User talk:Fm3dici97

November 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Wenchang Spacecraft Launch Site—because it 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. Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to check for existing entries when added new ones in spaceflight lists

Just wanted to remind you to check for existing launch entries when adding new ones to the lists, as you did in 2024 in spaceflight. I removed duplicated entries for GPS III-07, WSF-M, and Transport Layer Tranche 1 here, here, and here, respectively. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Yiosie 2356 00:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the mistakes! After seeing that the undisclosed USSF launches were not in the calendar yet (for an obvious reason) my brain decided to extand that to the other ones without checking. Fm3dici97 (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties in Serbia

I've already reverted several of your edits. You should stop changing the status for parties after the 2022 election because a new government hasn't been yet formed. Vacant0 (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok thanks, I saw that the Brnabic was in charge and I thought that a new one had already been formed. Sorry for the inconvenient. Fm3dici97 (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A new government is supposed to be formed by the end of August. I'll change it once the vote occurs in the National Assembly. Vacant0 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date of IM-1 mission?

You have updated the date of the IM-1 mission in several articles, from March 2023 to June 2023. However, the reference you used says March 2023. Do you have a better reference for the June date? -Arch dude (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm quite confident that when I updated the pages the link from Next Spaceflight was indicating a June 2023 launch date. It was probably reversed to the March date after that moment, and since it was my only source for that change feel free to reverse my edits, I'll try to do the same asap. Fm3dici97 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please deal with it, since I'm too much of a klutz to get it right :-) -Arch dude (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slc-4e LZ-4 Statistics

Can you put success in the LZ4 landing Statistics for me from today's transporter mission? Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep no problem. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket launch times

Hi; each time you add seconds precision to rocket launch event time value (List of spaceflight launches pages), could you also add a reference you got it from? Thanks, regards, —Mykhal (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mykhal, that usually applies to the Russian launches (for which Roscosmos and the Ministry of Defence provide the exact time) and some of the American, for which the exact time can be tracked sometimes in the pre-launch telemetries. In any case, several sources in the External links section mantain upgraded launch lists with all the corresponding times, therefore sources for that information are already present on the page. I avoid to add them to every single launch to keep the table format light and readable. Fm3dici97 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Qaem 100 stats

Hi could you please update the statistics for Qaem 100 in 2023 in spaceflight, I tried myself but failed with the graphs. Much appreciated. 109.78.1.85 (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure! And actually thanks for bringing the issue to me, I would've completely missed the source mentioning it otherwise. Fm3dici97 (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have known about the launch for about a month but I wasn't sure if it was legit until I saw the UN report. 109.78.1.85 (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Liberian general election

Hello. Thanks for compiling the parliamentary results. I assume you have tabulated the figures in Excel. Would you be able to paste it to the article's talk page so others can double check the calculations (and so it's there for future reference)? I think this is good practice (and something I've tried to do e.g. here, here or here). Cheers, Number 5 7 13:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, I just added them. And thanks for the suggestion in general, I'll try to remember to do the same whenever I process electoral results on my own. In the specific case of the Liberian election I've data only for the House, but the Senate ones should be fairly easier to check and process straight from the NEC website. Fm3dici97 (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Number 5 7 16:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Ecuadorian general election

Hello. Are you planning on completing the National Assembly results table? It has an empty column as the total seats weren't added previously. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Number 5 7, yeah thanks for reminding me. That column was reserved for the results of the abroad constituencies, that for some reason hadn't been updated in the electoral commission webiste (despite indicated as 100% counted). I used to keep an eye on the website but after a while I stopped doing it. I see that the Spanish page has updated them so I'll just take them from there (tho I'm not sure how to deal with the fact that the Spanish page has more imprecise results that don't account with the different mix of parties in different constituencies). Btw, I just saw that the page is protected now, did something happen in the meantime? Fm3dici97 (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually added only the seats won by the parties who run in the overseas constituencies. The numbers in the Spanish page don't add up and they used as a source the old results platform which is no longer available. And even if the electoral commission reuploaded all the results on its website, for some reason the vote counts for those constituencies are still not indicated so I'll keep that column blank for the moment. Fm3dici97 (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Timothytyy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Timothytyy (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Einstein Probe spacecraft.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Einstein Probe spacecraft.jpg. 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) 03:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2024 European Parliament election in Austria

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 European Parliament election in Austria, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SMALLFONT

