User talk:JustinTime55/Archive 2

DYK for We choose to go to the Moon
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Hello. A note about your edit summary here: You wrote, 'Use English, not French, spelling of "meter".' Metre is the English spelling for the unit of length. Perhaps you meant 'Use American spelling'? There's no problem with that. An early version of the article uses 'kilometer' and an argument could be made to keep it in US English. But please understand that metre is English as well as French, just as meter (or, rather, Meter) is German as well as American English. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Understanding Comics
Hi JustinTime55. I'm confused as to how you can claim that Understanding Comics is not a comic book about comics. Have you read the book? The entire book is told using "juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer." In addition, the author Scott McCloud himself calls it "a 215-page comic book about comics. So does the publisher's blurb for the book: "This innovative comic book provides a detailed look at the history, meaning, and art of comics and cartooning." I could cite many, many other examples that state this book is indeed a comic book. My thought was, sure, it's a book about comics, but it's much accurately a comic book about comics. Which is why I thought adding the extra category would be helpful to Wikipedia users. -- stoshmaster (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect revert
Re:

Your edit summary appears to be incorrect. mw:Extension:ImageMap states: "All coordinates are specified relative to the source image. The image can be scaled using thumbnail syntax, in which case the image map coordinates will be automatically scaled as well." If you don't believe that, see the sandbox test at User:Mandruss/sandbox3. You'll find that all 4 cases work just fine and the only difference is the size parameter. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, I guess you learn something new every day. I'll self-revert. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for noticing the broken RM close over at Talk:Dan Rowan. I think I've got it patched up now in a way that preserves a better record of what happened. No idea what went wrong with that close, 11 years ago.

Thanks again. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Firesign Theatre Farm Hippies no. 3.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Firesign Theatre Farm Hippies no. 3.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert Gilruth
I’m sorry to bother you, but I’ve been reading several books on the early days of NASA and am from Nashwauk, MN. Nobody I have talked to in this town have heard of him. I find this disturbing as I believe him an American hero. I was wondering if you could recommend some places or sources I could research to rectify this oversight by my town? Thank you Krhalvorson (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Apollo 11 anniversary
Hey JustinTime, was wondering if you would be interested in working on Aldrin, Collins, or the Apollo 11 article in preparation for the 50th anniversary of the lunar landing. If you would prefer to copyedit my work and other cleanup efforts, that is a great help as well. I know you have some experience with the mission articles, so the Apollo 11 article may be good for you if you would like to work on it. No worries regardless of your choice. Thanks!  Kees08  (Talk)   03:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

My erroneous spacecraft italicization
Thank you, for recently correcting my erroneously-italicized spacecraft names, in the Oceanus Proclearum article. It was especially helpful of you to have provided links to relevant guidelines and discussions, regarding my mistake. I appreciate that you have shown me how to improve my editing. catsmoke (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

New Skylab controversy RfC proposal
Hi! I have drafted another RfC at Talk:Skylab_controversy. Please comment on how best to get appropriate input from the Wikipedia editor community. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Slip up in this edit
At this one you mangled a footnote. Not sure what else. Maybe you can sort it out. Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't figure out how that happened; the stray text must have been somehow related to the next edit I made to include the Apollo 7 picture of the cockeyed panel (sticky keyboard in a cut-and-paste or something). It seems moot now, and I don't think anything else is wrong. I usually don't make that kind of error. Good catch. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Number of control sticks
I wrote three because, as the cite says, there were three: One for attitude control, and two (one for each astronaut) for forward/reverse. Since either two or three is a valid description depending on how one counts the sticks, and neither number is really important, it is better to keep me reverted on this edit. Ylee (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Back From the Shadows: The Firesign Theatre's 25th Anniversary Reunion Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warner Theatre ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Back_From_the_Shadows:_The_Firesign_Theatre%27s_25th_Anniversary_Reunion_Tour check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Back_From_the_Shadows:_The_Firesign_Theatre%27s_25th_Anniversary_Reunion_Tour?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Back From the Shadows: The Firesign Theatre's 25th Anniversary Reunion Tour) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Back From the Shadows: The Firesign Theatre's 25th Anniversary Reunion Tour.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Gemini
Hello, Justin!

I am planning an update to the Gemini missions, starting with Gemini 1. Since you are both the most recent substantial contributor to that article and also a veteran in WP SF, I wanted to make sure I collaborated with you on the endeavor. My conception was that I would add more on the background, goals, mission details, and legacy of the mission, as I've done with my SOLRAD series.

