typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
☆ Bri ( talk) 03:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for improving all the content in a lot of space related topics like over at:
It's really nice to have cleanups of articles. Looking at this tool called xtools link here you made over 1,700 changes so far!!!! Wow, that's just amazing! Obviously I can't go to every edit and thank you for every one. But I guess I take take a few minutes to thank you for your contributions.
Just as a comment, I found that XTools can be really helpful when looking for page statistics and that sort of stuff. If you want links to them, you can go to the Revision history of page and click on the links next to "External tools:" over at the top of the page (below "Filter revisions").
Hope you choose to stay on Wikipedia, we always need a helping hand. If you need any help (looks like you already know a lot (more then I did when I started editing at Wikipedia)), you can leave a message over at User talk:OkayKenji or any other editor, we will be happy to help.
Fellow Editor,
It is nice to see a new user catch up so fast and copyedit so many science articles. Cheers, Rowan Forest ( talk) 00:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if it was a good idea to massively replace all mentions of "manned" to "crew". I understand that gender-neutral words should be preferred, but there is consistency in the usage of "manned" in some contexts. What do you think? agucova ( talk) 04:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if you have any interest in working your cleanup magic on the article Terraforming of Mars. Cheers, Rowan Forest ( talk) 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rocket engine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solid state ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
After I read your talk page I realized my edit was a mistake. I undid my edit. Viewratio ( talk) 22:49, 4 July 2019 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:5Ept5xW reported by User:Calidum (Result: ). Thank you. Calidum 05:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Apollo program shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization Talk 05:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 13:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)5Ept5xW ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My apologies for getting heated, other editors were being threatening and/or making what should have been an academic discussion personal. I don't pretend to understand why the other editors think that it is so very important that we preserve 1960's sexism, but at the same time there are plenty of other spaceflight articles in dire need of attention, and I personally am not the SJW that I was accused of being. The use of gendered language in that article harms both the public perception of the Apollo program and the spaceflight discussion in general, but that's not my problem. 5Ept5xW ( talk) 17:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not so much an unblock request as it is a lecture. The argument you are making in favor of your version should have been made on the talk page(s) instead of continuing to revert. Once reverted you should have sought consensus and stopped reverting. To be unblocked, you must show understanding of what to do instead of edit warring. You must affirm you will do this rather than continue to edit war. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
5Ept5xW ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Yep. What I was saying is that I'm not intending on pushing the issue any further. Have you reviewed the threatening remarks that the other editors made? 5Ept5xW ( talk) 19:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Please post the dif's. I can't say I'll be back this way, but once the block is expired you may want to discuss at ANI.
Letting it drop in no way ensures you won't get into another donnybrook. Hence my requirement that you understand edit war avoidance and dispute resolution.
I know how hard it can be to stop when the emotions are engaged, but stop we must. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 21:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, it appears as though I can still edit my talk page even while blocked(?). Is this explained anywhere? 5Ept5xW ( talk) 21:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Dlohcierekim: Hello? New user here, just trying to sort out things out. 5Ept5xW ( talk) 21:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) have not seen Bb23's reply.
As this is the case, I will offer no further contact or advice. I've asked twice for you to show me where the other editors' offending edits were. Twice you responded with hostility and w/o doing so. Once again, please read the links about edit warring and dispute resolution. Good Day! Dlohcierekim ( talk) 23:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
5Ept5xW ( talk) 23:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Space Race. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.
For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.
If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{
helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia.
Making a large number of edits that can't be reverted, as you did, makes it that much harder to correct and increases likelihood of error if the dates are mis-copied. Always check to see if an article is already tagged "use mdy" or "use dmy"; don't change an existing article. Otherwise, you are free to choose either format, respecting MOS:DATETIES, and then tag the article at the top with template:use mdy dates or template:use dmy dates. Also the formats must be kept consistent in each article. JustinTime55 ( talk) 14:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't the idea of a "crew of 4" imply that it's 4 people-as opposed to gibbons or chimps or some other animal? I know that we sent up chimps testing Mercury, but as far as I know, it's been 55 years since we've sent non-humans up as "crew". I don't think that saying "4" for the crew is going to confuse anybody. Almostfm ( talk) 20:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RUAG Space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ariane ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 19:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Maiden flight vs. first flight -- mfb ( talk) 07:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
As Mfb wrote, I wasn't really expecting you to have a public survey handy. You were supporting your argument by claiming "most people" agree with you. That puts the burden of proof on you. If there is no way to prove it, fine. But that makes it an unsupported and potentially baseless assertion. I don't think that has a place in a rational discussion. Fcrary ( talk) 18:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Trump is president, and if you asked him he either wouldn't know what you meant or be very opposed. So what? 5Ept5xW ( talk) 22:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I reverted your changes for several reasons. Please see comments on the Spaceflight project talk page.
