Redacted II (talk | contribs) |
Redraiderengineer (talk | contribs) →March 2024: Warning: Edit Warring |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> |
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> |
||
[[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 21:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
[[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 21:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:SpaceX Starship flight tests]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|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 [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. |
|||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> |
|||
[[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 17:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Ship 28 mass === |
=== Ship 28 mass === |
Revision as of 17:54, 20 March 2024
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
B10 static fire
I liked how I pressed submit edit at the same time you did Stoplookin9 (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to say hi
Hi Redacted,
I just left a comment making it clear that my comments I had left on the ANI thread weren't trying to support sanctions against you. I really do appreciate and respect you. You have an incredible passion for this topic and that clearly shows in your editing.
The point of my original comments was to bring your attention to somethings that you've said/done that I personally find problematic (I'm sure I have behaviors that are problematic as well); the point again was NOT to argue for sanctions. All I'm asking is that you take these two points below to heart.
1.) Please let the failure vs non failure thing go. The consensus isn't there for any changes like you've been suggesting to add. Everytime you bring it up it's just frustrating editors more and more and comes across like WP:NOTGETTINGIT.
2.) Please don't bludgeon in RFC's like you did here [1] (RFC on Infobox Flight Status). You left 59 out of 128 comments in the discussion section, so 46.1% of comments were written by you. That's almost half. Roughly 65% of the words written in that discussion were also you. That is WP:BLUD, quoting from there: "If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process". It's disruptive editing. By dominating the conversation so thoroughly you're preventing other editors from chiming in and being heard (such as myself, I chose not to participate in that RFC because I noticed the bludgeoning).
I think these are reasonable requests? If you disagree please let me know, but I think these are pretty reasonable asks. Chuckstablers (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dude, no hard feelings.
- As for your requests (which are 100% reasonable, with one amendment).
- 1: I have. The goal for the recent topic was to mention the controversy, and state why failure is the correct classification for both launches.
- As for the amendment: several editors have stated that they would be open to classifying IFT-1 and IFT-2 as prototype failures once it is flying operationally. When V2 starts flying, I will try to get them labeled as V1 failures.
- 2: Yes, I know bludgeoning is a major issue for me. I'm trying to get better at it. If I start bludgeoning, please, let me know. Redacted II (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Glad we're pretty much on the same page and glad there's no hard feelings.
- With respect to 1: I'm more than happy to revisit clarifying what exactly it was that failed (earlier versions, etc) if/when Starship is seeing commercial regular launches or we know it's final form and have clear lines in the sand between different versions (just like we do for Falcon 9). I also get what you were trying to do, I just think we'd need more RS's actually discussing the existence of a controversy before we note it, but I get why you wanted to add it. I don't think it was entirely unjustified or anything like that; it's just a pain point for a lot of editors due to how much time/energy the debate has taken up and is going to result in pretty strong knee-jerk reactions against it if its brought up right now.
- With regard to 2; if I notice that I'll let you know. You've been great since the last RFC ended. If you notice me getting carried away and bludgeoning please let me know as well.
- With that out of the way I hope you had a good holiday season/new year! Hope 2024 treats you well and all that. Am on vacation till next week so I got some more spare time. Please let me know if you think there's any areas regarding Starship that need some work and I'll take a look. Chuckstablers (talk) 19:00, 10 January 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:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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)
Would you like one?
I made a few userboxes. User:Stoplookin9/ub/SpaceX
This user may be potentially obsessed with Starship. Be careful! |
Stoplookin9 :) Send me a message! 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- LOL I love it! Redacted II (talk) 12:19, 1 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)
Ship 28 mass
Redacted II, Do you have a link to a source of Ship 28s estimated on Orbit mass? Something with dry mass, plus what fuel is left in the tanks?
Thanks, User:Zygerth (talk) 17 March 2024. — Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- yeah, I saw in the FAA filings (https://www.faa.gov/media/76836 pg. 101) that the ship would have 100 tons of prop (well, 70+30 between the main and headers), and there are already sources that say dry mass is 100 tons.
- I forgot to cite it. I'll go fix it as soon as I can.
- I don't think 100+70+30=200 constitutes Original Research. Redacted II (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Review
Hey, I just rewritten the lead and add new images in 2023 in spaceflight and 2022 in spaceflight. Do you like it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- It looks great! Redacted II (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it might be time to rewrite SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars... I envision that this article would focus on SpaceX's drive of getting to Mars, and more importantly, how this affect the space industry as a whole. Do you think it is still premature to write this article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- IMO, the sooner it's rewritten, the better. Redacted II (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, how should we rewrite this article? I just rewrited Mars Society and I have some experience in writing about Mars-related stuff, but I have no idea how this article would look like in the end. Obviously we need to talk about Red Dragon, ITS, BFR, Starship and things like that... but what about the more general goal of SpaceX landing humans on Mars or the fact that Elon's action has been molded by the Mars mission? How can we write about this objectively? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Here's what I'm thinking:
- Section 1: Prior concepts. Keep this as small as possible
- Subsection 1: very early talk from Elon (I think he once had a mars greenhouse concept) and SpaceX.
- Subsection 2: Mars Colonial transporter, ITS, Red Dragon
- Section 2: Current design (Starship) and plans.
- Section 3: Criticism, potential issues, delays, ect, ect Redacted II (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe add another section to explain that this is SpaceX's primary goal, and this goal has fundamentally change the conversation about Mars mission proposals. Also talk a bit more about Mars mission architectures that uses Starship in section 2. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, shall we get to work? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- On it Redacted II (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm doing initial work here, to prevent messing up the article. Redacted II (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, shall we get to work? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe add another section to explain that this is SpaceX's primary goal, and this goal has fundamentally change the conversation about Mars mission proposals. Also talk a bit more about Mars mission architectures that uses Starship in section 2. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, how should we rewrite this article? I just rewrited Mars Society and I have some experience in writing about Mars-related stuff, but I have no idea how this article would look like in the end. Obviously we need to talk about Red Dragon, ITS, BFR, Starship and things like that... but what about the more general goal of SpaceX landing humans on Mars or the fact that Elon's action has been molded by the Mars mission? How can we write about this objectively? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- IMO, the sooner it's rewritten, the better. Redacted II (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it might be time to rewrite SpaceX ambition of colonizing Mars... I envision that this article would focus on SpaceX's drive of getting to Mars, and more importantly, how this affect the space industry as a whole. Do you think it is still premature to write this article? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:37, 18 March 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)