time. I'm sorry I haven't been doing more. I know I've left a lot of projects half-way undone. :( @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never apologize for for being away from Wikipedia; it only has to take as much time as you let it. You shouldn't feel bad about not being as active as a volunteer encylcopedia writer when you have real life to work with. I'm just happy to see that you and my other Wikipedia friends (really just the who's who of WP:SPACEFLIGHT) are doing well in these pretty unpredictable and scary times. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm excited to be a Who's Who of anything! Thank you. :) @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		WikiProject Notification

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

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to discuss the merge at Talk:Martin_X-23_PRIME#Merger_proposal--Petebutt (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neopeius and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: ((WPMILHIST Announcements)).
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome, @Peacemaker67:!

There is an editor struggling here - Template:Did you know nominations/Sputnik 99 - to source a tall tale. It occurred to me that you may be able to help them out, one way or another. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Way after my time of expertise and library scope, I'm afraid... --Neopeius (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are, my ACR Battle of Inverkeithing is in need of assessors. I am not sure if it is up your street though. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I am happy to help. I don't see that a review is pending. Is this for A or FA? Also, is it a text review you're wanting? If so, please do a comma before dependent clause search first. :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you indicate whether you support the promotion of Lisa Nowak to A-class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lisa Nowak? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7:Support given. I didn't know you had made the corrections. :) --Neopeius (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle-Centaur is languishing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Shuttle-Centaur for want of reviewers. If you could drop by with a few comments, that would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Happy to -- did you see my note re: Spaceflight before 1951? --Neopeius (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just looking at it. What exactly qualifies as a spaceflight? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: For consistency with the other pages, I have logged the flight of every rocket capable of making it past 100km even if individual flights didn't. I summarized the V-2 operational flights because that would have been ridiculous, and I didn't, for instance, include WAC Corporal flights because none ever did or could break the 100km mark. --Neopeius (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7:I am half-done reviewing the article, which is quite good. I'll finish it up tonight and transcribe the fixes into WP. --Neopeius (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly suggest that you add satellite to the names of your satellite articles so that readers will know that that's what they are rather than just a meaningless jumble of letters and numbers. Most of our weapon and equipment articles have titles that include their type like M1911 pistol, 34 cm Mle 1896 naval gun, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: Thank you for the suggestion. I am running it by the Spaceflight community for their thoughts. On the one hand, disambiguation is desirable. On the other hand, OV1-2 isn't likely to be mistaken for anything else. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it does little to inform a reader who stumbles across it what the article's about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One dares hope the picture of a satellite/rocket clarifies the issue some. :) I broached the idea to Spaceflight and the reaction was ambivalent to negative, so I will hold off for now. I do appreciate the suggestion, however, and your help. :) --Neopeius (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neopeius, after initially fixing the GA nominee template, which had formatting issues, I have instead removed the nomination altogether. You are not a significant contributor to the article—as best I can tell you have never edited it at all—and per the GA instructions, Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. (A consultation should typically run seven days to allow editors who don't edit daily to contribute.)

I did read through the article, and I frankly don't think it's ready yet. For example, the lead section completely ignores Crippen after his last spaceflight (see MOS:LEAD for what a lead should contain), there are places where the prose is not encyclopedic and it also sometimes isn't clear and concise, and the article also has too many short one-sentence paragraphs.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions about this, or about the GA process in general. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for your comments. The editor is new and has not learned the process, so I nominated it for him. I actually have edited the article at length, though offline in his sandbox before it came to main space. I'd like the nomination to return, and any issues that need be fixed, the editor is more than willing to implement as part of his learning experience. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neopeius, having just done a copyvio check, I'd be worried about a quickfail if the article is renominated right away: there's too much similarity between the article and the first three sources identified in the check. Even if the material on Wikipedia predates what the editor added or modified, a GA-nominated article needs to be free from significant issues prior to nomination regardless of who added them and when, and this one isn't. I don't think a quickfail would be a useful learning experience. Far better to do more work first so any nomination avoids that fate. Looking at the recent addition, a number of the prose issues I noted in my initial post are from that edit. Once the similarities of the article to its sources have been dealt with (and I'd still advise expanding the lead), I'd recommend making a copyedit request at the Guild of copy editors, to get the article into the best shape possible prior to a new GA nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DynaSoarer: Are the sources he's referring to yours?

