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)

On 28 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Solrad 1, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Solrad 1 was the first satellite to successfully observe solar X-rays? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Solrad 1), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... 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]

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, SOLRAD 2), 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, LES-1), 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, Elektron (satellite program)), 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]

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]

Hi! I had completely fogotten about this interaction - abject apologies! I guess it was a busy time, and the memory is not what it used to be! On another topic, I was looking at my father's WP entry - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rodker - and noticed that my name was still redlinked. I feel this was pretty dumb, 7 years after my "crime", so I have taken the liberty of removing the doubled square brackets altogether, so my first names just appear in normal font! IMHO the redlinking was totally unreasonable, as I was promoting Flow-Based Programming (FBP), not myself, and I don't like the implication that I did something unethical. FBP is now becoming well-known worldwide, so it doesn't need any more promotion by me! Personally, I don't need to be a "notable", although it would have been nice, but I didn't want people researching my father to follow the link to me, and see that I had committed this heinous crime. I'd really like your reactions to this... Thanks in advance! Jpaulm (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I.. wha.. how..

Goodness. Thank you. Truly.

@Gog the Mild: @Hawkeye7: @Buster7: --Neopeius (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Rocketry ended earlier this month. I revived it on 17 April 2021. You are welcome to help with it. It is currently considered semi-active. If edits continue often, please replace it with active. You are also invited to edit Draft: Wikipedia:WikiProject SpaceX (company) and add your username to the members list. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Project Coordinator of WikiProject Rocketry, I want to thank you for your hard work on rocketry articles. I am looking a volunteer for Assistant Project Coordinator. Would you be interested? 64.121.103.144 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the offer. I'm afraid I'm not up for the position. What did you envision would be the duties of the role (and of the Project Coordinator as well)? --Neopeius (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As project coordinator, I manage the project and mostly edit the main page. The assistant coordinator would manage the talk page and any other tasks he or she chooses or the project coordinator wants him or her to do. Are you sure you wouldn't like to be the assistant? If not, do you know anyone who would want to? 64.121.103.144 (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do admire your zeal! I'm already Project Coordinator on the Timeline Project (which is to say that I keep the table updated) and I have a few friends I help with early spaceflight articles. I wouldn't be up for anything formal, I'm afraid. I'd love to chat, though, if you want to hit me up on Discord. :) You can find me at Galactic Journey#0837 --Neopeius (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me any usernames of people you think might want to become assistant project coordinator? Please ping me. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even imagine any who'd be interested in WP: Rocketry (it's semi-active for a reason...) @64.121.103.144: --Neopeius (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Shuttle-Centaur for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shuttle-Centaur/archive1, but given that my last FAC was archived for lack of reviewers, I though I would put out a call. Since you already reviewed the article at A-class, if you could drop by with a few comments, that would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. Might have to wait until next week. I am swamped! --Neopeius (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the project coordinator of WikiProject Rocketry. I used to be the IP adress in the Great Job! section. I know that you do not want to be my assistant, but could you help with editing the pages of it? I am working with @JackReynoldsADogOwner to make it active again. Please help! Starship SLS (formerly IP 64.121.103.144) (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to see you have a name now! It makes things easier, particularly for pinging. I'm afraid my focus shall remain on satellites, but I'll post progress if/when I work on rocket articles again. Good luck! --Neopeius (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that I nominated you for Rocketry Editor of the Year? If you know someone who would be a good choice, please nominate him. Also, why did you remove the barnstar I sent you? StarshipSLS (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. :) I put all the awards on my awards page so I can enjoy them together! :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Do you know any user you could nominate to be Rocketry Editor of the Year? StarshipSLS (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not off the top of my head, but if you go to your favorite articles and see who's done the most recent work, I'm sure someone will spring to mind! --Neopeius (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule Change:

Nominations: Ended

Voting: Until May 31

StarshipSLS (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Neopeius! The article you nominated, Lisa Nowak, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I just nominated and reviewed it. I didn't do the work! :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neopeius, you are down on the nomination - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa Nowak/archive1 - as the lead nominator. You actually submitted the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I did, but only because Hawkeye asked me to! I don't even remember why. Anyway, it's definitely his FA, not mine. But hey, if you want to look at any of my other candidates... ;) --Neopeius (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Noted, and thanks for the information. The message above is automatically generated by the bot when a FAC passes and is posted on the talk pages of the FAC's nominator(s). You can either leave it here - it is doing no harm - or delete the template if you feel that it is "false advertising". Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:I figured. I'll just leave it here rather than moving it to my lovely trophy room. ;) I hope you are well! --Neopeius (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neopeius, good thanks. The trophy room is looking pretty impressive. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and @CRS-20 are now the Rocketry Editors of the Year! Congratulations! You are one of only two editors who received the first ever Rocketry Editor of the Year award! A template will be given to you in the future.

StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 16:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Anymore comments? StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 18:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need? --Neopeius (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really need a lot of help at the project. Only me and my mentor edit the project so I really need more users to help. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got two folks active on the project, you're actually doing well. Give it time. You will meet people as time goes on, either offline or coming onto WP to edit rocketry articles. When they do, that's when you can let them know there's an organized effort going on. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you can help me at all? It is really not enough to have only two users editing the project. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 18:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, I will be editing rocketry articles as I come across them in my work on early spaceflight. I haven't had time for even the most basic WP work lately. You can keep noodging me, but it won't get more out of me. :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let me know if you change your mind. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 18:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Initial Defense Communications Satellite Program you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Initial Defense Communications Satellite Program you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Initial Defense Communications Satellite Program for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Initial Defense Communications Satellite Program you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Initial Defense Communications Satellite Program for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neopeius, this is regarding the GA process for the infobox of the Space Race article. The GA nominator JustinTime55 has told me "the article is under formal review for Good Article by a third party. This is a formally defined proceedure with which you must become familiar; a casual "hey, what do you think?" doesn't cut it. You should not change the infobox unless asked to by me or the reviewer."

My infobox draft is hanging in the talk page, and I'd like to get your feedback on whether there are aspects which might negatively impact the GA consideration.

One of the Space Race's key people, von Braun, working for the U.S., came from Nazi Germany, reflected in my draft, and Justin was quite critical of it initially. For me I think it reflects a lot of information about historical developments, von Braun's talent was cultivated in Nazi Germany, he chose to live and work under Hitler's regime, his work was financed by the regime, for the war effort, and after Nazi Germany's defeat, he had to run to the Americans because his country had totally brutalized the Soviet Union, giving the Americans an edge over the Soviets with their new German workforce.

And it's also about WW2, how the two powerful Allies of the USA and the USSR emerged from WW2 to become bitter rivals, of which the Space Race was a major part of. The Cold War world order grew directly out of WW2, as Europe was weakened, America emerged on top, and the Soviets had conquered much of former Nazi conquest and established the Warsaw Pact and the Eastern Bloc, so I guess even a small flagicon can reflect a great deal of important history. Halo FC (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinTime55:, @Halo FC: Hi. I don't have a problem with your infobox, per se, though Von Braun and Faget were Americans at the time of the initiation of the Space Race (1955) so while I understand the rationale for highlighting Von Braun's Nazi past (believe me -- me more than most people), it's not appropriate there -- both Von Braun and Faget's flags should just be U.S. In any event, far more important than an updated infobox is getting the text reduced by nearly 50% as the article is too long as it is. While the Space Race is part and parcel with the Cold War and the ICBM race, it is a specific subset of both of those, and we don't to fully recapitulate the other two larger subjects on this one. That's the first step. Let's work this out and argue about infoboxes later. :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mariner 1 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mariner 1 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Mariner 1 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday 14 August 2021: San Diego in-person Wikimania 2021 mixer

You are invited to the San Diego in-person Wikimania 2021 mixer on Saturday 14 August, from 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm at American Legion Albert J. Hickman, Post 460, in Kearny Mesa, San Diego. Join Wikimedians from San Diego, and from throughout Southern California, at one of a few in-person events happening throughout the world to commemorate the virtual Wikimania 2021. Visit our event page for more information at your convenience. We hope to see you there! --RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neopeius. I'm just posting to let you know that Spaceflight before 1951 – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for September 6. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: That's lovely, thank you! With luck, it'll still look good. There's an IP who felt obliged to make it...less pretty...recently. I've reverted it and asked him not to do it again. We shall see... :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You recently posted a concern about my recent edits to the timeline of spaceflight. I do agree, however, it is not very useful to have the timeline of spaceflight box be at the bottom (below the references), as the average reader stops reading at the references, and would not see it. @Neopeius:

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neopeius! Now that Mariner 1 is a GA, have you thought about nominating it for DYK? I feel like it would be a very good candidate, because of the hook about the spacecraft being detonated based on a simple error. Mover of molehills (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mover of molehills: Hello! Yes, I have in fact done just that. :) I am a glory hound so I always find a way to DYK my GAs... ;) Let me know if you have anything of yours you'd like me to review. One good turn... --Neopeius (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you have separate totals for U of Iowa and NRL Deacon Rockoons? Aren't they the same rockets with different operators? --Sotakarhu (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. Same reason I have separate V2 totals by operator (or at least, nation). The Aerobees get split naturally by designation. The rockoons don't so I made the distinction. --Neopeius (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An OCD thing I've been struggling with: The (default) order to list countries/rockets. Let's say for maiden flights in the infobox: List alphabetically by rocket? Alphabetically by country, then rocket? List by maiden launch date? Group by country first? I don't have a huge preference, but I can't tell if there is a preferred convention out there, and would love to have a guideline to follow. Next is the pie chart. pie chart 101 tells me I should order the slices by size, but the adjacent list could be something else. Alphabetically or by number of launches (my preference). The rocket lists are much more complex in later years, but how about it? Pure alphabetical seems to be popular, but I like the way we've grouped by country. I've been following a scheme sort of like this I guess: Group by country by order of earliest maiden flight of current rockets, then by rocket family by order of earliest maiden flight, then by rocket in order of maiden flights. The bar graph should follow this same order. --Sotakarhu (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OCD -- the struggle is real! The solution you've hit on for the maidens and retireds is the one I would have suggested.

Which is? ;)

Haha -- for the Maidens and Retireds, by date. --Neopeius (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've come to a solution, just options. Thinking about it, I think I like my convoluted final order for all lists, generally ordering by maiden flights, grouping by nation, rocket family, then individual rocket, and finally maybe rocket configuration alphabetically. As you say, it tells the narrative, and seems to keep it in an order that feels logical. I think it will also keep everything mostly in the order you suggest below and how it is currently, though it will not always end up alphabetical (e.g. The R-1 lists before the A-1)

The pie chart is an exception. It really should be in size order (number of launches) unless there is a good reason to go otherwise. That would work fine, but it could also follow the 'maiden flight' rule above, which would keep countries in the same narrative order year after year within the pie chart. The country list could stay in 'maiden flight' order either way. You can always alphabetize it by clicking the table since it's sortable. Should I just go for it and if you want me to change it later, it's no problem. As is, not much will change in these early years, but it gives a set of rules to follow. --Sotakarhu (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worry about it in later articles. We can reshuffle deck chairs after. :) I'm looking forward to you doing 1955 and then I'll do the head (reverse order to how we've been doing it) since you enjoy the tabling more than I do. Fair warning -- the later articles are in worse shape... --Neopeius (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the rocket lists, I like how we have it now. V-2 first, followed by V-2 derivatives, followed by American rockets in alphabetical order, followed by Soviet rockets in alphabetical order, followed by everyone else. I know it's superpower-centric, but it also matches the narrative. It also keeps things in their relative positions between articles rather than jumping around depending on number of launches.

It's not a huge deal to me, but I also don't know that it's worth changing. I do appreciate you bringing it up! --Neopeius (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need some new colors, check my Talk page. --Sotakarhu (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a second column to the rockets with my attempt at proposed changes and updated 1955 with these colors, let me know what you think. --Sotakarhu (talk) 08:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated --Sotakarhu (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sotakarhu: I can't really tell what you did, but just make some graphs and I'll let you know if I have trouble distinguishing the colors. :)

