User talk:Redacted II/Archive 2

Advice for a (no longer) new editor

As my user page states, I am a (somewhat) new editor (as of June 2023). Please post all your complaints about me here, instead of making new topics. Redacted II (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 22:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Redacted II, please make sure you read the warning I left you at WP:AN3. To be clear, it means that if you edit-war again, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was not trying to edit war (in fact, I was very much keeping track of my reverts). At the same time, thank you for the warning, and I will try harder in the future. Redacted II (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  You don't have to revert 4x to violate policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I misremembered the rule. Again, thanks for reminding me. Redacted II (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your comments about keeping track of your reverts and misremembering the rule make it sound like you're not a new editor. Have you had other accounts before this one?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  I had an issue with edit warring a few weeks ago. I just misremembered the rule I had learned from that (4x vs 3x). Redacted II (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey, friendly tip: read WP:BLUDGEON and watch out for this issue. You are a very enthusiastic new editor (I was the same!) and sometimes you can get a bit carried away in discussions. Try not to express your views in each discussion/subject more than once. Replying to every comment can lead to trouble and makes discussions end up in a big mess. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Your not the first to warn me about WP:BLUDGEON. I'm trying to balance an avoidance of WP:BLUDGEON and remaining in "conversations" that I've already started. Redacted II (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a warning just a tip. Once you've replied in a thread it is usually better to then just wait for other editors to provide their comment. There is usually no point in starting endless conversations and no rush. Just wait for others to chime in. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I find that, in (some) "endless" conversations, a better understanding can be formed between two different views.

But I am taking your advice into consideration. Redacted II (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As you have not stopped your bludgeoning for many months now, despite many warnings from different editors, I've made a thread about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Redacted_II. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for such a drastic action, but your behavior is extremely disruptive when you make another RfC after the previous RfC has formed a consensus that doesn't match your opinion (that the launch is a failure). This is a serious failure to listen to other editors and value others' opinions, which does not belong in Wikipedia. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have made ZERO RFCs. Ever. The one that you posted a link to was made by DASL51984.

I also haven't even been an editor for two whole months yet.

Yes, my behavior starting out wasn't the best (to say the least), but that has been dealt with.

And in the sole area I'm debating with other editors on Wikipedia, I have acknowledged that RFC. Sure, I may not like it, but saying my attempts to get a clarification (labeling S24/B7 as prototypes) is disregarding other's opinions, is quite the stretch. Redacted II (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane I started this thread as friendly advice to a new user. Not a warning and I have seen an improvement already in Redacted's behaviour. So your attempt to frame this differently is inappropriate. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a different when you're just being enthusiastic versus when you make another RfC because the last RfC didn't go where you've wanted. That's two completely different things. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make the RFC!

DASL51984 did.

Please read my earlier post! And if you don't believe me, check the Talk Page history! Redacted II (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry that I've caused you trouble. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. No hard feelings.

(But would it be possible for you to stop the ANI thread?)

EDIT: THANK YOU! Redacted II (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I have removed from WP:DRN the dispute that you moved from WP:ANI because it was not entered in DRN using the dispute entry template. Because it was not entered using the template, it would have confused the bot that archives our disputes. Please re-enter the dispute using the template that is provided on the project page. We don't have a procedure for moving a discussion from another noticeboard, and I don't think that we need one, because I don't think that this particular sequence has happened in the last few years. So please enter the dispute using the template.

User:PicturePerfect666 - Your edits were also removed, like those of User:Redacted II, because they would have confused the bot. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to do that. Redacted II (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you want me to create the case shell for the dispute and then let you fill in the details? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If your computer crashes again, you can ask for advice at the Computing Reference Desk or Village Pump Technical. Otherwise, enter your description of the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 04:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Improper archival of discussions

Please do not archive discussions prematurely. Especially do not archive discussions that have had replies as recently as today. On talk pages with automatic archival enabled, it is usually not necessary to manually archive any discussions at all.

