User talk:JustinTime55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Hello, JustinTime55! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contribution. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! -MBK004 16:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Contents

Apollo 13 explosion[edit]

Hi, Justin, I see you're new here--Welcome! Please revert the changes you made saying there was no explosion aboard Apollo 13. NASA says there was.

Two day [sic] later on April 13 while the mission was en route to the moon, a fault in the electrical system of one of the Service Module's oxygen tanks produced an explosion that caused both oxygen tanks to fail and also led to a loss of electrical power. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1327.html

Also see http://www.google.com/search?q=apollo+13+explosion&btnGNS=Search+nasa.gov&oi=navquery_searchbox&sa=X&as_sitesearch=nasa.gov&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=jxd&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial

Regards, Yopienso (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, you will need to supply a reliable source that says no explosion occurred. Sources that use words that describe an explosion without actually using the word do not support the notion that there was no explosion.. Thanks for your attention, Yopienso (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent merge[edit]

FYI, when you merge content from one article to another, the CC licensing requires that you provide a link to the page you got it from. You should use the double-brackets in the edit summary to create a link back to the original article. Thanks  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Robots also take pictures re: Apollo 8[edit]

Lunar Orbiter 1 August 23, 1966, first Earthrise photo First View of Earth from Moon.jpg.

It's robotic, and therefore the reason why humans was included in the Apollo 8 photo.Abebenjoe (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Space Race Article:Voskhod section[edit]

First off, this article is poorly constructed, and it is easy to get confused with it, so it is not just this section. I just rewrote some of this section to make it clearer, but in reality, this whole article needs a massive rewrite, including inline citations, which this section, and the whole article for that matter, is sorely lacking. Abebenjoe (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My sandbox[edit]

Opps, thanks for catching that.--Abebenjoe (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Trick question to catch people out: When does a pilot not do the flying?[edit]

I have notable experience writing high-quality text for the official Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website at nasa.gov, not to mention decades of experience of careful observation of the space programmes of the world since their early days. You think you can write better than I? There wasn't a single thing wrong with the brief words I added to the Lunar Module article, which does not belong to you, and anyone can contribute to it. I committed no errors of fact, nor of English, but you fidget with my words. I cannot stop you, of course, but I may point out the unnecessary irritation you have caused me. Furthermore, I did not second guess people's potential to misunderstand the role of the LMP. For one thing, despite my very close understanding of the Apollo programme, I spent the years of the late 1960s and the 1970s believing the LMP flew the lunar module, because the word "pilot" was in his title. I even "corrected" people who said Neil Armstrong flew the lunar module, pointing out "the obvious" that Buzz was the lunar module pilot. I was mortified when I found out how wrong I was. For another, I have met a few people who, predictably, drew the same reasonable conclusion from the LMP title. Is that so silly, or so rare? My contribution to the article was to make the role of the LMP more explicit, which is a legitimate thing to do. Wikipedia exists to inform and reveal. --O'Dea (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JustinTime55. You have new messages at Talk:Apollo 8.
Message added 13:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re Man Made Disasters[edit]

Hi, Justin.

Just a short note to thank you for your work on the 'Man Made Disasters' article. As it stood it was a bit of a disaster itself, and your efforts have made it a lot clearer. I'd thought about trying to tidy it up, but as a newbie I was a bit unsure where to start. I'll get back to it at some point though, give it a look-over, and see about adding something about famine as a category - some (most?) famines have definitely been man-made.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals[edit]

Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Human spaceflight activity[edit]

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

Apollo 6[edit]

Hello, Dr. Harris. The edits you have just made, and are still making to Apollo 6 and Apollo program in re Apollo 6, have some incorrect information in them. This flight did not fly anywhere near the Moon (more than a two-day trip) and certainly not into lunar orbit, only into three Earth orbits, the last one very high to test the heat shield (the entire flight lasted less than 10 hours.) It also did not carry a real Lunar Module, only a "test article" for ballast (analogous to the "boilerplate" CSM), that still wasn't as heavy as the real thing. Also, Apollo 8's mission was not a repeat of it, and not in any way related to it (other than the next Saturn V flight could carry men.) Apollo 8's mission was invented as a result of a random, unrelated circumstance (the LM not being ready for a first manned Earth orbit practice mission, which the original Apollo 8 was intended to be.)

