user talk:Yiosie2356

Hi, the Wiki diff view isn't that useful for table edits so I'm not sure what exactly you changed: Is List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches up to date in that aspect, too? --mfb (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

::I'm updating the rideshares based on [https://rideshare.spacex.com/search this page]. Because it lists "available flights" I don't know if the rideshare missions from July 2020 and earlier, previously taken from [https://web.archive.org/web/20200113163441/https://www.spacex.com/smallsat the original version of the SmallSat Rideshare Program page], still exist or not (perhaps they do, but they're fully booked and thus not listed? No clue). I split the difference by leaving all the existing missions and just updating the payloads on the 2020 list, and fully updating all the missions on the 2021 page. I haven't checked the List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches yet. I'll take a look at it later today, I suppose. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 17:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Yiosie2356, I have an inquiry regarding your recent edit at 2020 in spaceflight. The refs provided in the article, and a JAXA press release [https://global.jaxa.jp/press/2020/04/20200430-1_e.html] mentions the deployment of Quetzal-1, while they seem silent on G-SATELLITE. My assumption is that the latter hasn't been deployed and remains yet inside the ISS. I can always be wrong, so please disregard this message in that case. By the way, your continuous work in the Timeline of spaceflight pages has been a great motivator for me, and I'm sure your diligence benefits everyone reading the pages. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Hms1103}} Thanks for the inquiry! For some reason I thought that G-SATELLITE was mentioned in the reference I added, but it is not. Added a new reference [https://www.fukuishimbun.co.jp/articles/-/1077428] for the deployment. I love improving spaceflight articles, especially the timeline lists, and I'm always open to corrections and suggestions! Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 05:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

:::There were some conflicting information[https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1255158970890756096] regarding G-SATELLITE, but I found a paper version of the ref you added[https://twitter.com/Zdz47X57Djfha0s/status/1255259551768731650] and yes it does say it was deployed on the 28th (28日、国際宇宙ステーション(ISS)の日本実験棟「きぼう」から放出された。). Thanks for clearing things up! Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

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

(I've been working on the timeline from the other end: I've finished 1944-1952, and I've filled in orbital shots for 1966)

Hi. This is regarding reversed edit in 2021 in spaceflight (January–June), when I use for e.g. "Starlink-18" in citation I mean Starlink v1.0-L18. I understand that this may cause confusion and will use proper naming in the future. Nonetheless, Emre Kelly states that both next Starlink launches are from pad 39A, though is seems logical for them to interchange the pads. Berkut88 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the differing terminologies used for numbering Starlink launches can get pretty confusing. Once multiple sources agree that pad 39A will be used for Starlink v1.0-L18, feel free to change it back! Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 21:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert on List of Starship flights. I think I fat-fingered things on my phone and didn't realize that'd rolled that back. My apologies. Carter (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

We seem to have a conflict about whether Wikipedia should say August-December 2021 or NET August 2021 for the Starship orbital test flight. On other pages, something like this isn't used. Usually, missions that doesn't have a certain launch date says NET than a month. We should discuss this. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yiosie2356, as always thanks for all your effort in updating various launch schedules worldwide. I have a comment regarding the lunar lander company ispace's third mission. Unlike the first and second, which are branded as the Hakuto-R program, I believe the third mission is yet to be assigned to any program. [https://ispace-inc.com/news/?p=713 ispace's presser] about the launch contract with Space X says, "The company’s first two lunar missions will be carried out under the program name HAKUTO-R". Furthermore, the [https://ispace-inc.com/project/ 'project' page] in ispace's website places Mission 1 and 2 under Hakuto-R, while Missions 3 to 9 are grouped together, separately from Hakuto-R. Mission 1 and 2 are branded as the Hakuto-R program, as a homage to the former team Hakuto. Meanwhile, Mission 3 could mark the start of a new program, or it could just simply be added to Hakuto-R as 'Hakuto-R Mission 3'. As things are undetermined, for now I suggest calling it as 'ispace Mission 3'. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

:Thanks for the heads up. Looking over the links you provided, I agree with your suggestion regarding the naming of ispace Missions. Feel free to make those edits! I'll review the relevant pages myself later. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 01:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Link and timestamp of "announcement"?