I recognize you are tired of this topic, and while I admire your maturity in wanting to put the issue behind you despite it not being resolved to your preference, you should not deny other users the chance to weigh in. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Especially do not archive discussions that have had replies as recently as today"

The topic had already been closed, and it was made clear that a reversal of the closure wasn't going to happen. I get you point, but it's a dead topic. And a dead topic that is over 60% of the talk page is a huge obstruction.

So, I'll wait another two-three days, but that RFC is choking the talk page. Redacted II (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to move it out of the talk page prior to auto-archival. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 07:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

A dead topic that is over 60% of a page is an obstruction for every single discussion that occurs after it. So, in cases like that, it should be removed. Redacted II (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I rearchived it.

If you have any objections, then please revert it. Redacted II (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that you rearchived it, why?

It is a huge obstruction on the talk page (now ~50% of the talk page).

AFAIK, a talk page should be under 100 kb. That topic alone is 104. Redacted II (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Small tip

Hey! Some friendly advice from reading your comments on the SpaceX related pages. I've noticed you are often coming across as WP:BLUDGEONing discussions. I struggle with the same problem as well. Watch out because it can be disruptive for the process of consensus building. It basically saturates the conversation an makes it harder for new editors to join the discussion (they won't read it all!). Instead of strengthening your point it weakens it by making it harder for other users to agree with you. My advice is to: try to limit yourself to 1 comment in each discussion as much as possible. Try to propose your idea as best as you can and then just leave the conversation be for some time. Only go back after a while to read what other editors had to say and try to resist replying to every user. It's just counterproductive. Keep up the good work! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I try to limit it my presence in a discussion as much as possible. I'll try harder in the future. Redacted II (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I know it isn't easy when someone is passionate about a topic. Remember there are millions of articles on Wikipedia that need your help. The crucial aspect is to have trust in the process. Say what you think and then trust that the community will do what is best in the end. You don't need to change everybody's mind on your own and do everything alone. Work on Wikipedia is never done. It's important to learn how to let go or you'll go crazy trying to fix everything alone :) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II this is exactly what I'm talking about: [1]. Is that comment really necessary? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought so. Redacted II (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Not really. And the shorter you can keep it the better usually. You don't need to reply to every comment anyone makes on one of the SpaceX pages. There are 202 comments by you on the Starship talk page alone. There are only 14 topics. That's an average of almost 15 per discussion. My advice is to aim for an average of 1. Remember that Dominating a discussion is a violation of the disruptive editing behavioral guideline so it's important to be mindful of this. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I often read the talk discussions but don't often comment, sometimes because people like @Redacted II have already written something similar to my PoV, or I read their comments and feel they've made a reasonable argument. Lack of comments from other people with similar views is not proof of lack of existence of people with those views.

If there is some kind of arbitrary threshold for the number of comments one person can make before people stop listening to that person, then that would imply that bystanders should jump in to take turns in order to divide the load even if it's just to say the same things. I don't think anyone wants that. Foonix0 (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, that threshold doesn't exist :) But in an ideal world one would be able to express their views in 1 comment in a very powerful manner and would not have to write anything else beyond that. Obviously this is the theory... but an average of 15 is a bit much in my view. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Partial Success is the right term

In the list of SpaceX Starship Flights page you changing the Partial Success to Partial Failure in IFT-2 but Partial Success is the right term shown in the chart named Launch outcomes Totallyepicgamer (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No it's not:

See List of Atlas launches (1957–1959), List of Atlas launches (1960–1969), List of Atlas launches (1980–1989), and List of Atlas launches (2000–2009). They all list "Partial Failure" Redacted II (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It's just atlas having the wrong term and needs fix Totallyepicgamer (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Atlas is correct. Your wrong here. I have gone through every list on Wikipedia I can find. They all say Partial Failure, not Partial Success. Redacted II (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Also leave my the word alone your gonna ruin it Totallyepicgamer (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

So, correcting you ruins a word?! That's absurd. Redacted II (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about my word edit Totallyepicgamer (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Your word? Redacted II (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

My edit where I changed partial failure to partial success Totallyepicgamer (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that you've been corrected by multiple people, are you done now? Redacted II (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

I noticed that a message you recently left to Totallyepicgamer may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. Redraiderengineer (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried to not to bite, but their refusal to stop, combined with the comments they made right above this topic, made them seem like a vandal. Redacted II (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

What? Move Starship???