What sources are you using for your information? As a physician, I'm sure you appreciate the importance of making sure of one's facts when writing about technical subjects outside one's expertise. Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I put in my source, and in the process found my memory bad. They hadn't intended to send Apollo 6 into lunar orbit, only to the velocity of lunar orbit. It would go into translunar insertion, then immediately (after less than 5 min) decelerate with the SPS and come back, in less than 10 hours. The return velocity and angle would be exactly as in Apollo 8 (and all the manned lunar missions), as a test for this. However, due to failure of fuel lines the S-IVB never restarted, and they had to use the SM engine (SPS) to raise the CSM to a high Earth orbit and then bring it in from there (not even as good a test as Apollo 4). Had the thing worked perfectly, the mission would have lasted almost exactly the same amount of time. I never said they used a real LM. The Lunar Module Test Article (LMTA) was a dummy mass with a lot of shock and vibration telemetry, intended to simulate the LM mechanically, and record stress data, but no more. SBHarris 05:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight activity[edit]

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 18:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot[edit]

Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 0[edit]

  MUOS.jpg
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 0, December 2010  
 
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 1[edit]

  MUOS.jpg
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 1, January 2011  
 
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Apollo program[edit]

Re the edit I reverted to the Apollo 4 section of the table, I thought your edit summary was an honest mistake and you were reading the table as saying Apollo 5 was a HEO. I just wanted you to know that I didn't revert just because I thought you had made a typo in the edit summary. AFAIK, Apollo 4's reentry trajectory was highly elliptical; just because it never reached apogee on that orbit does not make it less so. I will try to find a source that refers to it as highly elliptical before re-adding it. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the definition of highly elliptical orbit, which specifies an apogee in the geosynchronous range (over 19,300 nautical miles, extremely high for orbital craft.) Apollo 4 did in fact reach its apogee of 9,297 nmi (plus a 472 nmi boost from the Service Module), which was nowhere near this value. Regards, JustinTime55 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I am familiar with the definition of a HEO. After apogee, the SM again changed its orbit to increase reentry velocity; this put it into a HEO even though it never reached its apogee on that orbit. I view this difference as non-trivial, since one of the goals of the mission was to test the heat shield in a high-speed reentry. What are your thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still not buying it. The entry interface was at 400,000 ft. (65.8 nautical miles), 36,545 ft/sec at a -6.93 deg. angle. I calculated the orbit parameters and, surprise, that's actually a hyperbolic escape trajectory, so the "apogee" would have been infinite if the atmosphere weren't there! (Reality check: escape velocity at 65.8 nautical miles is 36,334 ft/sec.)
This is not at all the intent of the high Earth orbit definition. And even if the apogee were finite, still the intent was to create a high-velocity entry, not to put it into a high orbit (which it never reached), so there is no reason to characterize it as such. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2[edit]

  MUOS.jpg
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 2, February 2011  
 
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

The Waltons[edit]

Hey there Justin. Seems you and I are the ones doing most of the vandalism patrolling, etc. on the Waltons Wiki so I wanted to pick your brain. What do you think about the article maybe getting a bit too long and detailed in some aspects? Maybe the characters should be broken out into a seperate "List of characters on the Waltons" or something similar as was done with the list of Waltons episodes. I'd posted a similar question to all on the Waltons discussion page several weeks ago and had no feedback yay or nay. What say you?? Sector001 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Breaking out the characters is probably a good idea; it would make the TOC less cluttered. I think standard title form is "List of The Waltons characters". JustinTime55 (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll start in on it over the weekend or first of the week then. Have a great Wiki kinda day! Sector001 (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3[edit]

  MUOS.jpg
   The Downlink   
 
    Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight Issue 3, March 2011  
 
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for your help on SA-500D. -- ke4roh (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks, too, for your helpful comments on Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/SA-500D/1#Detailed_comments. That led me to a wealth of good information. Somehow the notes slipped past me on the watchlist until after I wrote the initial thanks. -- ke4roh (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Saturn IB[edit]

Thanks for answering the question at Saturn IB. It's often only when conversions are added that the hidden ambiguity gets revealed. I think all rocket articles are prone to the same problem. Anyway thanks for sorting it out in that one. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

S-band high-gain antenna on ASTP[edit]

You asked why the high-gain antenna was included on the Apollo Service Module during the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. (It was originally designed for lunar distance communications, especially TV, and it had been deleted for the earth orbital flights to Skylab.) The reason was to conduct experiments with Applications Technology Satellite (ATS) 6. This was a geostationary satellite with a large deployable dish for communications relay experiments. Among other things, it demonstrated direct TV broadcasting to remote villages in India. It basically laid the foundation for DirecTV and other direct broadcasting satellites. It was also used during ASTP as a proof-of-concept for what would become TDRSS, the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System. The large Apollo antenna was needed to communicate TV from LEO to geostationary orbit. Karn (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Confusion with the word "booster"[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JustinTime55. You have new messages at Atterion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JustinTime55. You have new messages at Atterion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

On your comments on my sandbox article on the Space Shuttle[edit]

Hi Justin. I've completely missed your message on my sandbox article: as you can see I haven't done anything on that for the past few months, so I wasn't paying attention to your comments. I apologize for this. Your comment on the usage of the STS acronym is extremely interesting: I never knew that it refers to the whole 1970 NASA pie-in-the-sky proposal of moon shuttles, space stations and tugs! Thanks for your attention to this phrase. However, I would like to list my rationale of re-structuring the whole article:

1. The article's structure is a mess: how come the section on the upgrades of the system comes before the generic mission profile? It looks rather strange. Plus I think several items are missing from the article: How do astronauts live in the orbiter during the flight? How is the flight operated from the ground? These should be addressed in the article. For an example of what I considered a good article structure, see the article on the International Space Station. (currently on FA status!)
2. The references on the article are a complete mess: ranging from books written by experts to news articles of dubious accuracy. The external links needs a clean up as well.
3. I wouldn't praise the current prose of the article as well: I found it rather jumbled up.
4. There are inaccuracies in the article: your point of the meaning of STS comes to mind.