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for your input. :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: They are not mine. They are from previous editors. --DynaSoarer (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Violation percentage down to 37.1% and the lead has been expanded. --DynaSoarer (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Neopeius, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Neopeius, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Neopeius, please don't directly edit the main GAN page. The page is rewritten every 20 minutes by a bot, when there are changes, and it puts things in the exact format it expects to find (and other processes that parse that page expect to find). In this case, your two edits were overwritten by the bot, since they weren't correct. New nominations, reviews, status changes, etc., will be handled by the bot. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Thank you. Can you tell me how one indicates how many reviews one has done to the bot? --Neopeius (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is supposed to keep track of it—every time you open a review (only ones you open yourself count), it adds one to your review count. If it miscounts—and that can happen for any number of reasons—it is possible to make manual fixes on the page where the data is stored. Is there an error in your case? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: It didn't count the one I did for HMS Tourmaline, and I know I did one before that (but it might not have been opened by me, just finished). :) --Neopeius (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neopeius, it did count the HMS Tourmaline one. As I noted, the bot runs every 20 minutes or so, and after you opened the review at 18:56, it added the review at 19:02, effectively correcting your edits in the interim, which was where "(Reviews: 2)" came from. Reviews that you finish that you did not open do not count; if you remember which GAN it was I can always check to see and adjust the count if appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I'm afraid I don't, but it's not a big deal. :) Thanks so much! --Neopeius (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Thank you LanceBarber (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LanceBarber: My pleasure, friend! Let me know if you ever need a review or want to collaborate. :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Galactic Radiation and Background, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Galactic Radiation and Background (GRAB) was the first U.S. orbital surveillance program (satellite pictured), revolutionizing American understanding of Soviet air defense radar capabilities? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Galactic Radiation and Background. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Galactic Radiation and Background), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you want to proceed with Template:Did you know nominations/Proton (satellite program), you'll have to transclude it by following the instructions in section III of Template talk:Did you know#To nominate an article. If you don't want to proceed, you may tag the nomination for deletion with ((db-g7)). Note that, normally, a bot would notify you soon after you created the nom page, but you prevented that with a ((nobots)) on your talk page. If you'd like to receive such notices in the future, you may replace ((nobots)) with ((bots|allow=DYKHousekeepingBot)). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandarax: Thank you for this! I think I did it right? --Neopeius (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. It's supposed to go under the date when the article was created or when expansion began or, in your case, when it was designated a Good Article. I've moved it to the correct date: January 4. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandarax: I appreciate that -- the page I saw only went back to January 8, so I put it on the earliest date I could find ^^;;; --Neopeius (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Proton (satellite program), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Proton 3, launched on 24 March 1966, was one of the first satellites equipped to look for quarks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Proton (satellite program). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Proton (satellite program)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 12:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Neopeius/Notes/Echo References, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Daiyusha (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As reviewing administrator, I did not delete it but I moved it to the proper location , your user space at User:Neopeius/Notes/Echo References DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. It must be a bug of the Sandbox manager app. --Neopeius (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC) @DGG: @John Cummings: @JHelzer:[reply]

Neopeius yes, sorry, we spotted and fixed this issue, please grab a new copy from Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser. John Cummings (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Cummings Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Neopeius, sorry the bug made bad pages... John Cummings (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything more to add on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Shuttle-Centaur? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was the only outstanding issue:

• "In retrospect, this would have been the best way forward" A less judgmental word or set of words would be preferable (less costly, less time consuming, etc.)

  The source says it was a mistake not to have gone with Titan IIIE, failing which it was a mistake not to have gone with Shuttle-Centaur. The driver of the whole thing was the decision that all future space launches would use the Space Shuttle. That necessitated everything that followed. There were a lot of undesirable consequences, some of which are detailed in the final section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  How about "In retrospect, doing so would have proven cheaper, faster, and safer than the option ultimately chosen, but..." Also, I suggest swapping the two paragraphs (lead with the shuttle-centaur -- then when you get to this line, you're discussing something already known to the reader rather than leaving it hanging for the reader to find out.) @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've swapped them round, but now the text talks about IUS, then Shuttle-Centaur, then Titan IIIE, before looping back to Shuttle-Centaur again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I still like something other than "best"

  Alright, I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hawkeye7: The new version has a similar issue. Someone reading that knows someone thinks it was a bad idea, but not why unless they solve the mystery further down the page. An explanatory "given the delays and higher costs ultimately involved in using the Shuttle" will fix that up. --Neopeius (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh. Okay, I have added that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: would you be interested in co-nominating Lisa Nowak at FAC? I can only nominate as a co-nom. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the Barnstar! I'd forgotten about the Expertise article, but the issues I talk about there have been a bit of a sore point for several years, so it is really nice to find that someone is supportive! I do understand that WP editors have to go by actions, rather than motive (not being blessed with telepathy), but their actions in my case seemed rather extreme!

Since I am banned, a student of Flow-Based Programming (FBP) in Italy has offered to bring the article up to date, as there has been a lot of activity in the field over the last few years - in fact asynchronism is getting to be accepted as a foundational aspect of the new IT... I hope that the trolls in England will not decide that this is "sock puppetry". I guess it is too much to hope for that I might get my "Notable" status back... but the Barnstar makes a big difference! Thanks so much! Jpaulm (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I am sorry the experience has been unpleasant for you. I shan't pry. --Neopeius (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to pry - nothing I'm ashamed of! BTW I have just discovered we share SF interests! I have just discovered a trove of digitized old Analog, IF and Galaxy magazines from around the '50s! In dire need of editing, but I remember some of those covers - from when I was 12! Fantastic! Jpaulm (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do :) I run Galactic Journey. I'd be delighted to continue this conversation via e-mail, if you're so inclined: gideon@galacticjourney.org --Neopeius (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your content creation. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Gog the Mild and User:Hawkeye7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Neopeius has been an editor for quite awhile but has been very busy over the past two years. Creating content with an emphasis on spaceflight (such as SOLRAD 1), but also ranging widely with two FAs and eight GAs and more in the works. Over 52% of edits are to mainspace. A fine encourager and mentor of newer Wikipedians. A strong voice for civility and positive reinforcement at WP:WikiProject Spaceflight. A seasoned, mature voice of reason that inspires other editors to do likewise.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

((User:UBX/EoTWBox))

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 13:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]