Hi Redacted II,

I couldn't help but notice that you are a major contributor to the SpaceX articles. I just put a proposal over there at one of the: Starship article talk pages. If you get a chance, I would very much appreciate your opinion on my proposal there.

Thanks,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick comment there. I just put a quick reply to your reply there too. Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverts on SpaceX Starship

Hi, I thought I fully explained in the undo of your revert but apparently it hasn't been fully conveyed. Here's the quote in question with my edit included:

• The high temperature at which 300-series steel transitions to plastic deformation would eliminate the need for a heat shield on Starship's leeward side, while the much hotter windward side would be cooled by allowing fuel or water to bleed through micropores in a double-wall stainless steel skin, removing heat by evaporation. This idea, for the windward side, was abandoned in 2019 in favor of reusable heat shield tiles similar to those of the Space Shuttle.

As written, without my "for the windward side" addition, implys that the entire idea, including the use of 300-series stainless steel on the leeward side not needing heat shield tiles, was entirely abandoned and that the entire vehicle will need to use heat shield tiles/blankets all over the vehicle, like the Space Shuttle does even on the back side of the vehicle. That is not the case as the leeward side of the vehicle is still exposed stainless steel. "This idea" refers to the entire previous sentence, not just the second part of it that you seem to imply it does. Can you please revert your change and put this context back? Ergzay (talk) 05:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll revert it. Redacted II (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Ergzay (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"It cannot be 3/8/24. No NOTMAR, no MSIB"

True, but then it cannot be "early March" either, as 9th+ would be mid March... 47.67.199.119 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

March has 31 days. Assuming all sections are equal in size (early, mid, late), then Mid March begins on March 11. Redacted II (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, this should be on the main page, not my talk page Redacted II (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You herewith confirm that you are the one who is always right and may lash others as you like. Not the cooperative way WP should have. Do what you want, but do it alone, I will not help with the space topics anymore. 47.67.199.119 (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I made a counterargument, and told you that a dispute regarding an edit belongs in the talk page of the article, not the talk page of the person who made the edit (with the exception of vandalism).

How is any of that "lashing out"? Redacted II (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Your edit to SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 3 has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Redraiderengineer (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The section with the "copyright vio" was copied from a different article. Redacted II (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Most likely, this is a repeat of Starship Design process: an article copied Wikipedia, and now the copied section is getting marked for copyright violations.

Additionally, the copyright report states that violations are unlikely (2.9%). Redacted II (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SpaceX Starship flight tests. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Redraiderengineer (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion about the person you're arguing with, Silviyssa

I personally suspect that Silviyssa is a sock puppet account of some other person on wikipedia. If you look at the account history it was only created 3 days ago and all edits have been on the Starship talk page. Sock puppet accounts are against Wikipedia rules but we need evidence to support it. If you have an idea of who the person may actually be please let me know. I'm looking into how to do a so-called "check user" which the administrators can back check to see what other accounts are editing from the same IP address. Never done this process before. Ergzay (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I suspect 90% of the accounts I've been are arguing with are sockpuppets of the same person.

I have no idea how "check user" works, but if it comes up a match, please let me know, so that I can testify on ANI (or wherever the sockpuppets reports go) Redacted II (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

IMO, at 13:38 UTC tomorrow, when the debate has lasted for a week, we should just stop responding, and remove the Disputed tag.

