You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB ( owner / report) 19:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The maths rating template hasn't been upgraded in a long itme, and it doesn't know how to handle redirects. Putting the maths banner template on them, despite the big red warning label, is the only way to get them into the correct maintenance category. I don't like it either. - Bryan Rutherford ( talk) 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Leijurv! Thank you for your recent contributions on articles related to
amusement parks. I'd like to invite you to become a part of
WikiProject Amusement Parks, a WikiProject which aims to focus collaboration and improve the quality of amusement park articles across Wikipedia. Feel free to stop by to learn more and sign up at the
Participants page. Hope to see you over there! -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 23:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC) |
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Mz7 ( talk) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Leijurv. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Leijurv ( talk) 19:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey, just to let you know, I've got some new info I'd like to bring to that conversation that I think you might find pertinent. However, I think it'd be best to wait for the ANI and Arbcom proceedings to finish first, considering the combative behavior going on right now. I hope you can understand. – Jadebenn ( talk · contribs · subpages) 19:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if this is not the correct format, first time I am doing this and trying to follow the guidelines. I removed the quoted part that I did because looking at the source I saw it was just a personal blog. Looking it up I could find no concrete evidence of this add-on being an actual part of the quote. Many people have added it, but the phrase that dates back to at least 1732 goes as follows "A jack of all trades is of no trade." This is according to Martin Manser, The Facts on File Dictionary of Proverbs (2002) where he pulled the quote from Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia: Adagies and Proverbs; Wise Sentences and Witty Sayings, Ancient and Modern, Foreign and British (1732). The last line seems is really new, and completely changes the meaning of the proverb. Instead of the jack of all trades being essentially undesirable to it now being preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.244.21 ( talk) 20:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Leijurv! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.
RedWarn is currently in use by over a hundred and fifty other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! (p.s. I don't invite people at random anymore, but I noticed your RFP/R request and wondered if you wanted to try :) ) Ed6767 talk! 23:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Here is the reference, a clip from Season 5; he is literally called Richard. "'Rick and Morty' posts a scene from upcoming season 5 online". EW.com. Retrieved 2020-07-25. 51.171.113.150 ( talk) 20:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Two weeks ago you reverted my change pointing I have to add the appropriate source, which means you have some experience at pointing how to do a right way. I added then and that was applied by... someone. Now that's not the case. I have a question similar to Richard's one. I am a eyewitness of Jumanji legacy at Solar Opposites (same scene, almost the same desk) and I tried to add that to Jumanji wiki. The change's being undone because of lack of confirming source. But what source can it be if I think I'm first who saw similarity of that scene in below-mentioned films? have I upload comparative screenshots?
I did not find any related information at Wikipedia rules/usability description about such situation cases.
Can you help pointing where to read to make it clear please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.102.82 ( talk) 13:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
my opponenton the linked page, please remember WP:USTHEM.
I thing you'd better look here:I've looked there, looks like they're saying more or less the same things.
look similar, otherwise it is probably WP:OR on your part. Leijurv ( talk) 21:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
but when there is a dispute about content, no one should see themselves as being on a team. It might not be as applicable as I thought initially since it's more about teams than individual people, sorry about that. I was just trying to make a point about WP:AGF. For example, I personally try not to think of any editors as "opponents". By default, I believe that they are also making a good faith effort to build the encyclopedia. (Unless, of course, they've proven otherwise). Disagreeing on what sources are applicable is actually one of the most common things to disagree on, because it directly impacts what can be written in the article. I definitely see what you're saying about
enemyvs
opponent. Sometimes I'll just say "other editor". Specifically there I might write
As you can see the other editor thinks ebay and other auction/sell-like listings can not be used. Or you can just write their actual username so that there is no confusion. I don't know of any options for a good single word that captures "editor I disagree with", that doesn't also convey opposing them. Because I like to think that we are really on the same side, the same team, of the people working to build, we just disagree on the best way to do it. :)
So, wiki editors can't make any research and just looking for 'published somewhere' proves of facts?.. So sad...Correct. Perhaps take a look at WP:V, WP:TRUTH, WP:OR, and WP:RS to see why / learn more. Remember earlier I said
Could literally anyone on the internet have written / done this? If so, it isn't reliable.? It's the same concept: there's nothing special about being able to edit Wikipedia, since absolutely anyone can do it. As WP:V says,
Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
There is a link to ebay there, but it appears to be dead?Yep, but archived one is still online.