1955 is done. If you like the colors, I'll back fill them to the previous years. --Sotakarhu (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1956 is done. --Sotakarhu (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sotakarhu: It looks great -- is there a particular reason you changed the R-1/R-2 colors? Regarding the other colors, I'd swap the Aerobee-Hi colors (NRL should be a deeper blue than the Air Force) and I wouldn't make the Honest John, an American rocket, a shade of brown/red since it looks like a Soviet rocket then. Something in the greens, tying it with the Army, makes more sense. --Neopeius (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check my talk page for my color schemes. The R-1s are based on the soviet's 'html brown', the R-5s on the yellow found on the flag, and blending between the two colors ends up being a dark orange, which is the basis for the R-2s. If you prefer, I could darken the orange a shade which makes it more brown. It's not the red spectrum I think you envisioned, but red will make more sense for China in the future, so I tried to keep the Soviets brown or dark red. I needed more colors, so I leaned toward yellow. I try to match the color brightness in a way that the rockets generally increase in brightness vertically within the same color family. The Navy Aerobee Hi is still in the dark blue spectrum of the Navy designations and the Air Force Hi is in the sky blue spectrum, though you are correct that the air force is a darker hue. This leaves room for the AJ10-27/34/25 Air Force variants to be brighter when stacked on top of the USAF Aerobee Hi. In the Navy line, the Aerobee Hi is the last one, and brightest. Once we move to the 150/300/etc., I'll come up with a new spectrum. The Honest John rockets were often painted red, which is where I took the color from. I debated on this, but I liked it since it fit the rocket, the soviets are more brown/orange/yellow, and it will die out by the mid-70s. I figured there would be a lot more army rockets/missiles that need green in the future, but I'm not familiar with them (yet). I'm going to go ahead and change the previous years to the colors on my talk page, if that's alright with you, once we settle this thread. One last thing, which tan do you like better for the UK: 'tan' or 'British Khaki'? --Sotakarhu (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see your logic on making USSR brown instead of red. I'm confused about the Aerobee Hi (NRL) -- it looks really pale. Other than that, I think your colors are fine, though I miss my pinks. :) --Neopeius (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at 1955 for a better example. I can darken it by about 5% and still keep enough contrast with the next rocket down, but it looks about the same in the end --Sotakarhu (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sotakarhu: Oh I see what the issue is. The Air Force is all kinds of teal isn't it? I think I see some green in the mix? And the Navy is all kinds of blue, but different brightness. So you're differentiating with hue rather than chroma. Which is fine, but to a color blind person like me, it instead looks like you've mix and matched :) That's why I tried to keep the Navy rockets lower chroma and the Air Force higher chrome, both using shades of blue. --Neopeius (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes, different hues for Navy/Air/Army/Rocket Families, different chroma for rockets in the same family. Chroma may not be right, I'm not a graphic artist, but basically taking the color and lightening (fade to white) or darkening (fade to black) it. Air Force is 'Sky Blue' lightened and darkened, Navy is 'American Blue', Army is 'Army Green'. The only Army Aerobees so far are the XASR-SC ones, so yeah, a little green in the 1956 list. I can't think of a better way to have 20-30 contrasting colors in the same chart and I have no clue how to design this kind of thing to be color-blind friendly without being able to use some stripes or patterns. --Sotakarhu (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see what you're doing, I think it's fine. Because you've kept the order consistent, it works. Damn us color blind people anyway! Go ahead and redo the older pages if you like. And since '55 and '56 are done, I'll start thinking about doing the heads. I haven't been as active on WP because it's been very busy and also my tennis elbow is acting up, making protracted computer use painful. But I suspect I will have some bandwidth in December. Thanks so much for what you're doing! --Neopeius (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1957 is done. --Sotakarhu (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sotakarhu I saw you were working on it, thank you! I am making my way through the ERS satellites (so I can finish OV) and 1956 and 57 are next on my list after that. --70.181.219.104 (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neopeius! I nominated Space Shuttle Challenger disaster up at FAC several weeks ago. If you could provide some feedback; it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best. I've had one day off in three weeks so I may be comatose... :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Neopeius! The list you nominated, 1951 in spaceflight, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neopeius. You have new messages at Talk:Apacheta-Aguilucho volcanic complex.
Message added 11:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As shown in the topic's title, I am writing about SpaceX Starship that I'm sure you know exactly what it is. I am not exactly a spaceflight expert though. So, because you would certainly be more knowledgeable than I am in rockets, I think you are perfect to scan the article and find what aspects of the rocket that I've missed. Thank you in advance, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CactiStaccingCrane I'm afraid modern rockets are beyond my ken, and I avoid Musk-related stuff on principle. But thank you for thinking of me! :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's ok then. Good luck on your journey at writing about old space rockets and satellites! I really do enjoy reading your work. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think you may be interested with the WP:Constellation program, where currently articles about private spaceflight gets improved. Happy editing, Starship SN20 (talk) 021:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC) @Neopeius[reply]

@Starship SN20: Nope. I only do historical stuff. I also don't think Constellation will ever fly, either. It's been 18 years... Thanks for the invitation! --Neopeius (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best, Gerda! --Neopeius (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December songs