This is due to their being a very strong consensus for success. Redacted II (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ergzay, you're looking for WP:SPI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I looked at that page, however it says I need evidence, but to get evidence you need to do a check user, but to be a check user you need a lot of privileges, and there's no check users I know to contact. The amount of bureaucratic process is unending. Ergzay (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No, Ergzay, you need to provide behavioral evidence in form of diff links as a prerequisite to anyone doing a check for technical evidence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Right but a diff link won't show anything, it just shows them writing comments on a talk page. The weird aspects aren't the diffs, but the fact that they're a newly created account and that their contributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Silviyssa show editing on only a single page. If I can only supply diffs I'm not sure where to go with this. Ergzay (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the article itself is semi-protected and a single-purpose account isn't automatically a sockpuppet of a different account. Is there something about Silviyssa's talk page contributions that makes it appear they're more experienced with Wikipedia's intricacies than an actual newcomer? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought the definition of a sock puppet was literally any account other than the primary account doing editing/writing comments on behalf of their primary account. And single-purpose account being a different concept entirely and more to do with editing style. As to your question, just possibly this diff that mentions "NPOV" which is not something a newcomer would know about. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship&diff=prev&oldid=1214607525 Ergzay (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh and this comment talking about "unreliable sources". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starship&diff=prev&oldid=1214606043 Ergzay (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the aspect that they're signing every single one of their posts. Something new people commonly make mistakes with. Ergzay (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Although at SPI, diff links are usually used to demonstrate how similar two users behave to each other, the type of evidence you have provided is equally valid. This is behavioral evidence in form of diffs, and you explain why it seems to indicate sockpuppetry. That's good and would be fine at SPI. But now that we're here already and SPI has a huge backlog, I'll have a look at the arguments:

• "NPOV": Good point, but in this specific case, that abbreviation was used four times on the page already, at least once with a link to WP:NPOV explaining it. The use of the abbreviation as a word in this way ("goes against NPOV") appears to be borrowed from Redacted II, who had said "would violate NPOV" a few messages above Silviyssa's. If I'm new to a community, I'll try to adapt to their terms and way of speaking, and it's reasonable enough to assume that this has happened here.
• The signatures are automatically provided by the reply tool that, looking at the "Reply" tag displayed next to the diffs in the history, was used here. One click on "Reply", no need to worry about signatures. Newcomer-friendly. Deals with indentation/threading automatically, too.
• "unreliable source" was also used in the discussion before, and isn't that much of an unusual Wikipedia-specific term. If you've seen it in a Wikipedia discussion once, you'll be almost unable to avoid using this term when you need it.

I would probably have performed a check now if the evidence was more convincing, but the tool may only be used to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing, and it seems to be too early to judge Silviyssa in this way. At least based on what has been provided so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional note: SpaceX is a highly popular topic, and we display a yellow warning box to everyone attempting to contribute to Wikipedia without an account: "You are not logged in. To be notified when someone replies and receive attribution with your name instead of your IP address, you can log in or create an account."

It isn't extremely far-fetched to assume that someone simply did so for participating in this one discussion. And that would be okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I can see your argument but I think I'd disagree that this isn't credible. I've certainly never seen this type of thing before myself where a brand new post is making massive long rants on talk pages and acting like they're experienced on Wikipedia. What are things I should be watching out for that would count as further evidence that you've seen personally that would be highly suspect? Ergzay (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This is hard to provide a universal answer for. Your ideas above are good, but they seem to be inapplicable in this specific case due to others having used the same terms before. I wouldn't focus on if the user is a sockpuppet that much. If their arguments are bad, you can explain this in a discussion, and if their arguments are good, they benefit the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Redraiderengineer (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Redraiderengineer You shouldn't have done this. Ergzay (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (SpaceX Starship flight tests) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT AN APPEAL FOR THE BLOCK, JUST A QUESTION.

I think that WyoGrad2024 was deliberately trying to vandalize the article (the speculation tags, IMO, are rather damning), and I am very concerned on what they will do if I can't stop their vandalism/disruptive editing (depending on whether they continue pushing the failure narrative once a consensus is reached).

Is there a way for me to, once the ban ends, revert any vandalism/disruptive edits (depending on whether they continue after a consensus is reached on the SpaceX) they conduct during those two weeks without violating 3RR?