About registration: I know such cons but I still searching your and mine previous IP's pages by direct URLs. And, as you see I prefer to teach anything through examples
Wait how do I know it's still you??? :)By writing style and context ) And sure, by first part of IP (it's almost unchanged). With all aggregated, for sure )
Hi Leijurv, I added that particular content to Paoli Dam's wiki page as it is one of her films. This particular film was not included in the list and can be verified from IMDb entry [1] or film details from other sources [2,3,4]. I would request you to reinstate the content, otherwise a legitimate filmography entry would be missing.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10574498/ [2] https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/shantilal-o-projapoti-rohoshyo-movie-review-pritam-d-guptas-insipid-film-suffers-from-clunky-writing-7231771.html [3] https://www.filmcompanion.in/features/bengali-features/the-actress-and-the-reporter-paoli-dam-and-ritwick-chakraborty-talk-shantilal-o-projapoti-rohoshyo/ [4] https://www.moviebuff.com/shantilal-o-projapoti-rohoshyo
Thanks, AmiArnab ( talk) 03:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
<ref>, or there is a reference elsewhere in the article. You can of course redo the edit (you don't need to ask me for permission), but I suggest that you cite those sources, otherwise it might be reverted again by someone else. See WP:CITE for how to do it. I would probably only cite the later three, and not the first one (IMDB), because IMDB is not considered reliable (see WP:CITEIMDB for why). Leijurv ( talk) 03:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
I see you revert vandalism all the time. I thought this would be appropriate. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 06:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Leijurv, I noticed that you reverted vandalism to article Islam in Sweden and left a warning on the talk page of the user who did those edits. Your warning was deleted from the talk page in violation of WP:TPO, see talk page revision. A Thousand Words ( talk) 07:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user.He also did remove a discussion here on this page, and while I might have otherwise reinstated it, I don't mind in this case because it's clearly distressing to them. Leijurv ( talk) 07:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for archiving User talk:THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101's Sandbox page. Obviously that content does not belong on wikipedia but it's sometimes very interesting to read the writings of Blocked users on Wikipedia. Normal users are not able to view deleted Wiki pages AFAIK. ApChrKey Talk 22:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
WikiLove is like Ketchup: you can buy a big bottle at the store, or you can get it for free in small packets at the drive through ApChrKey Talk 22:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC) |
Hello Leijurv, I can’t for some reason access the links you dropped on my talk page. I think Ad Orientem was the admin who did the initial rev-del perharps he is in a better position to assist you on this. Contact them maybe? Celestina007 20:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I can’t for some reason access the links you dropped on my talk pageYeah sorry, perfectly bad timing, it looks like I messaged an admin directly close to the same time that you saw the message. They have been revdeled. Sorry for the confusion! Leijurv ( talk) 20:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Leijurv. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Rusher 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BLDM ( talk) 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
These templates serve to explain the various policies to new editors. When novice editors breach policies, it is quite possible (if we assume good faith, which we must) that they are unaware of them, and educating them is helpful. On the other hand, most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies. If you believe that they have broken (or are about to breach) one, it is frequently the result of some disagreement over the interpretation of the policy, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to the "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counterproductive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil.Leijurv ( talk) 01:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.This warning that you templated me with ironically suggests following BRD. Leijurv ( talk) 01:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
You reverted my edit about the expected dates for the SLS. The earliest report in both version of the article is the one from CBS news in 2011, which says "the first test flight in 2017". Then we get the Planetary Society article, part 4, from Oct 2016, which says "When feasible, the agency was also directed to use or modify existing Constellation contracts, and both the rocket and Orion should be ready for test flights by the end of 2016."; and part 5, from Nov 2016, which says "When the Space Launch System was formally announced in September 2011, NASA said internal and external audits estimated it would take $18 billion to get SLS, Orion and the associated ground infrastructure ready for a test flight at the end of 2017." The "end of 2016" date was a desire from Congress; NASA's first estimate, in 2011, for what was possible was the end of 2017. Please change the article back to the version I left it as. Peace Makes Plenty ( talk) 10:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
NASA said in 2011 that it wouldn't be possible until 2017Yes, within the first year (so, still within 2011) NASA said they couldn't make it by 2016 and delayed to 2017.
The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS. I believe
should be ready, or
shall be the goal to achieve ... by Dec 2016as defined in the original Congressional bill, counts for this. I don't think we need to write out the source of every intended launch date in the article, that's what citations are for. As of October 2010, the date on that bill, the intended first flight of SLS was December 2016. Later, it was delayed by NASA to 2017... What am I missing here? Leijurv ( talk) 17:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's rocketry-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining
WikiProject Rocketry? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's rocketry-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the
list of participants. Please see our
list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 15:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
Congrats on getting 2b2t to GA! I can guess it must have been hard given the lack of reliable sources, but you did a fine job. Ovinus ( talk) 03:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC) |
I don't know whether you saw my response to your comment at ANI, as that page gets a lot of activity. If you think that "essentially all of" my comments at Talk:Bates method were "pushing pro-Bates POV", then you misunderstood at least some of them, in which I was trying to explain why some apparent improvement isn't necessarily what it seems. Belteshazzar ( talk) 05:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
perceived temporary improvementand suggest adding that to the article. You also went on to say that the source explains some risks of sunlight exposure. But which part of the source did you suggest adding? The former, not the latter. Looking into the sun is bad for your eyes. So yes, even that example is pushing pro-Bates POV, because you wanted the article to say that looking into the sun made some people think their eyesight improved. I understand that you read it differently, or intended differently? I'm not sure if that matters. Leijurv ( talk) 06:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Laboratory tests have shown that the human eyeball is far too rigid to spontaneously change shape to a degree that would be necessary to accomplish what Bates described.[2] Exceedingly small changes in axial length of the eyeball (18.6–19.2 μm) are caused by the action of the ciliary muscle during accommodation. However, these changes are far too small to account for the necessary changes in focus, producing changes of only −0.036 dioptres.[15]I don't much of a problem. This is almost like WP:CALC, saying that one number is less than another. Trying to argue along the line of "if Huxley isn't a liar, and he says he believes Bates improved his eyesight, we can't also then say that Bates is ineffective" is very much SYNTH/OR, however. (please don't nitpick my exact phrasing in that quote, it isn't the point) Leijurv ( talk) 19:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
You lambast me for "synth-y arguments", and now you restore "frequent criticism" when we have only one source which makes said criticism? Yes, this is a minor point, but considering everything else which is excluded due to WP:OR, WP:MEDRS, etc.... Belteshazzar ( talk) 05:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
On 12 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2b2t, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 2b2t, a no-rules Minecraft multiplayer server running since 2010, has seen more than 510,000 distinct Minecraft players join and explore its eight-terabyte map (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2b2t. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, 2b2t), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 37,833.5 views (1,576.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2020 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 09:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For bringing 2b2t to the front page, and helping me with everything leading to this point. Enjoy :) — Melofors T C 07:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC) |
Dear Leijurv, I see that you reverted my edit on 2b2t. The cited source states "There are no such rules on the anarchy servers. They are by nature inhospitable..." The source does not describe anarchy servers as nihilistic but spesifically the server 2b2t. Since 2b2t is a anarchy server it is safe to assume 2b2t is also inhospitable, but since an anarchy server might not necessarily have all the attributes 2b2t has we cannot conclude that anarchy servers are nihilistic in general. On the contrary the Wikipedia article states both 2b2t and anarchy servers are nihilistic. ("The culture of 2b2t and anarchy servers in general have been described as "inhospitable" and 'nihilistic'.")