happy new year

(blushing) Thank you for the nice message on my talk. Another came in there today, about peace. It's my greatest wish, and was mentioned in my first question for the arb candidates (but they didn't see where it's missing among users). Please vote if you haven't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I'm always game to help you out, but I'm out of the loop. I don't know what "infobox wars" means. --Neopeius (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I wanted to hear ;) - I don't need help there, do your things! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We sang Charpentier's delightful Messe de minuit pour Noël today, a first for me, pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today, pictured, the soprano of our choral concert of the year. More in the context: User talk:Gerda Arendt#DYK for Talia Or, in case of interest. - Enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's amazing! Thank you for sharing. :) Your holiday cheer was really welcome yesterday. --Neopeius (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - a bit more --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend! I noticed you've been gone for a bit from editing Wikipedia; hope all is well! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: Yup, just busy and nursing my hands. I did do a big overall of ERS and OV, getting them B-worthy. I am taking a sabbatical from work/writing starting November, and I plan to do a lot over a couple of months then. I'm not leaving, promise! How're you? What are you working on? --Neopeius (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! Wasn't trying to guilt you in to coming back; I just wanted to check in and make sure all is well. I'm good! I just moved back to the US from England, so currently trying to get settled! I'm working to get Space Shuttle Columbia disaster up to FA, with hopes of getting it as the TFA on February 1, 2023 (20th anniversary). We'll see what happens! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was already feeling guilty. I dunno if you saw, but I went on a spree recently. OV1-11, OV1-12, OV1-86, Mariner 2 and R-1 (missile) to B, and AJ Odasso. I'm spent for a little while... :) Good on you for doing Columbia! --Neopeius (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Bruxton:! :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neopeius. I'm just posting to let you know that 1951 in spaceflight – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 6. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's thrilling! Thank you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're so sweet, @Gerda Arendt:! This made me very happy. :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 September 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September songs

my story today

Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2021): "This article is about astronaut Lisa Nowak. As an astronaut, she is noteworthy, and her tabloid history makes her prominent in the public consciousness."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure! Honestly, FACs are way easier than GACs. The former is just polish. The latter often requires a lot of restructuring! And it's always nice to see you, Gerda. :) Neopeius (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Today I remember Raymond Arritt, who still helps me, five years after he died, per what he said in my darkest time on Wikipedia (placed in my edit-notice as a reminder), and by teh rulez. - Latest pics from a weekend in Berlin (one more day to come). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What did he say to you in your darkest time? (you gave a clue as to where it might be found, but I am too dense to figure it out :) ) Neopeius (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's in my edit-notice, so edit my talk and see ;) - you don't actually have to post, of course --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the three expressions that pop up in a card when you edit the talk page? I didn't know you could do that! :) Neopeius (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of them. - You could also greet your talk page guests, - just establish User talk:Neopeius/Editnotice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Shouldn't that be an FLC, not an FAC? Correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you are right. Shoot. I forgot they are two different phenomena. I will fix. Thanks. --Neopeius (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Saw it come up on my watchlist and thought I'd ask. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim O'Doherty:, it strangely looks like I nominated the article almost three years ago, but nothing ever happened with it. I'd completely forgotten that. What do I do? --Neopeius (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it. As long as it doesn't affect the current nomination—as it shouldn't—you'll be fine. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not going to be using the FAC page, would you mind nominating it for deletion G6? There's a bot that patrols for untranscluded FACs that will flag it if we just leave it lying around. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Done! Thanks so much. It's been a little while since I went through the FL/FA process. Thank you for your patience! --Neopeius (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neopeius, have updated the Soviet rocketry article, if you have time would be interested in any comments you have. Plus, as detailed on the talk page, was thinking it would be worthwhile to include summaries from Soviet rocket articles, ie R-7 (rocket family), Soyuz (rocket family), Kosmos (rocket family), Proton (rocket family) and Vostok (rocket family). Ilenart626 (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilenart626: You've done a nice job of incorporating my work into that article, and it's certainly more appropriate to include that information, replacing the long description of the German efforts. Yes, we definitely need summaries of those other programs, too, particularly the R-7 as a bridge from the R-5 to the space section. Thank you for all the work you're doing! I often feel alone in the weeds of old programs, so it's nice to have company. --14:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Neopeius! The list you nominated, 1952 in spaceflight, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Thank you so much! I am moving this to my Awards page. --Neopeius (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to attend a meetup at the San Diego Central Library on Monday 26 February 2024. Hopefully see you there. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 11:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neopeius. I'm just posting to let you know that 1952 in spaceflight – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 18. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you recommended one year ago, I meanwhile contributed an article for Quest: The History of Spaceflight 31:4 (German Contributions to Soviet Rocketry: New Light on a Disputed Topic) for my findings and research on German influence on Soviet rocketry which we discussed back and forth during 2023. After editing the results (quoting my article), my dear friend reverted the whole edit with reference to WP:COI. I don't see any personal interest, I'm not paid for it, I do not expect any financial gain or publicity. It is just my conviction (as presented in my peer reviewed article) that the role of the German specialists has not been correctly described until now. Any recommendation how to proceed? SchmiAlf (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're now knee-deep in the issue. Once your article comes out, someone unrelated will pick it up and incorporate it into relevant articles.

Congratulations on your article! Neopeius (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]