There is currently a discussion at
Talk:SpaceX Starship regarding a note that a user is repeatedly trying to insert into the "failures" section. The thread is
RfC on "clarifying failure in infobox". Thank you.
DASL51984 (
Speak to me!)
19:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello Zae8, you are new here so, despite my prior message, I will give you one more warning before reporting you for being WP:UNCIVIL. Accusing other editors of a WP:COI ( as you did here) can be considered a WP:PERSONALATTACK. This is my final warning or I will be forced to report you. Try to focus on content and not on people. We are all here to build an encyclopaedia WP:BUILDWP so remember to always WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. If something is not clear and you have questions on this or other matters relating to Wikipedia editing just ask and I'll try to help if I can. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. Accusing other editors of WP:PROMOTION without evidence can be considered a personal attack.
normal talkpage back-and-forth. I don't want to waste my volunteering time with such "back and fourth". I don't think Wikipedia should be like this and other editors found the unnecessarily scathing comments uncivil as well. I'm here as a volounteer to edit an encyclopaedia and I would like to avoid unnecessary WP:DRAMA. My point here was to try and help out a new editor to create a positive editing experience. However, this has already gone longer than it should have and @ Bishonen you have much more experience than me so I'll stop writing here and I'm open to any suggestions if we can do something differently in the future. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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. Here are the three edits in which you inserted text back into the article after it had been challenged: [2] [3] [4]. You have been reverted by three different users. You were repeatedly told to wait—to let a discussion happen and reach a consensus. You do not get to evade that process by making minor adjustments to your edit. If you don't self revert, I will head to WP:ANI-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
What is the preferred way of preventing misunderstandings by other users?: I would advise to keep it short and to be direct and precise. Let multiple editors chime in if possible. Also avoid sarcasm and jokes as they can be easily misunderstood.
Zae8, I'll make a few admin comments. First, to Gtoffoletto and Jerome Frank Disciple: it's a little strange to see experienced (ish) users talking repeatedly about taking edit warring to ANI. It would be promptly thrown out. WP:AN3 is the right noticeboard. Secondly, Zae8, I took a look at your edits to SpaceX Starship, and I'm afraid your edits that JFD links to are reverts, as defined in Wikipedia:Edit warring. That said, you made three reverts, which warrants a warning. It does not warrant a threat to take you to a noticeboard (and implicitly to get you blocked) unless you self-revert, because three reverts are not a violation of the 3 revert rule. The violation comes at four reverts. You needn't have felt "forced" to self-revert, Zae8. Please try to avoid misleading the new user, JFD.
I'll also respond to Gtoffoletto's comment above, about "suggestions if we can do something differently in the future". Yes, WP:NPA has good suggestions for what to do if you think somebody's attacking you: "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it". Please read the whole paragraph. That's my suggestion too in this case: ignore it, focus on content discussion. And stop telling Zae8, as if from a great height, what they need to do differently. I agree much of it sounds like threats. Better to model good behaviour than to dispense reproaches. Bishonen | tålk 08:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC).
If you or him think it is unhelpful just say so and I will stop posting here.I thought I just did say so. Bishonen | tålk 11:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC).
There is currently
a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Apparently, Redacted II is at it again with the "distinguishing failures" at Talk:SpaceX Starship, now with bar graphs. Reeks of WP:BLUDGEONING to me. Since I don't have as much patience as I did to deal with the last two intergalactic wars, I've brought it up at WP:ANI this time. DASL51984 ( Speak to me!) 22:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I've just written Redacted II up again at WP:ANI after they tried to pull another oh-so-clever one at Talk:SpaceX Starship. This is far from the only time they've done this since the last time I wrote them up.
This guy is getting all defensive but I'm not backing down since it's gotten way out of hand. DASL51984 ( Speak to me!) 13:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Talk:SpaceX Starship regarding a note that a user is repeatedly trying to insert into the "failures" section. The thread is
RfC on "clarifying failure in infobox". Thank you.
DASL51984 (
Speak to me!)
19:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello Zae8, you are new here so, despite my prior message, I will give you one more warning before reporting you for being WP:UNCIVIL. Accusing other editors of a WP:COI ( as you did here) can be considered a WP:PERSONALATTACK. This is my final warning or I will be forced to report you. Try to focus on content and not on people. We are all here to build an encyclopaedia WP:BUILDWP so remember to always WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. If something is not clear and you have questions on this or other matters relating to Wikipedia editing just ask and I'll try to help if I can. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. Accusing other editors of WP:PROMOTION without evidence can be considered a personal attack.
normal talkpage back-and-forth. I don't want to waste my volunteering time with such "back and fourth". I don't think Wikipedia should be like this and other editors found the unnecessarily scathing comments uncivil as well. I'm here as a volounteer to edit an encyclopaedia and I would like to avoid unnecessary WP:DRAMA. My point here was to try and help out a new editor to create a positive editing experience. However, this has already gone longer than it should have and @ Bishonen you have much more experience than me so I'll stop writing here and I'm open to any suggestions if we can do something differently in the future. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 13:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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. Here are the three edits in which you inserted text back into the article after it had been challenged: [2] [3] [4]. You have been reverted by three different users. You were repeatedly told to wait—to let a discussion happen and reach a consensus. You do not get to evade that process by making minor adjustments to your edit. If you don't self revert, I will head to WP:ANI-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
What is the preferred way of preventing misunderstandings by other users?: I would advise to keep it short and to be direct and precise. Let multiple editors chime in if possible. Also avoid sarcasm and jokes as they can be easily misunderstood.
Zae8, I'll make a few admin comments. First, to Gtoffoletto and Jerome Frank Disciple: it's a little strange to see experienced (ish) users talking repeatedly about taking edit warring to ANI. It would be promptly thrown out. WP:AN3 is the right noticeboard. Secondly, Zae8, I took a look at your edits to SpaceX Starship, and I'm afraid your edits that JFD links to are reverts, as defined in Wikipedia:Edit warring. That said, you made three reverts, which warrants a warning. It does not warrant a threat to take you to a noticeboard (and implicitly to get you blocked) unless you self-revert, because three reverts are not a violation of the 3 revert rule. The violation comes at four reverts. You needn't have felt "forced" to self-revert, Zae8. Please try to avoid misleading the new user, JFD.
I'll also respond to Gtoffoletto's comment above, about "suggestions if we can do something differently in the future". Yes, WP:NPA has good suggestions for what to do if you think somebody's attacking you: "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it". Please read the whole paragraph. That's my suggestion too in this case: ignore it, focus on content discussion. And stop telling Zae8, as if from a great height, what they need to do differently. I agree much of it sounds like threats. Better to model good behaviour than to dispense reproaches. Bishonen | tålk 08:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC).
If you or him think it is unhelpful just say so and I will stop posting here.I thought I just did say so. Bishonen | tålk 11:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC).
There is currently
a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Apparently, Redacted II is at it again with the "distinguishing failures" at Talk:SpaceX Starship, now with bar graphs. Reeks of WP:BLUDGEONING to me. Since I don't have as much patience as I did to deal with the last two intergalactic wars, I've brought it up at WP:ANI this time. DASL51984 ( Speak to me!) 22:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I've just written Redacted II up again at WP:ANI after they tried to pull another oh-so-clever one at Talk:SpaceX Starship. This is far from the only time they've done this since the last time I wrote them up.
This guy is getting all defensive but I'm not backing down since it's gotten way out of hand. DASL51984 ( Speak to me!) 13:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)