User talk:CRS-20: Difference between revisions
→Warning, last time: Reply |
→Warning: r |
||
Line 345: | Line 345: | ||
::::No one is threatening you. In fact, quite the opposite: you are being disruptive and unreceptive to others. You need to change, or else you will be blocked by others. I hope this is not the case for you. [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC) |
::::No one is threatening you. In fact, quite the opposite: you are being disruptive and unreceptive to others. You need to change, or else you will be blocked by others. I hope this is not the case for you. [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::Let's see what [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] thinks of the situation then. [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC) |
:::::Let's see what [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] thinks of the situation then. [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::No, CactiStaccingCrane is not a troll. CactiStaccingCrane can't block you from editing, but they can report you to somewhere where an admin could. I am also not an admin. CRS-20, your continual edits with no explanation confuse everyone. Including me. You should read [[WP:ENGAGE]]. Wikipedia doesn't work if you don't talk to people and don't explain what you are doing. You can see this, up and down your talk page. From myself and others. I see that you replied a few times in French, are you using a translator? I really think you should make more of an effort to reply in [[WP:AGF|good faith]] to when people come to your talk page, even if it seems like they are threatening you, and even if it is annoying and tedious to translate their messages then translate your reply. You could be blocked if you keep refusing in this way (see the first, third, and fourth bullet points of [[Wikipedia:Competence_is_required#What_is_meant_by_"Competence_is_required"?|this page]]). Instead of asking someone else (me) to "take care of it", just reply to them yourself. If they're right, try and change your behavior, if they're wrong, tell them so. CactiStaccingCrane is frustrated with your edits to a few pages (at least), maybe you could explain why you made the edits you did, and definitely you should include edit summaries in the future. [[User:Leijurv|Leijurv]] ([[User talk:Leijurv|talk]]) 06:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[LICIACube]] == |
== [[LICIACube]] == |
Revision as of 06:18, 11 January 2022
Hi CRS-20! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC) |
March 2020
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Kosmos 111. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: Good evening, what does
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. mean? and you have to do this for each reference, it must take a long time. And where do you take the names you assign to ref. as cosmos in Kosmos 111? Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Works of the US Government are in the public domain. That means that it's legal for us to copy their material unaltered. Wikipedia rules specify that we must say so when we have copied public domain works. Hence the template. Each time you copy from a public domain work you need to say so. Any name you like can be assigned to a named reference. — Diannaa (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: What I did in Kosmos 111, is it good? — CRS-20 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's okay I guess. If you want feedback or general advice, I suggest you visit the Teahouse. See the link at the top of this page.— Diannaa (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: What I did in Kosmos 111, is it good? — CRS-20 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Works of the US Government are in the public domain. That means that it's legal for us to copy their material unaltered. Wikipedia rules specify that we must say so when we have copied public domain works. Hence the template. Each time you copy from a public domain work you need to say so. Any name you like can be assigned to a named reference. — Diannaa (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Ariel 6
@Kees08: The references 4a, 4b and 8 are dead. Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- It is a different type of citation; when you click it, it goes down to the references section and highlights the entry. When you click on the URL at that location, it will take you to Google Books, where, depending your location and other factors, you may be able to view the pages. Cheers. Kees08 (Talk) 06:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
@Kees08: I merged Notes and References and there we can see. — CRS-20 (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- The way that it was is an acceptable form for the references, see WP:SFN for a bit more on it. I have reverted it back to that version. Kees08 (Talk) 14:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Also, it would be helpful if you left edit summaries explaining what you did when editing articles in the future. I want to undo some other edits but I have to go through them individually to figure out which ones they are. Kees08 (Talk) 14:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Progress MS-14
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Progress MS-14 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. - Flori4nKT A L K 00:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Progress MS-14 moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Progress MS-14, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. - Flori4nKT A L K 01:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Flori4nK: I finished my draft, can you help me? Because he says that it will take 8 weeks and he says that there is another article of the same name, but it was I who created it, would you like to destroy this empty article? Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hello CRS-20.
- I've already nominated the redirect (Progress MS-14) for deletion.
- Unfortunately, I can't delete it myself, as I don't have the necessary user rights.
- You'll have to watch the page and will be able to move your draft to mainspace as soon as the name is free.