Also I couldn't find any information about writer of Newsweek's article. So although the information is cited, it's still not clear who states that. Best regards, -- Visnelma ( talk) 11:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The culture of 2b2t specifically has been described as "inhospitable", and anarchy servers in general (of which 2b2t is an example) are generally described as "nihilistic" (so one can presume that 2b2t is also nihilistic), according to Roisin Kiberd of Newsweek. I think it clearly passes WP:V as is, I could see the argument for WP:INTEXT to say who made this quote, I'll remove the quote marks so that that isn't confusing (they really shouldn't have been there to begin with).
The culture of 2b2t and anarchy servers in general is inhospitable and nihilistic.is better. Honestly maybe even "and anarchy servers in general" should be removed. Leijurv ( talk) 04:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of several thousand DYK hooks featured on the Main Page during 2020, your hook for 2b2t, "the no-rules Mincraft multiplayer server", ranked as the No. 23 hook of the year with 1,546 DYK views per hour. A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of the year can be viewed at " Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook's remarkable showing, and keep up the great work! Cbl62 ( talk) 10:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I think my edit just inadvertantly stepped on yours. Sorry. I'll go away for a bit to allow it to get fixed.
Or if you don't want to redo it, I'll come back later and try to add your edit back. I liked your edit! But our edits are too many too fast just now. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 19:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I put some info in the Harmony infobox, but they don't appear, why? CRS-20 ( talk) 06:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Infobox space station moduleso it might have different options than what you're used to, maybe? I'm not certain. Leijurv ( talk) 06:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
{{Infobox space station module | spelling = | module = | module_image = | module_image_size = | module_image_caption = | COSPAR_ID = | station = | launch = | launch_vehicle = | docked = | undocked = | berthed = | unberthed = | reentry = | mass = | length = | width = | height = | diameter = | volume = | stats_ref = | configuration_image = | configuration_size = | configuration_caption = }}Leijurv ( talk) 08:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
You said that there was already an article named Space Exploration. Thank you for letting me know! I have decided to make my draft about American Space Exploration. How do I change the name of my draft: Draft:Space Exploration? 64.121.103.144 ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Some wikis (such as the English Wikipedia) allow only users who have logged in to move pages.Might as well make an account? WP:WCA :) If you really don't want to do that, I suppose you could make a new page and copy paste over the contents. That probably wouldn't be a big deal since, so far, it's all written by you so there's no issues with copy pasting it around (otherwise, you'd want to follow WP:CWW). Leijurv ( talk) 17:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm the person that you said the image on 2b2t wiki might have copyright. Thanks for pointing that out but I auctually flew around 2b2t spawn myself while world downloading and made the render myself. So I don't think there will be any copyright problems. But if you think that the image or logos in the image might have some copyright problems, feel free to talk to me and I will change it. -- EEEric01726 ( talk) 12:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding GACR#6a: The 2b2t logo is normal fair use for a logo. For the renders, it is a pleasant surprise that they are actually usable on Wikimedia Commons. The stars aligned there. It survived a four month long deletion request on Commons here that saw multiple admins of both enwiki and Commons weigh in. The idea is that the renders are so high level that the copyright held by the players that placed and broke blocks is "de minimis", the Minecraft procedural terrain generation is also a tiny part of the image (so, also DM) and doesn't show human creativity, the Minecraft program being used to place these blocks holds no copyright, the textures used in the render are free and not from the Minecraft game, the program used to make the render is licensed under GPL, and the creator of the image licensed the output under a proper license. Yeah, stars aligned.
I think we need to be very clear that this is one courts could jump either way on so we are balancing risk factors ... Overall I don’t think there is a right answer here so its more of question of “is it worth the risk”. These things are on a spectrum and it's a judgement call balancing them. The Commons admins have a low risk tolerance for ambiguous situations like this so we're "lucky" that we have the renders we do on 2b2t. I count my blessings there, and I think it really does make the article a lot better with the visuals.
-X (western)axis going out from spawn. You could verify that by logging into the server and looking around. (that relies on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Video_games which more or less states that you "can", in some limited scenarios (that I believe apply here), use a game as a source about itself). All that being said, your caption went above and beyond what is verifiable. I don't know how to verify that these structures were built by groups. I could verify that they were built though. I don't know how to verify that these structures are meant to be symbols or logos. I don't know how to verify that this particular one is known as "The Masonic Eclipse". (like, I do, because I wrote the software that constructed it, but from a Wikipedia perspective on what counts as a reliable source, I don't. WP:OR / WP:VNT). I don't know how to verify that the group that made it is called the "SpawnMasons". I don't know how to verify this in the plural, in how you said that these structural (plural) are built by groups as their logo - so, we would need a source for the general statement, going above and beyond a source for just this specific example of the mason logo. (by the way, if this is confusing regarding how I can say all these unverified/uncited things on internal pages (such as deletion discussions, talk pages like this one or Talk:2b2t), the reason is that per WP:OR, thankfuly, we have
This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.So, it only applies to what the Wikipedia reader will see. Good thing too, otherwise it would be impossible to have discussions and make decisions on what sources are reliable ( WP:RS/N) or have general discussions about policy such as this (e.g. through WP:EDITDISC)).
{{SD|1=G7|2=Reason goes here blah blah}}at the top? You could write whatever reason makes sense. I might put something like
{{SD|1=G7|2=This specific image doesn't work well for the article I wanted to upload it for, also, while I did create it myself, I've realized that some of the structures may be copyrighted, so, to be on the safe side, please delete this file.}}but it's up to you.