Given the current rating of the article (C-class across all projects involved), I decided to open up a sandbox article to try to make changes to the article and have all the changes discussed by Wiki members, plus allow expertise to add valuable information to the article. Hopefully given some work on this, we can make it to FA status, to celebrate three decades of work by some of the most amazing machines (and people too) ever seen! :)

Just leave a message if you have any comments on my rookie edits on the sandbox article! Thanks! :)

Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Doing an aerial[edit]

In re this edit, FYI, "antennae" is a perfectly acceptable plural (if uncommon in North America), & not just for insects. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Are you really "short-sighted"?[edit]

Hi, thank you for your kind notice of my user box. But first, I must admit that I'm both short-sighted (myopic) and also short-sighted (narrow-minded). Ha, sorry, bad joke.

I guess the creator of this user box was deliberate to mean so, a PUN joke. I would rather take this as a wiki-humor, so don't be too serious on this, dude. But I must thank you again for your kindness and wish you have a great day  :)
from TW-mmm333k (talk to him) 05:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please source your edits[edit]

You've recently added substantial information to the Gemini Spacesuit article, please properly source this information.--Craigboy (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Apollo 13 (film) Technical/Historical section[edit]

Hello old bean, as you've recently contributed to a discussion on the same topic, would appreciate you dropping by Talk:Apollo_13_(film)#Removal_of_entire_Technical_.26_Historical_Accuracy_section_to_try_and_meet_Good_Article_status.3F and chipping in, thanks! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JustinTime55. You have new messages at Talk:Apollo 16.
Message added 23:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Apollo 13 - to Doniago, Justin Time55.[edit]

There are only 6 problems on the GA review that need to be taken care of. I'm sure if we crack down, that can easily be taken care of in a few edits. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:32 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Please see Talk:Apollo 13 (film). JustinTime55 (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Extra-vehicular activity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sergei Volkov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet another ignorant misunderstanding of the word "attitude"[edit]

Brilliant edit comment on Saturn V just now.[1] Occasionally when my little child is misbehaving and needs an attitude adjustment, I give her one by turning her upside-down. Sometimes it helps! -- ke4roh (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Apollo 204 vs Apollo 1[edit]

I will go ahead and revert my edit and leave a note on the article talk page instead. While 204 may be the more "correct" terminology, it would seem to me that Apollo 1 would be the better term to use, as it is the "common" term for the incident that is in general public use. Safiel (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Hike395's talk page.

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited From the Earth to the Moon (TV miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ed White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

January 2012

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited From the Earth to the Moon (TV miniseries), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Young (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi JustinTime55[edit]

I wanted to say thank you about the ISS article, and ask about the Stop Online Piracy Act article, and the use of the word "experts" which I always had reservations about. I figured you seem to know these things better than I do, so was I barking up the wrong tree on that one ? It wouldn't be the first time. Also is there a list or guidance on these things that you'd recommend I read ? (if you can answer on my talkpage that would be cool) Thank you JustinTime55. Penyulap talk 12:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of From the Earth to the Moon characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Young (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Edward Brooke[edit]

When did I claim that Brooke was a conservative? – Lionel (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You (or AWB) added the WP:Conservatism banner to the talk page: [2]. Was this unintentional? JustinTime55 (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That banner indicates that members are interested in the article. Often times an article is "conservative", but it is not a prerequisite for the banner.– Lionel (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

About my edition on the Apollo 11 article[edit]

Dear Justin: I am a science writer on astronomy and Space, and as I work a lot with Wikipedia and have made a few contributions to already written articles. I agree that my English is not perfect I am Chilean and lived in the US for a few years where I learned and now I can notice when there is something not well worded. -->

This is the case with such an important article as the Apollo 11 one. First: It is childish to say that it landed “the first humans” it is obvious that those who landed in a NASA spacecraft must be humans. Unfortunately I didn’t keep a record of my edition but I remember it got a lot better than as it is now. -->

Second: I believe that it is better to mention the landing place in the first paragraph because it gives a point of interest to the reader as everybody knows that they landed on the Moon. -->

Third: As for the time of the astronauts on the Moon, I remember that I changed it to “21 hours, 36 minutes” from “Their lunar module, Eagle, spent 21 hours 31 minutes” as it is now after you reversed all of my edition. This is also a mistake because part of the Lunar Module Eagle still is on the Moon, so it should be: --> The astronauts spent 21 hours 36 minutes in the Moon, and left Tranquility Base in the Ascent Stage of the Eagle spacecraft. Source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html

Fourth: Another mistake: U.S. President John F. Kennedy's goal was not “reaching the Moon before the Soviet Union” as it is now in the article, but “of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." The mention of the race with the Soviet Union must go in another phrase. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

????