First, you made major changes, such as moving (renaming) an article without any discussion and when there was no consensus for such a change. That alone is sufficient reason to revery a change.
Second, you are taking gender-neutral language too far. It does not mean the elimination of all gendered nouns. Specifically it is about using gendered words to describe groups or professions. See the Wikipedia article on gender neutrality
Third, the Wikipedia Manual of Style says ships can be referred to as "she", so gendered words are allowed when they refer to an inanimate object.
Fourth, the MOS also says that, when gendered to non-gendered language are both acceptable, changes should only be made if there is a "substantial reason to do so." You have not expressed any such substantial reason. Fcrary ( talk) 23:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Atlas V shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Lauritz Thomsen ( talk) 05:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
"Didn't seem to comply with grammatical rules." Sigh.
I am the user in question. As I have said again and again, please read the relevant section of the Manual of Style. You will find that this is a Berenstain Bears situation: the grammatical rules are not what you think they are, and your feeling of certainty is not reliable. I really wish you'd just go and read it. You've "split the difference yet again"; very well. But there isn't any difference to split. I think your proposed sentence is overlong and tortured. Sure, sure, nobody can identify anything actually wrong, and you're just adding detail; but very little is added, and this in the summary, where it isn't merited, and all in service to your refusal to accept that "She went to school in Jakarta, Indonesia and Lawrence, Kansas" is simply WRONG. "She went to elementary and high school in Jakarta, Indonesia, and she went to another high school in Lawrence, Kansas" is not better; it is worse. Please: don't condescend to humour me with this "compromise". Just go thou and visit the MoS. Thank you. Regulov ( talk) 09:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it that way. And certainly, I would think twice about putting it that way if I had the talk page you do. Have you read the MoS entry on commas in dates and places yet? I solemnly swear that will satisfy me. I think I've said this before, but it isn't that I'm pissed off over a comma; I'm pissed off (if that is the phrase) because you are still trying to be right, instead of just saying, "Oh, now I see. My mistake." And now you're trying to make me out to be wrong, not because I'm wrong, but because I'm petty enough to care. You care just as much as I do; it's just that I've read MOS:GEOCOMMA and you haven't. Regulov ( talk) 05:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw the remark. Have you read MOS:GEOCOMMA yet? Regulov ( talk) 08:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The hostility is in your mind. "I withdraw the remark. Have you read MOS:GEOCOMMA yet?" is civil. Have you? Regulov ( talk) 08:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it too aggressive for me to say I think there's no need to be so defensive? Regulov ( talk) 06:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I get it. I seem extremely aggressive to you, because you wish I would just let you have your way, and it seems unjust, hostile, even malicious of me not to throw up my hands and walk away at this point—over a comma! Please accept my assurance that from here it looks more like you are being unduly defensive.
I've filed a request for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third Opinion. Maybe that will help.
Regulov ( talk) 06:48, 28 July 2019 (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. —DIYeditor ( talk) 22:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Re. your most recent reversion of a minor, good faith edit to Atlas V: let us please not go through all that again. Vandalism? Really? MOS:DATECOMMA — Regulov ( talk) 04:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Regulov: It looked wrong, and you have been consistently aggressive with me. 5Ept5xW ( talk) 04:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Next time you come across a correction of this kind (see also: "On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon."), I hope you will refrain from reverting it, recalling that your intuition is not reliable in such cases.
I noticed you have spent the last several days tagging hundreds of passages with "citation needed". While regular editors sometimes come across such need, your systematic campaign is quite annoying, especially when tagging trivial information or text that is already referenced in the previous sentence or through the intralink. If you are interested in supporting text, I invite you to actually research and document what you consider controversial and in need of additional supporting references. Thank you. Rowan Forest ( talk) 16:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
☆ Bri ( talk) 03:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for improving all the content in a lot of space related topics like over at:
It's really nice to have cleanups of articles. Looking at this tool called xtools link here you made over 1,700 changes so far!!!! Wow, that's just amazing! Obviously I can't go to every edit and thank you for every one. But I guess I take take a few minutes to thank you for your contributions.