{{delete|reason=might have some problem on Copyright held by Mojang/Microsoft for Minecraft world generation, and Copyright held by the program used to make the image|subpage=File:2b2t Spawn Feb 2021.jpg|year=2021|month=April|day=21}}
{{SD|1=G7|2=might have some problem on Copyright held by Mojang/Microsoft for Minecraft world generation, and Copyright held by the program used to make the image}}
A friendly reminder: Please remove the listing from Wikipedia:Third opinion first before providing a third opinion, thanks. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 01:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Leijurv! If you'd like to maximize your love for userboxes even further simplify the code on your userpage, you can use the code {{loop|COUNT|{{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User UBXlove}}}}
, with COUNT replaced by a number representing the extent of your love. Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 23:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
{{loop|420|{{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User UBXlove}}}}
. Now, I could add a comment explaining myself, or a link to here, but I just fear that it could come off as a justification / rationalization for wanting 420 userboxes. And if I change the number it'll look like a cover-up (e.g. if I add in "8" to the calculation the result doubles to 840, but that'll look like I'm just doing it to avoid the appearance of untowardness, and also it's just far too many userboxes). I think my only way forward is to leave it untouched. But I'm open to ideas on how to get out of this mess I've gotten myself into... ;)
Leijurv (
talk) 00:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship § Proposal to Split. The original proposal has been updated after reviewing the comments left.-- LemonSlushie 🍋 ( talk) ( edits) 16:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
It's interesting that I find you here too on Wikipedia! What a small world it is! Félix An ( talk) 12:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Space Launch System you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CactiStaccingCrane -- CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at
Space Launch System 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please respect other's editor contributions, namely CRS-20. You have revert their edits not for improvements to the article, but to "prove" that writing content is somehow better than cosmetic cleaning. Cosmetics can be extremely important for an editor, and no one should be discouraged to make good contributions.
Also, please do not
canvass on Wikipedia and other platforms, specfically on Discord. Canvassing meant leaving messages on a biased choice to notify other users of an ongoing community decision. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
CactiStaccingCrane (
talk) 00:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The article Space Launch System you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Space Launch System for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 07:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
On 16 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Space Launch System, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Space Launch System rocket will generate nearly nine million pounds of thrust at liftoff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Space Launch System. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Space Launch System), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you remove Dynamics Explorer article because I created Dynamics Explorer 1 and Dynamics Explorer 2 articles? Thank you. CRS-20 ( talk) 21:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You know what this is, interplanetary sending human to Jupiter by Elon, etc. The article since is now much improved, and I think that you, as a NASA and SLS fan, would give excellent comments on the article's tone and speculations. So, what do you think about Starship's article? What is it falls short on? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Thanks for giving all these comments! I honestly thought that the article is perfect, until you came. I couldn't help myself to give you a barnstar, your comments really does help! CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 12:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
any comments on this? -- Dd1495 ( talk) 18:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a better version. Let's see what the main contribuitor of this page, Dd1495, has to say. We can discuss any improvements with him instead of forcing them. I regret my aggressive editing behaviour 2 years ago.The diff is too complicated for me to make sense of, I'm afraid. I am unfamiliar with Spanish sources and I don't know the political context of the time. I think you'll have to give your own thoughts on that talk page. Leijurv ( talk) 18:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
taking advantage of your posititon you enforced changes you did not understandbecause I don't have any position or authority beyond you or Raderich. Perhaps you are recalling Ferret, who is actually an admin, and who also reverted some of your edits around that time? While WP:ADMINACCT does bind admins to explain themselves, I am not an admin, for me Wikipedia is WP:VOLUNTARY.
hope this is going to make you reflect upon how Wikipedia is editedand
hope this episode might be a source of reflection for youare very dramatic and not called for. With respect to
the diff is too complicated, yes, it is. It's enormous (+37,505). Whereas two years ago, the Wikipedia policy questions were simpler.
are unfamiliar with sources, yes, many are written in Spanish. This is not a source of inconsistency, even two years ago I declined to comment on interpretations of such sources, just as today.
do not know the political context, well, like it or not, Wikipedia is commonly edited by non-experts. See WP:EXPERT:
Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise. Please also see WP:CHOICE, I am under no obligation to return to the Requetes page if I don't feel like it. I don't think I've done anything inappropriate, not in 2020 and not recently. Please stop with these vague aspersions that I misguidedly edited unless you have some specific criticisms of specific things that I said that were incorrect, and if so I will adjust my behavior accordingly. Leijurv ( talk) 18:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi leijurv 0xDeadbeef ( talk) 06:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that you reverted my edit on the lead paragraph of the SLS article. Appreciate the edit was reverted to keep the lead simple, but I don’t think adding a location and some dates adds any complexity. SLS is all over the news at the moment and this is the information that people will be looking for when they search for it, and so I have added this information back in. Starlights99 ( talk) 06:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I figure you would want to be aware of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_13#Leijurv, but this seemed more polite than pinging you from there. signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your being a model of Wikipedian behaviour. Your contributions make the project stronger, as does your example of appropriate behaviour. Both are appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC) |
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Don't want the talk page to get infested like the last two times, so I'm writing Redacted II up at the noticeboard. DASL51984 ( Speak to me!) 22:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I've just written Redacted II up again at WP:ANI after what just happened on the SpaceX Starship talk page. He's getting all defensive but if I see the same user try to game the system three or more times I'm writing them up. DASL51984 ( Speak to me!) 14:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
On 6 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Laguna Honda Hospital, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Laguna Honda Hospital is a non-profit long-term care facility that has been described as America's "last big almshouse"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laguna Honda Hospital. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Laguna Honda Hospital), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Kusma ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
I disagree with your change on Lane change assistance.