Do you have any comments or insight? And thank you for all that you do! :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Discord channel for Spaceflight Wikiproject
Also, do please join us at the WP SF Discord server! :) It's been invaluable for quick communication regarding edits and reviews:

--Neopeius (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Mercury Seven
Would you be interested in co-nomming this article with me at FAC? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  10:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Gordon Cooper img
"Sorry, that photo is not consistent with consensus for all the other astronauts; look there and discuss on this talk page"


 * Hello. "look there" where? Thanks. MachoCarioca (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Start with Mercury Seven and go to the biographies of all the seven astronauts; check the type of portraits used in their infoboxes.
 * The important thing is that you start a discussion on Talk:Gordon Cooper if you want to persuade people to change the sytle. There is also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight where you might want to put a brief query to the spaceflight project members where the best place to discuss this issue is. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I know the biographies, I know the images but I didn't find out any consensus about what style of images to use or even if there was any discussion about that previously. I need to "persuade people" to change an image? Or persuade you? As I know it stayed there for almost 48 hs, an article with high visibility and a lot of "vigilants" and only you are arguing  with that. Ok, this talk is enough for me, your image stays. Good morning and have a nice day. MachoCarioca (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Apollo
Hi. The Apollo Lunar Module is the name of the first true spaceship. A kind of clunky name, but a proper name nonetheless. The Apollo command and service module had an RM which lower-cased it, but it does seem to be a proper name to a lot of editors and readers. We are in the 2019 season of Apollo, and it's an honor for editors to edit Apollo and other space related articles. And lots of vandals too. Thanks, and enjoy the 50th. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Wayne Allyn Root
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BS; you are the edit warrior, not me. Your editing history and talk page shows a history of contention. You have not discussed the two issues I raised on the talk page. JustinTime55 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

External academic review and publication of Wikipedia pages
Hi Justin. Given the upcoming anniversary of the moon landings, I noticed you did a lot of work on a quite a few related articles. Would you be interested in submitting any for external, academic peer review?

The WikiJournal of Science (www.wikijsci.org) aims to couple the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. For existing Wikipedia articles, it's a great way to get additional feedback from external experts. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as having changes integrated back into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards authors with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

The WP:WikiJournal article nominations page should allow simple submission of existing Wikipedia pages for external review. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 06:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:5Ept5xW
Don't worry, they saw it if they removed it. They may remove it. That they chose to ignore it is another matter. I'd already made not of the removed warning. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just thought it was necessary to prove due process (i.e. sufficient warnings given before blocking action taken). JustinTime55 (talk)

Warnings remain in the page history, and can be permalinked to if needed to be mentioned in discussion, even if the user removes them from the page as currently displayed. There is no need to restore them.  General Ization Talk  21:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:5Ept5xW
Leave their Talk page alone. It's none of your concern.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop. Please consider this a final warning. Doing I really link the policy for you. Right now you are edit warring.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Personal talk page cleanup: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me; I made those changes in good faith as I explained above. As soon as I received these warnings I stopped, and did not revert the reversions of my changes. I am not edit warring. Thank you for the education. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Astronaut Group 6
Dear JustinTime55, Please help me edit NASA Astronaut Group 6. I didn't know it was breaking the article. I am only a young boy, and am inexperienced in this field. Can you please help me. I only left it that way in the hopes that someone would notice and help me. Please have compassion and help me. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Jgwilliams873

19 August 2019
Your recent editing history at Specific Impulse shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  5Ept5xW (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not engaged in any edit war; I simply replaced all your "citation needed" tags with section tags which adequately state that the sections need citations for verification (or more citations). Kindly knock off the threats. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019: Monty Python
You most likely realize that, on Wikipedia, editors should not and may not alter quotations taken from reliable sources...