Just as a comment, I found that XTools can be really helpful when looking for page statistics and that sort of stuff. If you want links to them, you can go to the Revision history of page and click on the links next to "External tools:" over at the top of the page (below "Filter revisions").
Hope you choose to stay on Wikipedia, we always need a helping hand. If you need any help (looks like you already know a lot (more then I did when I started editing at Wikipedia)), you can leave a message over at User talk:OkayKenji or any other editor, we will be happy to help.
Fellow Editor,
It is nice to see a new user catch up so fast and copyedit so many science articles. Cheers, Rowan Forest ( talk) 00:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if it was a good idea to massively replace all mentions of "manned" to "crew". I understand that gender-neutral words should be preferred, but there is consistency in the usage of "manned" in some contexts. What do you think? agucova ( talk) 04:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if you have any interest in working your cleanup magic on the article Terraforming of Mars. Cheers, Rowan Forest ( talk) 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rocket engine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solid state ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 13:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
After I read your talk page I realized my edit was a mistake. I undid my edit. Viewratio ( talk) 22:49, 4 July 2019 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:5Ept5xW reported by User:Calidum (Result: ). Thank you. Calidum 05:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Apollo program shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization Talk 05:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 13:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)5Ept5xW ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My apologies for getting heated, other editors were being threatening and/or making what should have been an academic discussion personal. I don't pretend to understand why the other editors think that it is so very important that we preserve 1960's sexism, but at the same time there are plenty of other spaceflight articles in dire need of attention, and I personally am not the SJW that I was accused of being. The use of gendered language in that article harms both the public perception of the Apollo program and the spaceflight discussion in general, but that's not my problem. 5Ept5xW ( talk) 17:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not so much an unblock request as it is a lecture. The argument you are making in favor of your version should have been made on the talk page(s) instead of continuing to revert. Once reverted you should have sought consensus and stopped reverting. To be unblocked, you must show understanding of what to do instead of edit warring. You must affirm you will do this rather than continue to edit war. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 19:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
5Ept5xW ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Yep. What I was saying is that I'm not intending on pushing the issue any further. Have you reviewed the threatening remarks that the other editors made? 5Ept5xW ( talk) 19:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Please post the dif's. I can't say I'll be back this way, but once the block is expired you may want to discuss at ANI.
Letting it drop in no way ensures you won't get into another donnybrook. Hence my requirement that you understand edit war avoidance and dispute resolution.
I know how hard it can be to stop when the emotions are engaged, but stop we must. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 21:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, it appears as though I can still edit my talk page even while blocked(?). Is this explained anywhere? 5Ept5xW ( talk) 21:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Dlohcierekim: Hello? New user here, just trying to sort out things out. 5Ept5xW ( talk) 21:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) have not seen Bb23's reply.
As this is the case, I will offer no further contact or advice. I've asked twice for you to show me where the other editors' offending edits were. Twice you responded with hostility and w/o doing so. Once again, please read the links about edit warring and dispute resolution. Good Day! Dlohcierekim ( talk) 23:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
5Ept5xW ( talk) 23:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Space Race. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.
For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.
If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{
helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia.
Making a large number of edits that can't be reverted, as you did, makes it that much harder to correct and increases likelihood of error if the dates are mis-copied. Always check to see if an article is already tagged "use mdy" or "use dmy"; don't change an existing article. Otherwise, you are free to choose either format, respecting MOS:DATETIES, and then tag the article at the top with template:use mdy dates or template:use dmy dates. Also the formats must be kept consistent in each article. JustinTime55 ( talk) 14:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't the idea of a "crew of 4" imply that it's 4 people-as opposed to gibbons or chimps or some other animal? I know that we sent up chimps testing Mercury, but as far as I know, it's been 55 years since we've sent non-humans up as "crew". I don't think that saying "4" for the crew is going to confuse anybody. Almostfm ( talk) 20:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RUAG Space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ariane ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 19:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Maiden flight vs. first flight -- mfb ( talk) 07:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
As Mfb wrote, I wasn't really expecting you to have a public survey handy. You were supporting your argument by claiming "most people" agree with you. That puts the burden of proof on you. If there is no way to prove it, fine. But that makes it an unsupported and potentially baseless assertion. I don't think that has a place in a rational discussion. Fcrary ( talk) 18:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Trump is president, and if you asked him he either wouldn't know what you meant or be very opposed. So what? 5Ept5xW ( talk) 22:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I reverted your changes for several reasons. Please see comments on the Spaceflight project talk page.