- If this is your first article and you aren't sure if it's ready for mainspace, I'd recommend submitting it to WP:AFC and waiting for it to be reviewed.
- Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! - Flori4nKT A L K 13:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Progress MS-14 (May 12)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Progress MS-14 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Progress MS-14, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
- @Sam-2727: This is the fourteenth in a series of 13 articles, from Progress MS-01 to Progress MS-13, this article is the continuation of the 13 others. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- CRS-20, you're right. I somehow didn't see those articles. While I disagree with the creation of those articles, I'm not here to hark on articles already created. I will accept the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sam-2727 A very big thank you. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- CRS-20, you're right. I somehow didn't see those articles. While I disagree with the creation of those articles, I'm not here to hark on articles already created. I will accept the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
ESA
@Diannaa: Is ESA in the public domain? Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here's how to find out: go to their websaite https://www.esa.int/ → Terms and Conditions → Copyrights = NO. The answer is no.— Diannaa (talk)
- @Diannaa: see https://www.esa.int/About_Us/ESA_Publications/Copyright and in my opinion, it is yes, if we don't sell them and if we don't use them for mercantile purposes. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- That is not a compatible license, because our CC-by license allows people to re-use our content for any purpose, including advertising and commercial use.— Diannaa (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: see https://www.esa.int/About_Us/ESA_Publications/Copyright and in my opinion, it is yes, if we don't sell them and if we don't use them for mercantile purposes. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Diannaa: OK, the problem is Wikipedia and not ESA. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:CRS-20 is consistently reverting my edits and accusing me of vandalism. Thank you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use edit summaries that are misleading, intentionally or not, you may be blocked from editing.
- Let's be clear, removing blank spaces from infoboxes is not vandalism. Editors remove them in good faith. I understand why they do it, and I understand why other editors like all the parameters to line up nicely. Any further reversion of these edits under the pretext of vandalism will result in a block. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mjroots might have mentioned the reason for their stern warning. At Wikipedia, "vandalism" has a precise definition given at WP:VAND. Further, assume good faith is policy and we must assume other editors are trying to improve the encyclopedia (until evidence shows otherwise, bearing in mind the definition of vandalism). Please stick to using edit summaries that describe why your edit is an improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: - I would have thought that it was obvious why the warning was issued, considering that the above post is in the section advising of the thread at ANI. The two are inextricably linked. The warning is to be read in conjunction with the thread at ANI and comments by other editors there. CRS-20, I confirm that Johnuniq's comments have my full endorsement. If you take the advice given, then this need go no further. Mjroots (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: I don't mind giving him the best of intentions, but when it's been 4 times since you've reverted him in a few days, and he comes back again with the same fault, then I call it vandalism. MB calls him this: fix convert error, MB did 2 revert to Ultimograph5, he didn't understand or can't read English, so I said to myself that he must understand. (see View history) CRS-20 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've asked him to refrain from those edits. Hopefully he'll comply now that it has been explained that they are of little benefit, although not harmful per se. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: I see what you mean now that those edits are of no benefit especially if they aren't showing up in the article. My concern was more with stuff like this, where I change an image's caption slightly and CRS-20 calls that vandalism. The infobox edits I can now understand being misconstrued as vandalism... but that image caption edit? Also, to CRS-20's point above that "I must understand" what I'm doing if you revert me a few times and I keep doing it - it would have been more helpful if in reverting my edits you would have explained why my edits were pointless instead of just saying "Vandalism" and leaving it at that. Anyway, now that I understand that removing blank spaces from infoboxes is silly, I won't be doing it anymore. Ultimograph5 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, and thanks also for the good explanation of why using "vandalism" in an edit summary is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: I see what you mean now that those edits are of no benefit especially if they aren't showing up in the article. My concern was more with stuff like this, where I change an image's caption slightly and CRS-20 calls that vandalism. The infobox edits I can now understand being misconstrued as vandalism... but that image caption edit? Also, to CRS-20's point above that "I must understand" what I'm doing if you revert me a few times and I keep doing it - it would have been more helpful if in reverting my edits you would have explained why my edits were pointless instead of just saying "Vandalism" and leaving it at that. Anyway, now that I understand that removing blank spaces from infoboxes is silly, I won't be doing it anymore. Ultimograph5 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've asked him to refrain from those edits. Hopefully he'll comply now that it has been explained that they are of little benefit, although not harmful per se. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: I don't mind giving him the best of intentions, but when it's been 4 times since you've reverted him in a few days, and he comes back again with the same fault, then I call it vandalism. MB calls him this: fix convert error, MB did 2 revert to Ultimograph5, he didn't understand or can't read English, so I said to myself that he must understand. (see View history) CRS-20 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: - I would have thought that it was obvious why the warning was issued, considering that the above post is in the section advising of the thread at ANI. The two are inextricably linked. The warning is to be read in conjunction with the thread at ANI and comments by other editors there. CRS-20, I confirm that Johnuniq's comments have my full endorsement. If you take the advice given, then this need go no further. Mjroots (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mjroots might have mentioned the reason for their stern warning. At Wikipedia, "vandalism" has a precise definition given at WP:VAND. Further, assume good faith is policy and we must assume other editors are trying to improve the encyclopedia (until evidence shows otherwise, bearing in mind the definition of vandalism). Please stick to using edit summaries that describe why your edit is an improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@CRS-20: ...then I call it vandalism... Please understand that at Wikipedia you will not call edits vandalism unless they satisfy Wikipedia's definition at WP:VAND (in brief, it's vandalism if someone replaces text with "poop"). Editors are blocked for misusing jargon after warnings. Please read my above message again. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mjroots: @Johnuniq: I still have the same problem with Blackbirdxd for the structure of the infobox: Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich. CRS-20 (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- You recently moved the article from Copernicus Sentinel-6 to Sentinel-6 Michael Frielich. Please do not undo edits without an explanation. "Edit unnecessary" is no help—what do you mean? I agree that there should be no edit warring over the alignment spaces in the infobox—Blackbirdxd why are you deleting those spaces? Are you doing that intentionally or is it some tool you're using? It's normal for infoboxes to have the equals signs lined up and you would need a very good reason to change that. I see there are substantive differences as well, but they would have to be resolved with discussion and by seeking participation from people watching a relevant wikiproject. At any rate, anyone disagreeing with edits must explain their objections on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe the best was to settle this issue once and for all is by having a RFC to thrash the issue out. Would suggest that WT:MOSIBX is the best venue. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mjroots: @Johnuniq: I still have the same problem with Cohberg for the structure of the infobox: SpaceX CRS-21. CRS-20 (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've dropped Cohberg a note. Now, how about starting that RFC? Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: What does RFC mean? CRS-20 (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:Request for Comment, commonly abbreviated to RFC. Mjroots (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: What does RFC mean? CRS-20 (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mjroots: I still have the same problem with 69.120.159.106 for the structure of the infobox: Boeing Orbital Flight Test 2. CRS-20 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Changing reference access dates to present day?
[1] Why? Leijurv (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Leijurv: Yes, I have access to the sites. CRS-20 (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okay. But why are you changing the access date? They are meant to represent at what point in time the source was consulted. For example, it could be used with the internet archive to help with verifiability - if a site changes, knowing when it had that information is important if you'd like to verify the reference. Access date should not be randomly updated to the present day; only do that if you've added new content into the article from the source. Leijurv (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, what I wrote is not quite right, actually you can also update access-date if you verify that the URL does support what's written in the article. My bad. Leijurv (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okay. But why are you changing the access date? They are meant to represent at what point in time the source was consulted. For example, it could be used with the internet archive to help with verifiability - if a site changes, knowing when it had that information is important if you'd like to verify the reference. Access date should not be randomly updated to the present day; only do that if you've added new content into the article from the source. Leijurv (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Another incorrect change to a citation on Space Launch System
Please stop making find/replace changes to references. You're making quotes inaccurate to the source now. Previously it was breaking links to sources.