Hello, I'm Quisqualis. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peppermint Patty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auburn ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Peppermint_Patty check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Peppermint_Patty?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

We don't commonly refer to two-year-olds as "infants" in this part of the world
What do you call them? We call them "ankle-biters" here. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Their
Your edit comment here was both rude and inaccurate. "Their" very much exists as "singular indeterminate gender" in English. If you don't believe me, ask Merriam-Webster ("used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent"), Dictionary.com ("used with a singular indefinite pronoun or singular noun antecedent in place of the definite masculine his or the definite feminine her"), Cambridge English Dictionary ("Their is also used to refer to a person whose sex is not known"), the AP Style Guide considers it acceptable in some cases. The singular "they" is far from a new invention, we have a reasonably good article on it that is worth reviewing. I suggest that you undo your edit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, Nat, as I am entitled to mine, along with 542 other Wikipedians who still consider it substandard English usage. Dictionaries document common usage among everyone, not necessarily users of encyclopedic language. "Singular they", I consider to be substandard, so I meant that there is no gender-neutral word in standard usage.
 * As for being "rude", I don't believe I was. There was nothing wrong, rude, or unfair to women about changing it to read "each character explores his or her". Derick1259 apparently didn't find it rude either; he apparently agrees with the usage too, and avoided the issue by rewriting it with good humor to use the plural "characters" and "their". JustinTime55 (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There was definitely something rude about the edit summary telling people to "Deal with it", particularly after the false claim that "no such English word exists." You could have left a comment simply stating that you find "he or she" to be more formal and thus more encyclopedic; it still would have been an edit that added unnecessarily clumsy wording into the piece, but it would not have been both false and condescending.
 * I did find it amusing that you then went and added Template:User -genderneutral to your page, claiming that you support the vernacular when the change that you made went against the vernacular. (And I'm confused why you're only concerned about being "wrong, rude, or unfair to women", emphasis added.)--Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

MOSNUM and science articles
Re this revert, my reading of the relevant part of MOSNUM: is that SI units are recommended as the primary units in all scientific articles, absent a clear topic-specific reason to the contrary. Given that the use of legacy units such as acres is extremely deprecated in scientific practice, this is not usually controversial.
 * In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera).

I will not start revert-warring over this, but I would dispute that my edit was anything more than a trivial change to a MOS-preferred style; unit conversions are normally considered to be minor edits. My suggestion for MOSNUM compliance would be to use the convert template with appropriate precision, something like "...a 1 ha area of the Earth's surface receives a peak 10 megawatts of sunlight power at noon" (with minor rewording). Archon 2488 (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry...
"system of power simulators" - "system of exercise devices". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Россиянин2019 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Comedian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sketch ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Comedian check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Comedian?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Mach number
Your use of language is incorrect. The reference to the speed of sound IS the “mach number,” BUT, the actual SPEED of sound IS mach one. Believe me, as I am a life-long pilot, since October of 1955 (aged 21), having learned in the USAF Aviation Cadet Programm. I’ve circled the globe, piecemeal, at .82mach in Boeing 707 aircraft for Pan Am (and a goodly portion at 200kts TAS in Douglas C-124 aircraft for the USAF). I have 37 years of cockpit experience using these terms daily. The speed relative to the speed of sound (Mach one) is ones Mach numberer. And, BTW, I was an “A” student in English, also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billpits (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:No orbit for payload
Template:No orbit for payload has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zig and Sharko characters.png
Thanks for uploading File:Zig and Sharko characters.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

List of artificial objects leaving the Solar System
Just curious as to why you changed my edit. You suggested in your edit summary that what I had put in wasn't the meaning of the sentence. However, as it stood, it wasn't grammatically correct. Your addition of a comma basically has the same affect as my previous addition of the word were. I do prefer your version. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding were changes the meaning to two separate clauses: 1. All of these objects are space probes; and 2. Their upper stages were launched by NASA.
 * The actual intent of the sentence was: 1. Some of these objects are space probes; 2. The ones which aren't space probes are their upper stages; and 3. All of these objects (probes and upper stages) were launched by NASA. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

NASA nominated for good article reassessment
NASA, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

I am notifying you, because you seem to be a major contributor to that article. Feel free to delete this notice. ― Hebsen (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