I explain why in this Talk:Lane change assistance#weird redirect from lane change assistance to Vehicle blind spot#Blind Spot Information System section. 86.67.202.2 ( talk) 10:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB ( owner / report) 19:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The maths rating template hasn't been upgraded in a long itme, and it doesn't know how to handle redirects. Putting the maths banner template on them, despite the big red warning label, is the only way to get them into the correct maintenance category. I don't like it either. - Bryan Rutherford ( talk) 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Leijurv! Thank you for your recent contributions on articles related to
amusement parks. I'd like to invite you to become a part of
WikiProject Amusement Parks, a WikiProject which aims to focus collaboration and improve the quality of amusement park articles across Wikipedia. Feel free to stop by to learn more and sign up at the
Participants page. Hope to see you over there! -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 23:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC) |
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
Mz7 ( talk) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Leijurv. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Leijurv ( talk) 19:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey, just to let you know, I've got some new info I'd like to bring to that conversation that I think you might find pertinent. However, I think it'd be best to wait for the ANI and Arbcom proceedings to finish first, considering the combative behavior going on right now. I hope you can understand. – Jadebenn ( talk · contribs · subpages) 19:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if this is not the correct format, first time I am doing this and trying to follow the guidelines. I removed the quoted part that I did because looking at the source I saw it was just a personal blog. Looking it up I could find no concrete evidence of this add-on being an actual part of the quote. Many people have added it, but the phrase that dates back to at least 1732 goes as follows "A jack of all trades is of no trade." This is according to Martin Manser, The Facts on File Dictionary of Proverbs (2002) where he pulled the quote from Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia: Adagies and Proverbs; Wise Sentences and Witty Sayings, Ancient and Modern, Foreign and British (1732). The last line seems is really new, and completely changes the meaning of the proverb. Instead of the jack of all trades being essentially undesirable to it now being preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.244.21 ( talk) 20:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Leijurv! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.
RedWarn is currently in use by over a hundred and fifty other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! (p.s. I don't invite people at random anymore, but I noticed your RFP/R request and wondered if you wanted to try :) ) Ed6767 talk! 23:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Here is the reference, a clip from Season 5; he is literally called Richard. "'Rick and Morty' posts a scene from upcoming season 5 online". EW.com. Retrieved 2020-07-25. 51.171.113.150 ( talk) 20:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Two weeks ago you reverted my change pointing I have to add the appropriate source, which means you have some experience at pointing how to do a right way. I added then and that was applied by... someone. Now that's not the case. I have a question similar to Richard's one. I am a eyewitness of Jumanji legacy at Solar Opposites (same scene, almost the same desk) and I tried to add that to Jumanji wiki. The change's being undone because of lack of confirming source. But what source can it be if I think I'm first who saw similarity of that scene in below-mentioned films? have I upload comparative screenshots?
I did not find any related information at Wikipedia rules/usability description about such situation cases.
Can you help pointing where to read to make it clear please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.102.82 ( talk) 13:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
my opponenton the linked page, please remember WP:USTHEM.
I thing you'd better look here:I've looked there, looks like they're saying more or less the same things.
look similar, otherwise it is probably WP:OR on your part. Leijurv ( talk) 21:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
but when there is a dispute about content, no one should see themselves as being on a team. It might not be as applicable as I thought initially since it's more about teams than individual people, sorry about that. I was just trying to make a point about WP:AGF. For example, I personally try not to think of any editors as "opponents". By default, I believe that they are also making a good faith effort to build the encyclopedia. (Unless, of course, they've proven otherwise). Disagreeing on what sources are applicable is actually one of the most common things to disagree on, because it directly impacts what can be written in the article. I definitely see what you're saying about
enemyvs
opponent. Sometimes I'll just say "other editor". Specifically there I might write
As you can see the other editor thinks ebay and other auction/sell-like listings can not be used. Or you can just write their actual username so that there is no confusion. I don't know of any options for a good single word that captures "editor I disagree with", that doesn't also convey opposing them. Because I like to think that we are really on the same side, the same team, of the people working to build, we just disagree on the best way to do it. :)
So, wiki editors can't make any research and just looking for 'published somewhere' proves of facts?.. So sad...Correct. Perhaps take a look at WP:V, WP:TRUTH, WP:OR, and WP:RS to see why / learn more. Remember earlier I said
Could literally anyone on the internet have written / done this? If so, it isn't reliable.? It's the same concept: there's nothing special about being able to edit Wikipedia, since absolutely anyone can do it. As WP:V says,
Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
There is a link to ebay there, but it appears to be dead?Yep, but archived one is still online.