First, you made major changes, such as moving (renaming) an article without any discussion and when there was no consensus for such a change. That alone is sufficient reason to revery a change.
Second, you are taking gender-neutral language too far. It does not mean the elimination of all gendered nouns. Specifically it is about using gendered words to describe groups or professions. See the Wikipedia article on gender neutrality
Third, the Wikipedia Manual of Style says ships can be referred to as "she", so gendered words are allowed when they refer to an inanimate object.
Fourth, the MOS also says that, when gendered to non-gendered language are both acceptable, changes should only be made if there is a "substantial reason to do so." You have not expressed any such substantial reason. Fcrary ( talk) 23:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Atlas V shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Lauritz Thomsen ( talk) 05:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
"Didn't seem to comply with grammatical rules." Sigh.
I am the user in question. As I have said again and again, please read the relevant section of the Manual of Style. You will find that this is a Berenstain Bears situation: the grammatical rules are not what you think they are, and your feeling of certainty is not reliable. I really wish you'd just go and read it. You've "split the difference yet again"; very well. But there isn't any difference to split. I think your proposed sentence is overlong and tortured. Sure, sure, nobody can identify anything actually wrong, and you're just adding detail; but very little is added, and this in the summary, where it isn't merited, and all in service to your refusal to accept that "She went to school in Jakarta, Indonesia and Lawrence, Kansas" is simply WRONG. "She went to elementary and high school in Jakarta, Indonesia, and she went to another high school in Lawrence, Kansas" is not better; it is worse. Please: don't condescend to humour me with this "compromise". Just go thou and visit the MoS. Thank you. Regulov ( talk) 09:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it that way. And certainly, I would think twice about putting it that way if I had the talk page you do. Have you read the MoS entry on commas in dates and places yet? I solemnly swear that will satisfy me. I think I've said this before, but it isn't that I'm pissed off over a comma; I'm pissed off (if that is the phrase) because you are still trying to be right, instead of just saying, "Oh, now I see. My mistake." And now you're trying to make me out to be wrong, not because I'm wrong, but because I'm petty enough to care. You care just as much as I do; it's just that I've read MOS:GEOCOMMA and you haven't. Regulov ( talk) 05:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw the remark. Have you read MOS:GEOCOMMA yet? Regulov ( talk) 08:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The hostility is in your mind. "I withdraw the remark. Have you read MOS:GEOCOMMA yet?" is civil. Have you? Regulov ( talk) 08:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it too aggressive for me to say I think there's no need to be so defensive? Regulov ( talk) 06:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I get it. I seem extremely aggressive to you, because you wish I would just let you have your way, and it seems unjust, hostile, even malicious of me not to throw up my hands and walk away at this point—over a comma! Please accept my assurance that from here it looks more like you are being unduly defensive.
I've filed a request for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third Opinion. Maybe that will help.
Regulov ( talk) 06:48, 28 July 2019 (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. —DIYeditor ( talk) 22:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Re. your most recent reversion of a minor, good faith edit to Atlas V: let us please not go through all that again. Vandalism? Really? MOS:DATECOMMA — Regulov ( talk) 04:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Regulov: It looked wrong, and you have been consistently aggressive with me. 5Ept5xW ( talk) 04:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Next time you come across a correction of this kind (see also: "On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon."), I hope you will refrain from reverting it, recalling that your intuition is not reliable in such cases.
I noticed you have spent the last several days tagging hundreds of passages with "citation needed". While regular editors sometimes come across such need, your systematic campaign is quite annoying, especially when tagging trivial information or text that is already referenced in the previous sentence or through the intralink. If you are interested in supporting text, I invite you to actually research and document what you consider controversial and in need of additional supporting references. Thank you. Rowan Forest ( talk) 16:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)