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JustinTime55. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight.
Message added 13:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WingtipvorteX PTT 13:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited 11/22/63, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shawshank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

ptbotgourou[edit]

Dear JustinTime55, i've already read all messages regarding "error" but often i didn't take the time to repeat me again and again, and again... If i do it one more time it will be something like that : the only method I know to prevent this error and also to stop my/all bots to put incorrect wikilinks is to search which wikipedia contains the error and then to uniformize "handly" the links. Interwikis Bots couldn't understood that two articles doesn't concern the same thing. They only follow links, corrects or incorrects ones. Understood ? --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 21:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Apollo program[edit]

Hi Justin, I see you have nominated The Apollo program for GA. I am not a reviewer but I see that much of the article is not referenced. Right off this bat this would mean it would not pass a GA. There are over 300 articles waiting for review, some going back to May, so my advice would be to withdraw your nomination for now until the article looks likely to pass. Just my 2 cents. Best wishes and happy editing. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Span (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. If you are wanting a general overview of where things are at then a peer review might be the better bet. Just a suggestion. Good luck with it. Best wishes Span (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Apollo 13 (film) request for editing[edit]

Could you edit the Apollo 13 film article and crop the photos of the cast, tom hanks, bill paxton, and kevin bacon. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeasttoBeast (talkcontribs) 20:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle[edit]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Apollo 12[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I posted some suggestions for Apollo 12 article before realising that the Apollo 12 talk page was probably a better place. I wanted to delete the initial post, but I'm having trouble as I am using a tablet. Would it be possible for you to remove them so there are not duplicate discussions?

Thank you for the comments on my suggestions. You're right, the A11 seismometer was solar powered but failed due to excessive heat shortly after lift off, probably as a result of the LM launch covering it in dust. All powered ALSEP stations were turned off in 1977 to save $200,000 per annum in operating costs. (Madness in my personal opinion!)

Re. Colour film. It was taken out on EVA 2 but not used. One of the cameras came apart and the film cartridge was taken off the faulty camera and put on the other. This seems to have been the route of the problem as they then forgot to change to the colour cartridge at the appropriate time.

As noted in my comment on A12 talk page, there is also an error concerning the caption "preferred tether partner" on the Playboy pictures on the cuff list. The tether was supplied in case the Surveyor Crater was loose and the astronauts were worried about getting back out. One would have stayed on the rim to pull the other out with the tether had the footing been loose.

Although not an expert on the Apollo missions, I did write the A17 40th anniversary article for BBC Sky at Night magazine and I am happy to help with checking other Space Race era articles, although I don't have a lot of confidence with wiki editing.

Best regards - Mark Clipperride (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apollo 13, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Standard Time (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Area 204[edit]

No thanks needed. I'm not entirely happy with how I phrased it, since it wasn't strictly about the astronauts anyhow: it was a spacecraft test (AIUI, anyhow...). Which might be the best way to put it. You think? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Why have you deleted my type of sentence about Saturn V. Saturn V is the heaviest, tallest and most powerful launch vehicle ever built. It also holds the record for heaviest launch vehicle payload to LEO (120 t). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.148.208 (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Illegitimate revert[edit]

He deleted impact on the ocean surface[3]

Nope, I did not remove any content whatsoever. --85.197.17.113 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Why undo a "pointless" edit?[edit]

Regarding your undo of my fix of a {{citation needed}} template on Talk:Apollo program, I can perfectly understand why you might be unaware of the purpose of the edit. The reason for the edit was to cleanse a maintenance category and I have usually been mentioning Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters while cleaning talk pages. In this case, I forgot, so I apologize for that. But on the other hand, I do not see why what benefit would be achieved by a revert there. As far as I can tell, there is none. All the revert accomplished was yet another entry in the page history and introduced a possible edit quarrel. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Classified info in the USSR[edit]

Hello there JustinTime55 (talk) (contribs), opz! You are definitely right about undoing my edit in the "Space race" article... I must have been definitely too tired last Thursday! Thanks :O) Anyway it seems like a "Classified info in the USSR" article is needed, huh? :O/ I wonder if this will ever be possible though given the existence of the Iron curtain... Cheers.   M aurice   Carbonaro  07:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Gemini 10 edit[edit]

Hello JustinTime55 (talk). I'm glad you spotted my erroneous edit. Cheers, Peterrt (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nelson's book, p.194 Apollo 4 U-turn[edit]

I've been reading Craig Nelson's book "Rocket Men" and just ran into the page 194 description of Apollo 4's "screaming back to Earth" U-turn. I knew this just couldn't possibly be true, and find it amazing that it made it past the eye of an editor, presuming the book was actually vetted. What I found further astonishing, was that in a book packed with oddball tidbits about the musings of Kennedy and Khrushchev, the entire Apollo 4 flight was given two sentences of description, and erroneous at that. This seems unforgivable in a book ostensibly chronicling the steps taken to put men on the Moon. It doesn't help that on page 199, the launch of Apollo 8 is described by a quote from Walter Cronkite "remembering that liftoff on December 21, 1948". Yes, it says 1948, confirming my suspicions that this book was poorly, if actually, edited. Editorial typos happen, and can be corrected for future printings, but outright misinformation in a documentary-style book is really hard to cope with. It casts doubt on anything else I read in the book, and has severely destroyed my enjoyment of Nelson's book. It's really a shame. I found your Wikipedia comment when I Googled for a reference to the U-turn described by Nelson. Thank you for calling it out.