:I've added the [https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1438295075012825090 announcement of successful landing] from SpaceX's Twitter to B1062 on the List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters page. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 01:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering your source for the Hwasong-8 launch, as it's not one of the Iskander-M (KN-23 style missiles we've seen them test in March and mid September (those reached ~60 km). Rather it's a ballistic hypersonic missile, which is different than a hypersonic cruise missile. You may have them confused. Hypersonic ballistic missiles reach an apogee in space, beyond the 100 and 80 km line, then reach hypersonic speeds on reentry. Hypersonic cruise missiles reach hypersonic speeds in atmosphere and don't reach near the altitude hypersonic ballistic missiles do. This launch (Hwasong-8) is a hypersonic ballistic type using a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) which must be boosted to a high apogee. Again, this isn't a cruise missile and I'm curious about your source of apogee. Thank you.--Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Jrcraft Yt}} There are conflicting sources, but 30 km and 60 km are the only given altitudes reported in the media so far. 30 km sources: [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/09/29/asia-pacific/north-korea-hypersonic-missile/] [https://www.nknews.org/2021/09/north-korea-tested-new-hypersonic-missile-state-media/]. 60 km sources: [https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42560/north-korea-claims-to-have-tested-a-hypersonic-missile] [https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210928000455325]. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 03:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

::: Source [https://m-en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210928000455325], the 60km is referring the the launch on September 15. It states "It did not specify if the projectile is a ballistic missile and has not released such details as its flight range and altitude" in regards to the test on the 28th.--Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Your signature appears to be in violation of WP:SIGAPP, which says, "Avoid markup such as {{Tag|big|o}} and {{Tag|span|params=style="font-size: 200%;"|o}}^{(or more)} tags (which {{Big|enlarge}} text); this is likely to disrupt the way that surrounding text displays." —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Anomalocaris}} Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I have corrected my signature accordingly (it was created in 2011, before WP:SIGAPP existed). Yiosie 2356 08:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

:::Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi {{u|Yiosie2356}}, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1061698611&markasread=235576071&markasreadwiki=enwiki&diffmode=source ] Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I was intending to put the data removed in two separate pages of spaceflight launches Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|Chinakpradhan}} You will need to get consensus from other editors on the article's talk page before starting a large-scale restructuring like that. Yiosie 2356 11:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

:::ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Chandrayaan 3 will be launched this year. Some media misunderstood the launch date of Chandrayaan 3 as mid 2023 due to the new year message given by Dr K Sivan. New year message was given on 31st December so they mean Chandrayaan 3 will be launched by the middle of 2022. Even India's Science and Technology Minister has confirmed that Chandrayaan 3 will be launched this year

https://mobile.twitter.com/PBNS_India/status/1481815835006091264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1481815835006091264%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-21021024743907434976.ampproject.net%2F2112231523002%2Fframe.html Harshdeep2021 (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

:{{Reply to|Harshdeep2021}} Thanks for the update. I have reverted the 2023 launch dates back to Q3 2022 on the relevant articles. Yiosie 2356 13:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The Reception section, specifically the Controversy part, did not violate the rules about neutrality, reaction from both Japanese and American audience needed to be written (the voice of Japan in this doesn't count?) and also who started it all and everyone knows who, it's a well known fact, not a mystery. That's why there are the sources to prove and validate the content. Plus, I have to report a user that could be a vandal or a block evader previously reported, because they mentioned a site to be a hentai site (it talks about anime, manga and videogames in general, not just hentai) and a homophobic/transphobic site. It's not true at all, it's a big lie and slander trying to smear and invalidate everything, they are the only one who violated those rules. The user is 77.162.37.188 . Thanks. 151.44.78.107 (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, with the last version, besides trying to satisfy all disagreements, I also followed the suggestions/requests and corrections from Blue Riband. I hope you agree with my last work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.10.217 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you join the discussion I had/am having with Blue Rind in his talk page? Because we mentioned you and we thought would be a good idea if you joined us to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.34.112.61 (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Yiosie2356 - you might want to look at recent edits to this article again. There's an ISP editor who is claiming vandalism and sockpuppetry. I've asked them to state their disagreement on the article talk page. Blue Riband► 01:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

:@Blue Riband - Thanks for the notification. I responded on the talk page. Yiosie 2356 03:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Waiting for your response in the talk page after the post-edit explanation and I'd like to make it quick, please. 151.34.158.249 (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I saw that you have a keen interest on current space topic, and I guess that you might found my new Wikipedia:Constellation program interesting: it's about selecting one of a few articles that would need to be improved to GA and FA. What do you think about the project, and what changes should I make to it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my url mistake in the List of the oldest living people. Rklingmann (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi {{ping|Yiosie2356}}, 100th birthday citations should be dated from the day the subject turned 100 or after. A week before, or even a day before is not acceptable. I'm not going to revert anymore of your edits, but I ask you replace them with sources that came after their birthday, or self-revert the edits. We're very careful who we put into the centenarian categories nowadays because a lot of individuals die off radar and it isn't revealed until weeks, sometimes even months or years after. Thanks Jkaharper (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

:@Jkaharper Understood, thanks for the notification. Yiosie 2356 01:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

At the top of every year's section there is this long note, but people don't seem to read it and you appeared to have not read it either. Do you have any suggestions so that people such as yourself see it?