About registration: I know such cons but I still searching your and mine previous IP's pages by direct URLs. And, as you see I prefer to teach anything through examples
Wait how do I know it's still you??? :)By writing style and context ) And sure, by first part of IP (it's almost unchanged). With all aggregated, for sure )
Hi Leijurv, I added that particular content to Paoli Dam's wiki page as it is one of her films. This particular film was not included in the list and can be verified from IMDb entry [1] or film details from other sources [2,3,4]. I would request you to reinstate the content, otherwise a legitimate filmography entry would be missing.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10574498/ [2] https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/shantilal-o-projapoti-rohoshyo-movie-review-pritam-d-guptas-insipid-film-suffers-from-clunky-writing-7231771.html [3] https://www.filmcompanion.in/features/bengali-features/the-actress-and-the-reporter-paoli-dam-and-ritwick-chakraborty-talk-shantilal-o-projapoti-rohoshyo/ [4] https://www.moviebuff.com/shantilal-o-projapoti-rohoshyo
Thanks, AmiArnab ( talk) 03:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
<ref>, or there is a reference elsewhere in the article. You can of course redo the edit (you don't need to ask me for permission), but I suggest that you cite those sources, otherwise it might be reverted again by someone else. See WP:CITE for how to do it. I would probably only cite the later three, and not the first one (IMDB), because IMDB is not considered reliable (see WP:CITEIMDB for why). Leijurv ( talk) 03:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
I see you revert vandalism all the time. I thought this would be appropriate. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 06:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Leijurv, I noticed that you reverted vandalism to article Islam in Sweden and left a warning on the talk page of the user who did those edits. Your warning was deleted from the talk page in violation of WP:TPO, see talk page revision. A Thousand Words ( talk) 07:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user.He also did remove a discussion here on this page, and while I might have otherwise reinstated it, I don't mind in this case because it's clearly distressing to them. Leijurv ( talk) 07:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for archiving User talk:THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101's Sandbox page. Obviously that content does not belong on wikipedia but it's sometimes very interesting to read the writings of Blocked users on Wikipedia. Normal users are not able to view deleted Wiki pages AFAIK. ApChrKey Talk 22:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
WikiLove is like Ketchup: you can buy a big bottle at the store, or you can get it for free in small packets at the drive through ApChrKey Talk 22:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC) |
Hello Leijurv, I can’t for some reason access the links you dropped on my talk page. I think Ad Orientem was the admin who did the initial rev-del perharps he is in a better position to assist you on this. Contact them maybe? Celestina007 20:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I can’t for some reason access the links you dropped on my talk pageYeah sorry, perfectly bad timing, it looks like I messaged an admin directly close to the same time that you saw the message. They have been revdeled. Sorry for the confusion! Leijurv ( talk) 20:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Leijurv. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 20:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Rusher 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BLDM ( talk) 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
These templates serve to explain the various policies to new editors. When novice editors breach policies, it is quite possible (if we assume good faith, which we must) that they are unaware of them, and educating them is helpful. On the other hand, most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies. If you believe that they have broken (or are about to breach) one, it is frequently the result of some disagreement over the interpretation of the policy, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to the "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counterproductive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil.Leijurv ( talk) 01:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.This warning that you templated me with ironically suggests following BRD. Leijurv ( talk) 01:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
You reverted my edit about the expected dates for the SLS. The earliest report in both version of the article is the one from CBS news in 2011, which says "the first test flight in 2017". Then we get the Planetary Society article, part 4, from Oct 2016, which says "When feasible, the agency was also directed to use or modify existing Constellation contracts, and both the rocket and Orion should be ready for test flights by the end of 2016."; and part 5, from Nov 2016, which says "When the Space Launch System was formally announced in September 2011, NASA said internal and external audits estimated it would take $18 billion to get SLS, Orion and the associated ground infrastructure ready for a test flight at the end of 2017." The "end of 2016" date was a desire from Congress; NASA's first estimate, in 2011, for what was possible was the end of 2017. Please change the article back to the version I left it as. Peace Makes Plenty ( talk) 10:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
NASA said in 2011 that it wouldn't be possible until 2017Yes, within the first year (so, still within 2011) NASA said they couldn't make it by 2016 and delayed to 2017.
The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS. I believe
should be ready, or
shall be the goal to achieve ... by Dec 2016as defined in the original Congressional bill, counts for this. I don't think we need to write out the source of every intended launch date in the article, that's what citations are for. As of October 2010, the date on that bill, the intended first flight of SLS was December 2016. Later, it was delayed by NASA to 2017... What am I missing here? Leijurv ( talk) 17:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's rocketry-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining
WikiProject Rocketry? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's rocketry-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the
list of participants. Please see our
list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 15:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
Congrats on getting 2b2t to GA! I can guess it must have been hard given the lack of reliable sources, but you did a fine job. Ovinus ( talk) 03:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC) |
I don't know whether you saw my response to your comment at ANI, as that page gets a lot of activity. If you think that "essentially all of" my comments at Talk:Bates method were "pushing pro-Bates POV", then you misunderstood at least some of them, in which I was trying to explain why some apparent improvement isn't necessarily what it seems. Belteshazzar ( talk) 05:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
perceived temporary improvementand suggest adding that to the article. You also went on to say that the source explains some risks of sunlight exposure. But which part of the source did you suggest adding? The former, not the latter. Looking into the sun is bad for your eyes. So yes, even that example is pushing pro-Bates POV, because you wanted the article to say that looking into the sun made some people think their eyesight improved. I understand that you read it differently, or intended differently? I'm not sure if that matters. Leijurv ( talk) 06:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Laboratory tests have shown that the human eyeball is far too rigid to spontaneously change shape to a degree that would be necessary to accomplish what Bates described.[2] Exceedingly small changes in axial length of the eyeball (18.6–19.2 μm) are caused by the action of the ciliary muscle during accommodation. However, these changes are far too small to account for the necessary changes in focus, producing changes of only −0.036 dioptres.[15]I don't much of a problem. This is almost like WP:CALC, saying that one number is less than another. Trying to argue along the line of "if Huxley isn't a liar, and he says he believes Bates improved his eyesight, we can't also then say that Bates is ineffective" is very much SYNTH/OR, however. (please don't nitpick my exact phrasing in that quote, it isn't the point) Leijurv ( talk) 19:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
You lambast me for "synth-y arguments", and now you restore "frequent criticism" when we have only one source which makes said criticism? Yes, this is a minor point, but considering everything else which is excluded due to WP:OR, WP:MEDRS, etc.... Belteshazzar ( talk) 05:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
On 12 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2b2t, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 2b2t, a no-rules Minecraft multiplayer server running since 2010, has seen more than 510,000 distinct Minecraft players join and explore its eight-terabyte map (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2b2t. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, 2b2t), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 37,833.5 views (1,576.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2020 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 09:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For bringing 2b2t to the front page, and helping me with everything leading to this point. Enjoy :) — Melofors T C 07:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC) |
Dear Leijurv, I see that you reverted my edit on 2b2t. The cited source states "There are no such rules on the anarchy servers. They are by nature inhospitable..." The source does not describe anarchy servers as nihilistic but spesifically the server 2b2t. Since 2b2t is a anarchy server it is safe to assume 2b2t is also inhospitable, but since an anarchy server might not necessarily have all the attributes 2b2t has we cannot conclude that anarchy servers are nihilistic in general. On the contrary the Wikipedia article states both 2b2t and anarchy servers are nihilistic. ("The culture of 2b2t and anarchy servers in general have been described as "inhospitable" and 'nihilistic'.")