MOS:SMALLFONT is not optional. Avoid using smaller font sizes within page elements that already use a smaller font size, such as most text within infoboxes, navboxes, and references sections. ... In no case should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size. The font does drop below 85% when {{small}} is applied in an infobox or navbox. The Manual of Style takes precedence over specific template documentation. Further, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Nobody is expected to fix every problem all at once. I have removing smallfont from infoboxes and navboxes for years and am sure I will never be complete in that work. Your accusations of bad faith on my part are contrary to the principles of editing on Wikipedia, not my method of bringing navboxes into compliance. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu I'm sorry, but my accusation still stands. And this doesn't mean that I'm questioning the MOS:SMALLFONT principles, but just your methods. If it is true that Wikipedia is a work in progress, it is also true that Wikipedia progresses through the cooperation of its users in reaching a new consensus when necessesary. In that sense, your behaviour is far for being constructive: such a small and negligible change (which I noticed in both cases because I went through the history looking for something else, and not because I saw the difference), thrown without context and without any contribution towards a new standard for the template, helps no one if not yourself. I stand by what I said before: you want to actually help? Start a discussion, instead of just compulsively delivering small edits to randomly selected pages. Fm3dici97 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did start a discussion, right here, on your talk page. My "methods" are making edits as I can, and removing the small manually from these navboxes, not missing the closing bracket, is tedious. Perhaps I can get through them more quickly if I program WP:AWB. Meanwhile, there's nothing cooperative with undoing my edit that made the navbox compliant, especially if you're not questioning the guideline behind the edit. If you want to help, remove {{small}} from navboxes. There is no "new consensus" to form. (And it's not for me. It's a web accessibility issue. Your assumption of bad faith is unfortunate and counter to the project.) – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu you started a discussion here only after I called you out for your behviour so it doesn't really seem to me something to bring as an example of attemtped cooperation. And again changing one out of sixty of those spaceflight templates without notifying any of the usual editors, or without trying to involve the people in WikiProject Spaceflight in creating a new standard for those templates (which is what my "new consensus" was referring to) is close to useless when the big picture is taken into account. I was lucky enough to notice your changes, yes, but adapting Wikipedia to better standards shouldn't be based on luck. Of course, from a purely technical point of view you did nothing wrong, so if that's the only thing you care about the discussion can end here. But I personally believe that improving Wikipedia should be based on something more than just mechanically applying rules, especially when this involves experienced editors. Fm3dici97 (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started the discussion after you edit warred and demonstrated bad faith towards me, even though there's no requirement for me to start a discussion. I agree that Wikipedia is based on more than following rules. In that spirit, you need to brush up on WP:5P4. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Fm3dici97!

The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese launches as a source

Hello, I am the same person from "Qaem 100 stats". Recently you removed many launches sourced from "List of Chinese launches" wiki source and so please do not remove any more before replying to me, I have found they have been very reliable in the past and just please give them a chance before deciding they are unreliable. Thank you. Puck1737172 (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Puck1737172, the problems with using that Wikipedia page as a source are two mainly:

1. As a good practice, we shouldn't use other wikipedia pages as sources. They should always be external, preferably third party sources;

2. The user responsible for many of the guesses in that Wikipedia page, mikezhang, is very known to me. He's also very active in the NASASpaceFlight Forum, where he has often been criticized for guessing a bit too wildly and being often inaccurate. And this is also why the admins of that Forum, which often rely on the Forum itself to update the Next Spaceflight database (a source that I consider reliable) never include mikezhang's guesses about Chinese payloads, considering them too inaccurate.

Now, since the reliability of a source cannot be decided on a case to case basis, and given the two issues above, I'm against using that Wikipedia page as a source. Using the sources contained in the page itself is fine of course, but otherwise I would restrain from making edits based on that. I hope I made my position clear, and I hope you can agree with me on this. Fm3dici97 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Left (Poland)

Hi, your recent changes to the Elections results section of New Left (Poland) article, have removed apropriate references for the figures. Also the format and style of the tables was highly intentional and corresponded with those of other political parties in Poland articles:

left-alignment for figures' cells and right-alignment for the commentary, sentence-case cells;
italicization of figures that stand for the whole coalition's performance;
smaller font for the position number to make it more clearly distinguishable from the count of votes.

That's why I've reverted your changes. -- Antoni12345 (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

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 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) [reply]