→‎Radio Free Oz: Quotation is unnecessary (and replete with punctuation errors). Only the third citation is of value here.
Since it was a quote it was replete with punctuation errors "(sic)".... from the third citation...
 * T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The Firesign Theatre ‎ →‎ We already mention their 1967 move to KRLA later on in the next section.
"We already mention their 1967 move to KRLA later on in the next section. Is there some non-clumsy way to rewrite this merged?"
 * I think that, since this was a live broadcast by KRLA, as well a nightclub performance, this must be the first mention of KRLA. Live broadcasts of ticketed performances are historically rare. I am not fussy about a better wording.
 * T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind?
If I made Saturn V a GA? Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 17:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would I mind? JustinTime55 (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because you were the main editor. I'm fixing it up right now. Feel free to help. Signed, The4lines &#124;&#124;&#124;&#124; (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 03:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Elon Musk: Engineer or not?
This RfC discussion might interest you based on your past discussion on this subject: Talk:Elon_Musk --David Tornheim (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why revert Project Gemini talk page change
You reverted my talk page change as if you thought i was moving or renaming a main space article. I merely extended a comment heading to try to better summarise for all. I think you misunderstood my change, or could you explain please. - Rod57 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't think you were moving or renaming the article. I explained my reasoning in the edit summary: the thread dates from 2004, and is essentially moot. I saw no value in changing the heading of an obsolete post, even to clarify it. It's of no value to people discussing the article as it exists today. In an ideal world, long-lasting talk pages have archival set up, so the obsolete post would be gone, anyway. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It'd be best to archive old sections like that, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edit on list of humorists
I moved this to Talk:List of humorists where it should have been posted, so that all editors can participate in consensus building. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!
I learned something new about section headings because of your reverts to my recent edits. Thanks for that! Too many editors simply revert without a useful explanation. You were helpful, and it is appreciated. :) 1980fast (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Mad, Mad, Mad Comedians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harpo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight newsletter notification
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Concerning Edits To The "Human spaceflight" Article And Their Primary Purpose
I would primarily like to inquire concerning the reversion of a quantity of my edits to the "Human spaceflight" article, which you performed recently; in particular, I would primarily like to inquire concerning the justification for the reversion. As a particularly novel Wikipedia editor, I would like to record, for posterity, errors which I remain responsible for producing, for the purpose of avoiding them within future; thus, I would like to lodge a request concerning the statements you provided within your edit summary. Your statement concerning variations of English remains valid; I removed the American English tag due to the presence of several words within the article which utilised British English spelling, insofar as could remain determined and I shall prevent such errors from occurring within future. However, your statement concerning my edits remaining "clearly understood" remains ambiguous; what component of my edits prevents comprehension? I apologise if my request inconveniences you, but I would like to improve upon previous experience and a brief explanation of increased obfuscation resulting from my edits would remain particularly helpful; thank you. SurenGrig07 (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coneheads, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extraterrestrial.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"Rv unnecessary, illiterate, and highly POV edit"
The subject comment was left in the edit summary of the following edit under your name: Because of my "illiteracy", I may be misunderstanding your comment, but it appears to be inconsistent with WP:CIV.  Sparkie82 ( t • c ) 17:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is not uncivil at all, just because you don't like it. By illiteracy, I was referring to nothing more nor less than the difference between "metal" and a medal. By POV, I mean that your edit seemed designed to bash president Bush and also Cosby. President Obama's comments on the matter cover the subject in a balanced way. I see you've removed it by arbitrarily calling it "non-notable". I don't believe it qualifies as non-notable. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, if you say you were not being uncivil, I'll assume you mean that in good faith. I'll say in good faith that I did not intend my edit to be POV in any way, I was merely attempting to add background so readers would understand the full context of the event and so it would read more clearly. Also, FYI there is significant difference between dyslexia and illiteracy, but perhaps you were just being hyperbolic.  Sparkie82 ( t • c ) 22:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!
I sincerely appreciate the welcome and the help, JustinTime55! ♥

rolltide689 01:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolltide689 (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Not Insane or Anything You Want To, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

OV-099 revert
Title = Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Short = In-flight breakup of Space Shuttle 'Challenger'. See: WP:HOWTOSD which says "avoid duplicating information that is already in the title". Do you look at articles via the mobile app? If not then you do not see how the short descript and the article title are redundant. – S. Rich (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