Also I couldn't find any information about writer of Newsweek's article. So although the information is cited, it's still not clear who states that. Best regards, -- Visnelma ( talk) 11:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The culture of 2b2t specifically has been described as "inhospitable", and anarchy servers in general (of which 2b2t is an example) are generally described as "nihilistic" (so one can presume that 2b2t is also nihilistic), according to Roisin Kiberd of Newsweek. I think it clearly passes WP:V as is, I could see the argument for WP:INTEXT to say who made this quote, I'll remove the quote marks so that that isn't confusing (they really shouldn't have been there to begin with).
The culture of 2b2t and anarchy servers in general is inhospitable and nihilistic.is better. Honestly maybe even "and anarchy servers in general" should be removed. Leijurv ( talk) 04:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Out of several thousand DYK hooks featured on the Main Page during 2020, your hook for 2b2t, "the no-rules Mincraft multiplayer server", ranked as the No. 23 hook of the year with 1,546 DYK views per hour. A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of the year can be viewed at " Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook's remarkable showing, and keep up the great work! Cbl62 ( talk) 10:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I think my edit just inadvertantly stepped on yours. Sorry. I'll go away for a bit to allow it to get fixed.
Or if you don't want to redo it, I'll come back later and try to add your edit back. I liked your edit! But our edits are too many too fast just now. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 19:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I put some info in the Harmony infobox, but they don't appear, why? CRS-20 ( talk) 06:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Infobox space station moduleso it might have different options than what you're used to, maybe? I'm not certain. Leijurv ( talk) 06:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
{{Infobox space station module | spelling = | module = | module_image = | module_image_size = | module_image_caption = | COSPAR_ID = | station = | launch = | launch_vehicle = | docked = | undocked = | berthed = | unberthed = | reentry = | mass = | length = | width = | height = | diameter = | volume = | stats_ref = | configuration_image = | configuration_size = | configuration_caption = }}Leijurv ( talk) 08:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
You said that there was already an article named Space Exploration. Thank you for letting me know! I have decided to make my draft about American Space Exploration. How do I change the name of my draft: Draft:Space Exploration? 64.121.103.144 ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Some wikis (such as the English Wikipedia) allow only users who have logged in to move pages.Might as well make an account? WP:WCA :) If you really don't want to do that, I suppose you could make a new page and copy paste over the contents. That probably wouldn't be a big deal since, so far, it's all written by you so there's no issues with copy pasting it around (otherwise, you'd want to follow WP:CWW). Leijurv ( talk) 17:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm the person that you said the image on 2b2t wiki might have copyright. Thanks for pointing that out but I auctually flew around 2b2t spawn myself while world downloading and made the render myself. So I don't think there will be any copyright problems. But if you think that the image or logos in the image might have some copyright problems, feel free to talk to me and I will change it. -- EEEric01726 ( talk) 12:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding GACR#6a: The 2b2t logo is normal fair use for a logo. For the renders, it is a pleasant surprise that they are actually usable on Wikimedia Commons. The stars aligned there. It survived a four month long deletion request on Commons here that saw multiple admins of both enwiki and Commons weigh in. The idea is that the renders are so high level that the copyright held by the players that placed and broke blocks is "de minimis", the Minecraft procedural terrain generation is also a tiny part of the image (so, also DM) and doesn't show human creativity, the Minecraft program being used to place these blocks holds no copyright, the textures used in the render are free and not from the Minecraft game, the program used to make the render is licensed under GPL, and the creator of the image licensed the output under a proper license. Yeah, stars aligned.
I think we need to be very clear that this is one courts could jump either way on so we are balancing risk factors ... Overall I don’t think there is a right answer here so its more of question of “is it worth the risk”. These things are on a spectrum and it's a judgement call balancing them. The Commons admins have a low risk tolerance for ambiguous situations like this so we're "lucky" that we have the renders we do on 2b2t. I count my blessings there, and I think it really does make the article a lot better with the visuals.
-X (western)axis going out from spawn. You could verify that by logging into the server and looking around. (that relies on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Video_games which more or less states that you "can", in some limited scenarios (that I believe apply here), use a game as a source about itself). All that being said, your caption went above and beyond what is verifiable. I don't know how to verify that these structures were built by groups. I could verify that they were built though. I don't know how to verify that these structures are meant to be symbols or logos. I don't know how to verify that this particular one is known as "The Masonic Eclipse". (like, I do, because I wrote the software that constructed it, but from a Wikipedia perspective on what counts as a reliable source, I don't. WP:OR / WP:VNT). I don't know how to verify that the group that made it is called the "SpawnMasons". I don't know how to verify this in the plural, in how you said that these structural (plural) are built by groups as their logo - so, we would need a source for the general statement, going above and beyond a source for just this specific example of the mason logo. (by the way, if this is confusing regarding how I can say all these unverified/uncited things on internal pages (such as deletion discussions, talk pages like this one or Talk:2b2t), the reason is that per WP:OR, thankfuly, we have
This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.So, it only applies to what the Wikipedia reader will see. Good thing too, otherwise it would be impossible to have discussions and make decisions on what sources are reliable ( WP:RS/N) or have general discussions about policy such as this (e.g. through WP:EDITDISC)).
{{SD|1=G7|2=Reason goes here blah blah}}at the top? You could write whatever reason makes sense. I might put something like
{{SD|1=G7|2=This specific image doesn't work well for the article I wanted to upload it for, also, while I did create it myself, I've realized that some of the structures may be copyrighted, so, to be on the safe side, please delete this file.}}but it's up to you.