Or would that constitute edit warring? Redacted II (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone else will revert if there's a need for a revert, and you can request this to happen on the article's talk page – even while blocked. There is {{edit partially-blocked}} for uncontroversial requests, and a need for discussion in case of controversial requests. Ideally, you can start a talk page section about something you disagree with, and then invite the other user to the talk page discussion using {{Please see}}. Please avoid discussing the matter on a specific user's talk page; that's what article talk pages exist for.

Simply continuing to revert the same contributions as soon as the block expires would just lead to a longer block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

WyoGrad2024 clearly doesn't check the talk page. If they had, then they would have known how sourced the 9 fights planned for 2024 stat is.

And I'm not sure if their edits will be reverted by others, simply because of the sheer number of disruptive edits I had to revert myself.

So, what do I do if they continue to disrupt the article? I can't revert their edits, but at the same time they don't check the talk page, so I can't discuss their edits there. Redacted II (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:DISCFAIL is the most helpful essay I've ever seen. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Redacted II If you need something reverted/edited, just ping me and I'll make the edit for you. Ergzay (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No, Ergzay, you shouldn't be unconditionally/blindly proxying for a blocked editor. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say I would be doing it blindly. If the edit make sense I'll make it. Ergzay (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That may be an appropriate and helpful offer, but please be careful when doing this. You take full responsibility for the edits when doing so; for example, if you edit war on someone else's behalf, you'll just be treated as an edit warrior and can't point to someone else as an excuse. I mean, that's probably obvious anyway. I'll trust your judgement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay you don't have to defend me like that.

While I'm glad you'll be checking SpaceX Starship Flight Tests for vandalism, please don't get into an edit war.

(Also, this goes to @ToBeFree as well, if you are going to discuss something, please don't do it on my talk page. I woke up today with 21 new messages on my talk page) Redacted II (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.

A bit of advice: I have no idea why, but when you expanding your responses in my talk page, it sent another notification. In the future, I recommend sending it as one message. (sorry for sending this in two parts, my mouse slipped and the message was sent through half-complete) Redacted II (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Your recent editing history at SpaceX Starship 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Redraiderengineer (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at SpaceX Starship flight tests 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Redraiderengineer (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The editor whose edit's I've been reverting has been making multiple disruptive edits.

I've requested that the article be protected, as the disruptive editor is not auto-confirmed. Redacted II (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is evidenced through behavior. If the editor is new, they may not be familiar with working collaboratively. Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

One: I would still have to revert their edits, as they are disruptive.

Two: they formed their account on March 14, and with 5 exceptions, they have only used their account to advocate for IFT-3 being a failure (and they are not alone in this), and to disrupt the SpaceX Starship Flight Tests article (deleting sourced info, adding in speculation tags in non-speculative text). Redacted II (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Super heavy-lift launch vehicle 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Redraiderengineer (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

In the last five days on that page, I have 2 reverts.

I don't think an average of .4 reverts/day constitutes edit warring. Redacted II (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Redacted II, I still had the page on my watchlist; I hope you'll allow me to provide my opinion about this: Of course you can be edit warring at 0.4 reverts per day. Imagine two users undoing each others' contributions again, again, again, again and again, and again, and again, and it doesn't ever end, and the three-revert rule is never broken. We still have an edit war in that situation. The three-revert rule defines one specific case where edit warring can't be denied to have happened. It doesn't apply to all cases of edit warring.

So, looking at [2], of course I see an edit war there. Ownership-asserting behavior. Please don't continue reverting when the disagreement has already become apparent. You'll need to resolve the disagreement first.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out this: I have been discussing it on the talk page.

I have also asked CtrlDPredator to self-revert back to the status quo (I'm not going to revert their latest edit), and they have refused to do so. Redacted II (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Your recent editing history at SpaceX Starship 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Redraiderengineer (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Revert 1 (Apr 17): readded cited info (editor removed success entirely)

Revert 2 (Apr 18): Corrected RVac ISP, as previous edit used info that is literally a decade old.

Revert 3 (Apr 19): readded cited info (editor removed status quo "success", while adding a source that supports launch success)

1 revert a day hardly constitutes edit warring, especially since all 3 edits were different. Redacted II (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Redraiderengineer (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)