W. C. Fields poster on Freaks and Geeks
Hi JustinTime55. I respectfully disagree with you that the Fields poster sighting on Freaks and Geeks is trivial. My husband and I just rewatched the show and I was intrigued by the poster. It took my husband and me about 15 minutes of very creative Googling to figure out who the man in the poster was and I'm just trying to help others on the path to learn more about such an interesting man. Thanks for your consideration! Captainmomerica (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry
I am very sorry to write ''policy" in place of "affairs" in Presidency of Joe Biden page and arguing over it. Please forgive me for disturbing you! Chandan Kanti Paul (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Astronaut biographies
Would you be willing to drop by Featured article candidates/Lisa Nowak/archive1 and provide an opinion on the lead sentence and WP:ROLEBIO? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  23:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Space Race, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buran.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Apollo 11 into Space Race. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Space Race
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Space Race 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 Neopeius -- Neopeius (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, Neopeius, for taking this on. I'm eager to help.JustinTime55 (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Space Race
The article Space Race you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Space Race 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 Neopeius -- Neopeius (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Apollo 21 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Apollo 21, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Apollo 21 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space vehicle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spaceship.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Star Trek uniforms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commodore.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space Transportation System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Mueller.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Space Race § NPOV issues
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Space Race § NPOV issues. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § NPOV issues in some sections at Space Race
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § NPOV issues in some sections at Space Race. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Apollo–Soyuz‎
Hey JustinTime, I was’nt after a debate on who won the space race. My main issue was that quote was out of context for that article. The reason why I added the bit about contraversy was I tried to make a compromise edit with Bilcat, but they just reverted both my edits Ilenart626 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the edit history, thank you. We still need to thoughtfully reach consensus on whether or not to mention some think it the end. Many times, reaching consensus requires some debate. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Citations on Space Age
Hey Justin, I had added a BBC foreign language citation into the article which you reverted under "citation overkill". Just for your information it is partially a result of an ongoing discussion at WP:NPOVN, and on the verge of going to WP:RFC due to it on a tense stalemate.193.233.171.17 (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm aware of the NPOVN. You are the one which seems to be defying consensus; another user, ‎ has also removed your citations from the other two, citing lack of consensus. As the Overkill essay says, simply coat-racking more citations to support your side can be bad form. A Chinese version of BBC doesn't really add anything to verify Gagarin's first spaceflight (which is not in contention anyway). JustinTime55 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As might, "tense stalemate" is certainly one way to describe all other editors agreeing that your suggestions are bad. TompaDompa (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support; glad to see I'm recognized as a "subject matter expert". I've stayed out of the fray; it seems like way too much WP:Wikidrama being made of a dispute which should be easily resolvable by growing the hell up and presenting the verifiable mainstream facts in a NPOV way. These facts are without lack of historical consensus:
 * Gagarin is acknowledged as first human in space and in orbit; as the FAI decided, it's a trivial technicality he didn't land in the craft.
 * Shepard is the first American in space; also first to control his spacecraft and land in it (but no cigar as far as "first in space" goes).
 * The FAI's pedigree to acquire jurisdiction as the world's authority on spaceflight (strikes me as) a bit dubious, given they were an airsports association; nonetheless, they have become so recognized.
 * The Ukranian war is tragic, but really has nothing at all to do with this. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. By this point can that passage be pared down to something like "first to control his spacecraft and land in it" with the Praxis citation? That "land in it" is also a bone of contention between me and User:TompaDompa since for them it's like putting Dyomin's "first grandfather in space" on those articles. If this can be resolved amicably then the RFC would not be needed, saving everyone's time. 193.233.171.17 (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have put a possible last-minute solution involving the paring down of the passage and the addition of footnotes consisting of a near carbon copy from Yuri Gagarin regarding the FAI technicality. In order to help put the drama to rest, we'd be thankful if you can weigh in there, even for once.193.233.171.17 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Antennae
Your comment on the edit on 'list of artificial objects leaving the solar system' was 'insects have antennae, radios have antennas' ... you might want to goggle the following phrase "Hackers can turn computer cables into antennae to steal data". A lot of sites might disagree, as well as many an online dictionary ... :) The Yeti (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Ringslot vs ringshot
I moved this thread to Talk:Apollo command and service module to get more eyes on it. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mach.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Big Mac special sauce
Special sauce similar to thousand island dressing is addressed further along in the article; there is no need for it to be in the lead. You did not add quotation marks to all the 'special sauce' terms in the article. Why not? Absolutely Certainly (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Good Wikipedia articles are written in WP:summary style, such that the introduction summarizes the main body. So, yes there is need for it to be in the lead. This is so that readers with short attention spans don't necessarily have to read the entire article.
 * I don't know. I guess I don't care if the quotes are used or not, but there's not necessarily a requirement for them all to be consistent. That seems like nitpicking to me. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is either "special" or special. Caring or not guessing. Absolutely Certainly (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)