Bugsi (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris Johnson (politician)[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that Chris Johnson (politician) clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN, see below:

Politicians WP:POLITICIAN Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to those who have been elected to such offices but have not yet been sworn in.

As you can see, all State Senators (i.e. a state legislator) are inherently notable.--TM 11:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I just want to let you know, I believe you are taking advantage of a loophole, and taking the WP:Notability (People) guideline out of context. (WP:POLITICIAN is not stand-alone; it's part of Notability (People).) There are basic principles you are ignoring:
"Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life."
"This notability guideline for biographies reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed."

Basic criteria[edit]

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (emphasis added)

Additional criteria[edit]

People are likely to be (not necessarily) notable if they meet any of the following standards (e.g. WP:POLITICIAN). Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. (emphasis and parenthesis added)
You have not included anything about this person, other than a newspaper article saying he was elected to fill a vacancy, to establish that he is "worthy of notice" -- "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in Wikipedia. If Wikipedia included every legislator of every state in the US who is or ever will be elected, (not to mention every province worldwide), it would run into the thousands. That is not what the writers of the notability guideline had in mind. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to take it to AfD if you disagree. You are correct though. With his re-election, the article does need an expansion. Thanks for the heads up.--TM 18:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Pages are _collaborative_ creations; 'ownership' is considered a violation of Wikipedia's principles.[edit]

On 14 May 2013 I edited the article Apollo program at Apollo_program#Mission_summary to add a Summary column to a table summarising the Apollo missions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollo_program&oldid=555077630

Within half an hour you deleted my edit with the comment: "This doesn't add any value; pls add info you feel is missing to the Description column".

Your deletion of my edit was both extremely hasty and subjective. Who are you to say that a carefully crafted edit such as mine "doesn't add any value". It may not have added value for _you_, but it certainly added value for me, and highly probably would add value for large numbers of other readers who are new to the subject (read: anyone under 40).

A few minutes investigating your user page and the article's history revealed that you have dedicated a very great deal of time to the article. That is admirable, but it does not give you ownership rights over the page, nor allow you to delete an edit made with serious intent before anyone but you has had a chance to see it, let alone evaluate it.

I suggest you take a few minutes to read the article: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles before you take such ill-considered action again.

At some moment in the near future I will reinstate my edit. I trust you will allow it to stand.

Cricobr (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Justin, you wrote to my talk page:

I am well aware of Wikipedia's policy of non-ownership, thank you very much. I'd like to point out the reccomendation Bold, Revert Discuss to you. I'm sorry if my revert hurt your feelings, but I see it as totally unnecessary to complicate the table with another column labled "Summary", when that was what was intended in the "Description" column, and the information you wish to add can easily be added there. If you like, the Description title can be replaced with Summary. Also, some of what you put is redundant: when the Crew column says "None", that clearly means the mission was unmanned. For AS-203, the description given conveys specific information about the flight, to which "equipment test" doesn't add anything. The remaining value-added words can easily be added to the Descrition fields. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are too close to your subject, and being too much the professional scientist when you determine what 'adds value'. Wikipedia is a universal resource which is used by people at all levels of age, ability, understanding of English, information about the subject, etc. When I first read the Apollo Program article, I, as university educated, technically inclined, native English speaker, who was a teenager when the events in question took place, but had no solid memory of or information about the events in question, felt the need for the text that I added to the table. Call it reinforcement, redundancy (as in redundant systems - the Apollo Program certainly has several; if one part of the system fails to do the job, hopefully the redundant system will provide what is missing), whatever. The repetitive format of my text was deliberate, as were the obvious elements of redundancy to which you refer. The intention was to make it unambiguously clear what was the general nature, intent, and success of each individual mission, with the fewest and simplest words as possible. I think my text got close to that goal.

I see you have now changed the name of your Description column to Summary. I believe that is a change you should not have made. Your column was very correctly entitled Description. Your Description/Summary column contains acronyms and additional technical details which I do not believe should be present in a true Summary column. Such information only serves to confuse the person who is looking for the simplest level of summary of what, in truth, is an immensely complex subject.

I`m sorry if you feel there is no way you will allow my edit to stand. I believe many readers would have appreciated its simplicity. As you appear to have the upper hand (the article is one you appear prepared to defend to the bitter end, whereas I was just trying to improve it in passing), I rest my case. Although I will not now attempt to reinstate my edit, I still believe it was a positive addition to the article for the vast number of people for whom the whole subject is practically science fiction!