Ergzay (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

:Specifically you missed the part "The main source for the announcement should go after the payload name and not be repeated in other columns." Ergzay (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

::@Ergzay You're right, I did miss that part. It seems like my eyes gloss over most of the note due to its length, and that's my bad. To make it more noticeable, I would revise the first three lines as follows:

::1. Only officially announced missions should be listed. No rumors or speculation!

::2. The primary source for the announcement should go directly after the payload name. Do not repeat it in other columns.

::3. The most up-to-date source for the launch date should go directly after the date/time.

::Adding 1-2-3 numbering distinguishes these lines from the following ones, giving them priority for attention. Line 1 gets an exclamation point for emphasis. Lines 2 and 3 have been rewritten to be more direct and to complement each other in structure.

::The rest of the note seems fine to me. What do you think about these suggestions? Yiosie 2356 00:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

:::Immediately following writing my message and before your response, I separated the lines and added numbering. How does it look as is? Ergzay (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

::::@Ergzay The numbering and spacing are good, though it doesn't seem like the content has been changed. The line rewrites I suggested above are intended to make the rules more direct and flow better for comprehension. If you feel that's unnecessary, then it can be left as is; otherwise, feel free to make changes as you see fit. Yiosie 2356 01:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

:::::I didn't have an opinion on your suggested changes. I just wanted to check to see if you thought the changes sufficient. I'll likely adapt your changes either directly or maybe modified. Ergzay (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Yiosie2356, I have a comment regarding the page 2019 in spaceflight, specifically about the ALE-1 satellite. According to N2YO, while the object '[https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=53314 ALE-DOM]' has indeed been deorbited, '[https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=43938 ALE-1]' apparently still remains in orbit.

My understanding is the following. ALE-1's initial altitude after separating from its rocket was going to be too high to perform its objective, to release small pellets to burn up in Earth's atmosphere. So ALE-1 carried a deorbit sail called SDOM (Separable De-Orbit Mechanism) that was used to bring it down to its optimal altitude. [https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tastj/19/1/19_19.42/_pdf#page=6 According to this paper's] Fig. 17, once ALE-1 reaches its target altitude, SDOM gets separated from it. I assume what's catalogued as 'ALE-DOM' in N2YO is the SDOM after getting jettisoned, while ALE-1 itself has not been deorbited yet. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

:@Hms1103 Thank you for clarifying the distinction between ALE-1 and its de-orbit mechanism! I will revise the edits I made to 2019 in spaceflight and Innovative Satellite Technology Demonstration Program accordingly. Yiosie 2356 20:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

{{ivmbox

|1=On 26 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article P. Sabanayagam, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

|2={{Ambox globe current red}}

|imagesize=50px

}}

Hi Yiosie2356. Thank you for your work on RFA One. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Thank you for creating the article! I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a blessed day!}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|{{Re|SunDawn}}}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this [https://wikimediafoundation.limesurvey.net/962595?lang=en anonymous survey].

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey [https://wikimediafoundation.limesurvey.net/962595?lang=en here].

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the citation you made for the 'Untitled Backyard Sports game' column and I decided to copy it to use in the Backyard Sports page for the paragraph talking about Playground Productions' plans in releasing games. Is that alright? 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:9D2B:8033:926E:A143 (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:No need for permission to reuse a citation; go ahead and use it. Yiosie 2356 07:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. I kind of thought I didn't need to, but I wasn't entirely sure. I did credit you as the one who made the cite when I copied it though. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:9AA:47AA:3ED0:7F96 (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Welcome, welcome, welcome Yiosie2356! I'm glad that you are joining the June 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

{{center|{{Clickable button 2|Special:RandomInCategory/All articles lacking sources|Fix a random page lacking sources|class=mw-ui-progressive}}|style=margin:1em}} Cielquiparle (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Yiosie2356, nice to meet you! I saw that you are a part of WP:INTERNET and have been really helpful on a number of pages. I've been working to update the article about Substack, and I was hoping you would take a look at the edit request I posted here. If you agree that the changes improve the article, would you mind implementing them?

Thank you, LS4Substack (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)