{{delete|reason=might have some problem on Copyright held by Mojang/Microsoft for Minecraft world generation, and Copyright held by the program used to make the image|subpage=File:2b2t Spawn Feb 2021.jpg|year=2021|month=April|day=21}}
{{SD|1=G7|2=might have some problem on Copyright held by Mojang/Microsoft for Minecraft world generation, and Copyright held by the program used to make the image}}
A friendly reminder: Please remove the listing from Wikipedia:Third opinion first before providing a third opinion, thanks. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 01:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Leijurv! If you'd like to maximize your love for userboxes even further simplify the code on your userpage, you can use the code {{loop|COUNT|{{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User UBXlove}}}}
, with COUNT replaced by a number representing the extent of your love. Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 23:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
{{loop|420|{{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User UBXlove}}}}
. Now, I could add a comment explaining myself, or a link to here, but I just fear that it could come off as a justification / rationalization for wanting 420 userboxes. And if I change the number it'll look like a cover-up (e.g. if I add in "8" to the calculation the result doubles to 840, but that'll look like I'm just doing it to avoid the appearance of untowardness, and also it's just far too many userboxes). I think my only way forward is to leave it untouched. But I'm open to ideas on how to get out of this mess I've gotten myself into... ;)
Leijurv (
talk) 00:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship § Proposal to Split. The original proposal has been updated after reviewing the comments left.-- LemonSlushie 🍋 ( talk) ( edits) 16:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
It's interesting that I find you here too on Wikipedia! What a small world it is! Félix An ( talk) 12:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Space Launch System you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CactiStaccingCrane -- CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at
Space Launch System 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please respect other's editor contributions, namely CRS-20. You have revert their edits not for improvements to the article, but to "prove" that writing content is somehow better than cosmetic cleaning. Cosmetics can be extremely important for an editor, and no one should be discouraged to make good contributions.
Also, please do not
canvass on Wikipedia and other platforms, specfically on Discord. Canvassing meant leaving messages on a biased choice to notify other users of an ongoing community decision. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
CactiStaccingCrane (
talk) 00:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The article Space Launch System you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Space Launch System for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 07:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
On 16 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Space Launch System, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Space Launch System rocket will generate nearly nine million pounds of thrust at liftoff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Space Launch System. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Space Launch System), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Can you remove Dynamics Explorer article because I created Dynamics Explorer 1 and Dynamics Explorer 2 articles? Thank you. CRS-20 ( talk) 21:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You know what this is, interplanetary sending human to Jupiter by Elon, etc. The article since is now much improved, and I think that you, as a NASA and SLS fan, would give excellent comments on the article's tone and speculations. So, what do you think about Starship's article? What is it falls short on? CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 02:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Thanks for giving all these comments! I honestly thought that the article is perfect, until you came. I couldn't help myself to give you a barnstar, your comments really does help! CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 12:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
any comments on this? -- Dd1495 ( talk) 18:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a better version. Let's see what the main contribuitor of this page, Dd1495, has to say. We can discuss any improvements with him instead of forcing them. I regret my aggressive editing behaviour 2 years ago.The diff is too complicated for me to make sense of, I'm afraid. I am unfamiliar with Spanish sources and I don't know the political context of the time. I think you'll have to give your own thoughts on that talk page. Leijurv ( talk) 18:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
taking advantage of your posititon you enforced changes you did not understandbecause I don't have any position or authority beyond you or Raderich. Perhaps you are recalling Ferret, who is actually an admin, and who also reverted some of your edits around that time? While WP:ADMINACCT does bind admins to explain themselves, I am not an admin, for me Wikipedia is WP:VOLUNTARY.
hope this is going to make you reflect upon how Wikipedia is editedand
hope this episode might be a source of reflection for youare very dramatic and not called for. With respect to
the diff is too complicated, yes, it is. It's enormous (+37,505). Whereas two years ago, the Wikipedia policy questions were simpler.
are unfamiliar with sources, yes, many are written in Spanish. This is not a source of inconsistency, even two years ago I declined to comment on interpretations of such sources, just as today.
do not know the political context, well, like it or not, Wikipedia is commonly edited by non-experts. See WP:EXPERT:
Wikipedia has no formal structure with which to determine whether an editor is a subject-matter expert, and does not grant users privileges based on expertise. Please also see WP:CHOICE, I am under no obligation to return to the Requetes page if I don't feel like it. I don't think I've done anything inappropriate, not in 2020 and not recently. Please stop with these vague aspersions that I misguidedly edited unless you have some specific criticisms of specific things that I said that were incorrect, and if so I will adjust my behavior accordingly. Leijurv ( talk) 18:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi leijurv 0xDeadbeef ( talk) 06:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that you reverted my edit on the lead paragraph of the SLS article. Appreciate the edit was reverted to keep the lead simple, but I don’t think adding a location and some dates adds any complexity. SLS is all over the news at the moment and this is the information that people will be looking for when they search for it, and so I have added this information back in. Starlights99 ( talk) 06:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I figure you would want to be aware of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_13#Leijurv, but this seemed more polite than pinging you from there. signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your being a model of Wikipedian behaviour. Your contributions make the project stronger, as does your example of appropriate behaviour. Both are appreciated. Gog the Mild ( talk) 11:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC) |
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Don't want the talk page to get infested like the last two times, so I'm writing Redacted II up at the noticeboard. DASL51984 ( Speak to me!) 22:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I've just written Redacted II up again at WP:ANI after what just happened on the SpaceX Starship talk page. He's getting all defensive but if I see the same user try to game the system three or more times I'm writing them up. DASL51984 ( Speak to me!) 14:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
On 6 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Laguna Honda Hospital, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Laguna Honda Hospital is a non-profit long-term care facility that has been described as America's "last big almshouse"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laguna Honda Hospital. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Laguna Honda Hospital), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Kusma ( talk) 15:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
I disagree with your change on Lane change assistance.
I explain why in this Talk:Lane change assistance#weird redirect from lane change assistance to Vehicle blind spot#Blind Spot Information System section. 86.67.202.2 ( talk) 10:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)