If you decide to permit my edit to stand, let me know on my talk page, and I will put it back. Give it some thought.

Regards, cricobr

Cricobr (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Mistakenly created article intended for sandbox[edit]

{{Help me}} I intended to create an article called The Plot to Overthrow Christmas in my sandbox while I work on it, but I forgot to type in the prefix, so the page ended up in Article space, which was not my intent. So I tried doing a move, but it didn't pick up my userid and put it in User:Sandbox/The Plot to Overthrow Christmas. I did another move and got it in User:JustinTime55/Sandbox/The Plot to Overthrow Christmas (I don't know if the case of "sandbox" is significant.)

I blanked the redirect out of User:Sandbox/The Plot to Overthrow Christmas so it wouldn't point to my sandbox page. Now we have a mess and need some page deletions. Now there is a mainspace The Plot to Overthrow Christmas which still points to User:Sandbox/The Plot to Overthrow Christmas, which doesn't point to anything. (I don't know if there even is a user named Sandbox.)

How do I get this cleaned up? I still want "The Plot to Overthrow Christmas" to give a wikisearch, until my page is ready. Thanks for the help. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorting out...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
What fun you have been having :-)
  1. The Plot to Overthrow Christmas - Deleted
  2. User:Sandbox/The Plot to Overthrow Christmas - Deleted
  3. User:JustinTime55/Sandbox/The Plot to Overthrow Christmas - moved to User:JustinTime55/The Plot to Overthrow Christmas with no redirect - your don't need the sandbox bit - just make it a subpage of your main user space.
Hope that all helps - let me know if I've missed any. If there is a next time! use {{adminhelp}} as editors cannot delete.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JustinTime55. You have new messages at Template talk:Infobox spaceflight.
Message added 22:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I also replied to your comment on WT:SPACEFLIGHT. W. D. Graham 22:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tranquility Base, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surveyor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverting changes related to moon conspiracy theories[edit]

Hello

I saw that you reverted my changes from today. I think that you didn't understand why I made the changes. I want to make the articles more neutral.

Moon landing: Some people insist that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax. However, empirical evidence is readily available to show that manned moon landings did indeed occur...

Written like that it imposes the view that moon landings are not hoax for sure. I also don't think the word insist is appropriate - it implies that these people have no reasoning behind their opinion.

Moon landing conspiracy theories

The Public opinion section starts with a paragraph stating that some people believe in the hoax because they have wrong data. This is the start of the section and so people expect to read some introduction to what will be talked about in the section. Also, some people may not read the whole section due to time limitations and this will leave them with wrong impression. The way I reordered the paragraphs, the first one shows polls about public opinion which is a sourced scientific statistical data (not random unconfirmed thoughts by random people). Martinkunev (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the order of your update, and backed out my reversion. I agree with your placing the Hare Krishna nonsense lower down. However, I still believe you misunderstand Wikipedia's consensus on fringe theories. Neutral point of view does not demand giving credence to the hoax beliefs (or any fringe belief), just that they are notable because it can be verified that significant numbers of people believe them. We are not "imposing a view"; we're simply giving primary weight to established, mainstream views based on scientific or empirical evidence, or scholarship (e.g., the world is round, the Moon is closer to the Earth than the Sun, etc.) JustinTime55 (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gemini 2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {Infobox spaceflight
  • | operator = [[NASA]]]]<ref name="Orloff">{{cite book |last1=Hacker|first1=Barton C.{last2=Grimwood

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Samuel C. Phillips - hired by NASA?[edit]

Kevin P. Chilton, Susan J. Helms and Charles Bolden were all military officers that served on detached duty for a time with NASA before returning to a military assignment in the same was Phillips. None of their bios indicate that they were "hired" by NASA, when in fact in the case of all four, they continued to be "employed" by the Air Force during their detached duty with NASA. To say that any of them were "hired" by NASA would be inaccurate. --rogerd (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I still think you are making too big a deal of the use of the word "hire"; it's commonly used in the informal sense "to choose someone for a particular job", which is exactly what George Mueller did. No one is saying that he was "hired by NASA" in the technical, human-resources sense. It also says that he was assigned to NASA, and later on that he returned to Air Force duty. Everyone was quite aware he was an Air Force officer, and popularly referred to him as "General Phillips" in the press (despite the fact he dressed as a civillian.) I don't know why we have to belabor the point.
Besides, you seem to have missed another use of "hire" used in context of his commanding officer:
"Phillips' Air Force superior agreed, on the condition that Phillips be hired instead as Director of the Apollo manned lunar landing program. In December, this was accomplished and Phillips was assigned to NASA." JustinTime55 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert on WP:SPACEFLIGHT[edit]

Apologies for that - must have mid-clicked while browsing, had no idea I'd done that... SalopianJames (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Broadcasting may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] (CPB), which is funded by the [[federal government of the United States|federal government]]).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ksc.nasa.gov/systemSwingArm.htm|publisher=NASA}}</ref> Technicians, engineers, and astronauts) used the Spacecraft Access Arm to access the crew module. At the end of the arm, the [[white room

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Apollo Program Copy Edit[edit]

What were my errors? I would like to crush only the bad grammar. :)

User:Duxwing (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. This is mainly what struck me:

  • Syntax errors:
    • " but the Apollo 13 landing was in transit to the Moon prevented by an oxygen tank explosion that disabled the command spacecraft's propulsion and life support." If you read it again, I'm sure you'll see you left a cut/paste error. There were no grammatical errors (and nothing else wrong) I could see in the original: " but the Apollo 13 landing was prevented by an oxygen tank explosion in transit to the Moon, which disabled the command spacecraft's propulsion and life support." "in transit to the Moon" says when the explosion occurred, which prevented the landing.; in your version it just hangs there.
    • "When Kennedy's proposed, only one American had flown in space"
  • Usage error, as well as copy/paste: "The Apollo spacecraft could be tested in two vacuum chambers that could simulating atmospheric pressure at altitudes up to 250,000 feet (76 km) which are nearly vacuous." Please check Mirriam-Webster's definition of vacuous: having or showing a lack of intelligence or serious thought : lacking meaning, importance, or substance; 1: emptied of or lacking content; 2: marked by lack of ideas or intelligence: stupid, inane; 3: devoid of serious occupation This is not a word used to denote an actual physical vacuum. Again, I see nothing wrong in the original that cries out for change.

That was all I had the patience to go through and find; I'm sure there may be more. Most of the changes you have made seem to be not so much grammar, as style and usage. A few of your changes I do find to be actual improvements (e.g. "Apollo achieved its goal..." instead of "succeeed in achieving"), but some others only seem to make unclear usage a bit more economical, but still no less unclear ("Kennedy, however, was circumspect in his response / "circumspectly responded"); what does circumspect really mean, and could this be worded more clearly?

You seem to be an eager beaver; maybe just a bit too eager. All I'm asking is that you slow down and be a bit more careful. Maybe it's not always a good idea to change the whole article in one shot. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Moon landing conspiracy theories[edit]

I've responded to your post on the talk page of the above article.--Campingtrip (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Pedestal" vs "pad"[edit]

You are probably right on the word "pedestal." But note that there is a deficiency of words about pedestal. Did find ref at http://www.apollo1.org/complex34.aspx. I'm sure there are others. But nothing mentioned in article launch pad, for example. Student7 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JustinTime55. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Launch articles.
Message added 09:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JustinT, just wanted to be sure that you are aware of a currently active discussion on a topic you weighed in on on the Spaceflight WikiProject a month or so ago. I've put a link to it on the Talk page you created for the purpose. Cheers. N2e (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC) N2e (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlas-Agena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plasma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mercury-Redstone 4 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{Copypaste|section|url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/ch11-8.htm}} [[File:Mercury-Redstone 4 With Liberty Bell 7 at an altitude of {{convert|118.26|mi|km|abbr=on}}, it

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

word nazi[edit]

To include "word nazi" at the end of your edit summary is strange, given your own edit changing sediment (which you correctly noted has a technical meaning that did not apply in this situation) to soil (which, without linking to lunar soil, appears to be analogous to sediment in having a technical definition not met my Moon material). It is also clearly rude. James McBride (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for thanking me regarding the edit on the Harrison Schmitt article![edit]

Hi, I just wanted to thank you: You've been the first to thank me for an edit! That "thank you" really made me feel good. :-)

The advocacy POV and slander tone in which that section was written is not worthy of an encyclopaedia – especially slandering Schmitt in the very first sentence of that section was not right. Including warranted criticism (even if the criticism is made from a POV that I don't share) is all good and fair (especially as it is the dominant position in that field of science), but not even one sentence was there that would accurately describe Schmitt's position – while at the same time the text did not shy away from denigrating Schmitt with unkind words (instead of focusing on the subject of the controversy).

That section could probably still be further improved, but I'll wait a decade or two until this controversy has blown over, one way or the other. Until then I feel it is best to quote all people involved as acurately as possible – I think claiming that Schmitt is a "Climate Denier" (Really? Does Schmitt deny "the climate"? In its entirety? When and where, in what words did he "deny the climate"?) shows who might be wrong and who might be right. One side is going to eat their words, and I do not see Schmitt having to regret any of his words. Tony Mach (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I completely agree with you, and tried (unsuccessfully) before to complain about it. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I think arguing with them is very seldom going to help. Advocates of "taking action with regards to climate" have determined that the climate (or the Earth) are in danger, so anybody who is not on "their side" is (in their view) obviously aiding in the destruction of the planet. That is the source of the hate I see. The one side isn't paid by "big oil", and the other side don't do it to promote "socialist big government" or somesuch. :-) "They" are afraid of what is happening "to the planet", and for them this fear seems to be well founded.
I must admit I once stood at the other side of the debate and wanted "to do something about the climate" (but was not very vocal). I have no solution, but I think the best course might probably be to try to represent as accurately as possible all the individual positions. If they have a reliable source that shows that Schmitt (or anybody else) said or written something stupid (like a reliable quote of him saying something stupid like "I don't think the climate is changing."), then by all means they can include it – but I haven't seen anything like that. Until then it should not be too hard to revert any slander that might creep into the article again.
BTW, my "turning point" was Steve McIntyre's blog, and how "fast and loose" the climate saviours play. Every time they make out of alarmism claims they can not back up (and be it something simple like calling Schmitt a "climate denier"), this will potentially alienate someone who say "Now wait a minute…" Tony Mach (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Space Task Group may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • President to chair the council in his place. As the [[Apollo program]] reached its climax in 1969), President [[Richard M. Nixon]] directed Vice President [[Spiro T. Agnew]]'s "Space Task Group" to

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Phillips Report[edit]

I was looking at Apollo 1 and noted that the link to Phillips Report is just a pipe to Samuel C. Phillips, with little about the actual report. I was thinking of writing an article on the Report, but when googling, one of the top hits was to your draft at User:JustinTime55/sandbox/"Phillips Report".

It looks like a pretty good draft; but I see you haven't edited it in a couple of years. I propose you move it to article space (I suggest Phillips Report, without the quotes) and release it unto the world. What do you think?

BTW, a good EL for this: [4].

As an aside, I'm continually impressed with and appreciative of your work that I see on articles relating to NASA and manned spaceflight. I dabble (I have a great deal of interest, but not really the expertise), but your contributions are always consistently high-quality. Thanks very much for that.

Cheers. TJRC (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to August: Osage County (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • with husband Charles Aiken ([[Chris Cooper]]). Her youngest daughter Ivy [[Julianne Nicholson]]) is single and the only one living locally; Barbara ([[Julia Roberts]]), her oldest, who has

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Space capsule may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of electric [[solar cell]]s for power generation, and contained a propulsion system engine. The {{Soyuz 7K-OK|7K-OK model]] designed for Earth orbit used a {{convert|2810|kg|lb|adj=on}} reentry module measuring {{convert|2.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited August: Osage County (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarianism[edit]

Comments are stronger when they do not include off-topic partisan political cheerleading.[5]goethean 15:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

N1 Article[edit]

Can the "needs additional citations" banner be removed now from the N1 (rocket) article or does it need more work ? ☭Soviet☭ 17:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Иронгрон (talkcontribs)

bad decision[edit]

but I'm too tired to fight. At a minimum, someone should note it on the talk page, which I checked before making the correction. And it is now inconsistent with other articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus was reached in WP:WikiProject Spaceflight a long time ago that off-world events should be reported as occurring in UTC because no time zone on Earth would be proper (and of course the desire to avoid regional bias), despite the fact one could probably make a good case that Central time should be used for the Apollo flights, which were controlled from Houston. Unfortunately I can't know when this was documented, on which discussion page (probably long since archived), but I'll make a note of it when I get the chance.
And to which "other articles" are you referring? As far as I know, Apollo 11, Apollo program, and Neil Armstrong refer to the July 21 UTC time. I don't know what else would be relevant, but they should be consistent. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hi. I left a note on that thing about the John F. Kennedy Space Center, and did a fast look at your user page, and man, thanks very much for all of your fine work on the space program pages. Six thumbs up! I'm one of those oldies but still goodies who lived through the space program, and watched every launch, every Mercury and Apollo mission, and made a point quite a few years ago to at least talk to as many of the early astronauts as I could. For history and space buffs like myself the creation of Wikipedia seems a dream come true, and people like you who've have advanced the awareness and kept the data of the pioneering space missions alive are the ones who should be praised, which I do with a virtual 'thanks!'. It's very odd looking at pages and threads on other sites which go into the denying of the moon missions, and I feel a bit sorry for the people who believe that theory and thus miss out on the knowledge that it was only 44 years ago that humans jumped off planet (and hit a golf ball on another world) for the first time. Good to meet you. Randy Kryn 19:54 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Aldrin[edit]

Thanks for that. Guess you learn something new every day... Connormah (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lunar Roving Vehicle may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Lunar Roving Vehicle[edit]

Why does the infobox you added say "Hybrid drivetrain" under "Powertrain"? There's nothing "hybrid" about the lunar rover is there? Differtus (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, there isn't. I noticed that; that's an issue with Template:Infobox automobile. It would have to be fixed there. I'll raise the issue at that talk page. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Where to See America's Greatest Spaceships"[edit]

I just came across this infographic, which I thought would interest you: [6]. I plan on hitting the applicable articles over the next few days to see if the particular locations are noted. This is the first source I've seen with so many spacecraft's dispositions noted in one place. I'll probably find some better sources, but armed with the information reported here, that should not be too challenging. TJRC (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)