In this edit, you modified a quote from Congress as part of what looks like an automated script that changes the format of dates. The law passed in 2010 is quoted as not later than December 31, 2016
and you changed it to not later than 31 December 2016
. I'm sure that that change wouldn't be a problem such as in a date=
field or a access-date=
field, but don't do that in a quote. Leijurv (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your work in Project Spaceflight
The Vanstar | ||
For your work on Vanguard and other early space projects. Neopeius (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC) |
It looks like you've started from the beginning and are working your way forward! :) I'd love to work with you on more early spacecraft -- I have lots of material from 1966 and earlier, if you're interested! --Neopeius (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Neopeius: I agree. Cordially. :) CRS-20 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- You can find me on the Discord server in the Spaceflight channel. From there, if you'd like to add me as a friend, I'll be happy to shoot you what I've got. --Neopeius (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Neopeius: What is Spaceflight channel? CRS-20 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- If you click on this button, it will take you to the Wikipedia Discord (you'll want to install Discord on your computer; the app is better than the browser version). Scroll down on the left to English Wikiprojects and you'll see WPSPACEFLIGHT. If you post in there, I'll find you. :)
- (turns out the invite was expired -- I have updated the button so it works now! :) ) --Neopeius (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
--Neopeius (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I see a problem...
While I appreciate rewriting citations so the date orders are consistent, the script you are using sets the access-date to the present day, which may be inaccurate. They should be preserved since they reflect when the article was looked up (and while you may be checking my work on Jonathan's Space Report, etc. I suspect you don't have an account to AvWeekly to check my work there). Can you confirm what's going on?
Thanks! --Neopeius (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Neopeius: I have an account with Aviation Week & Space technology. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, excellent. :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Luna 28 interplanetary parm
I see you reverted my edit to Luna 28. I removed the first two "interplanetary" parms because there can be only one of any given parm. When there are more than one, WP ignores all but the last, and gives an error at the top of the "Show preview" screen. Notice that with three "interplanetary"s, only the rover (the last one) shows in the Infobox. The proper way is to have only one "interplanetary", followed by as many "Infobox spaceflight/IP"s as needed.
See the documentation for Template:Infobox spaceflight. Also, Apollo 11 is a good example. Davemck (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Davemck: Thank you. Very interesting this article (Template:Infobox spaceflight). Sorry for the undo. I corrected Luna 28. CRS-20 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
PRIME-1
Nova-C is the lander. Intuitive Machines use it for the mission October 2021 [2] and December 2022 [3].
PRIME-1 (Polar Resources Ice Mining Experiment-1) is a payload of the lander Nova-C for the launch December 2022 [4].
Barny22 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Manned Orbiting Laboratory
I saw that you reverted my edit in Manned Orbiting Laboratory. The article is supposed to be in american english. It is about an american subject and it says so in the line after the short description. Because of the removal of the line that I added, the box now contains the word pressurised with an s. This is inconsistent with the rest of the text and with american english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keesal (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Do not add PD-Notice templates where text has not been copied verbatim. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- PD-notice is not for copied. See user Diannaa. CRS-20 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Issuing a edit-warring warning. Do not re-add without consensus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @CRS-20: Diannaa said
if nothing was copied you do not need the attribution template
earlier on this same page in November 2020. And the original explanation at the top of this page wasThat means that it's legal for us to copy their material unaltered. Wikipedia rules specify that we must say so when we have copied public domain works. Hence the template. Each time you copy from a public domain work you need to say so
. Clearly, the template is only to be used when material is copied. So,PD-notice is not for copied. See user Diannaa.
this is false. Diannaa said the opposite. PD-notice is for when we have copy pasted text verbatim from a source, but it is allowed because the source is public domain, so we explain what we did and why it's allowed by putting the template there. Leijurv (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @CRS-20: Diannaa said
Ways to improve PAS-3
Hello, CRS-20, Thank you for creating PAS-3.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
The satellite PAS-3 failed to launch. So this is a very important fact that is not mentioned. There also was a PAS-3R that replaced it. All this is mentioned in your reference!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Graeme Bartlett}}
. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
WikiProject Rocketry
WikiProject Rocketry ended earlier this month. I revived it on 17 April 2021. You are welcome to help with it. It is currently considered semi-active. If edits continue often, please replace it with active. You are also invited to edit Draft: Wikipedia:WikiProject SpaceX (company) and add your username to the members list. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Italics
Hello, and thanks for your work here. Please be careful of removing italics, I just reitalicized the title and an infobox entry on Tranquility (ISS module) after they were removed during your good faith edits. Is this the only one or were their similar edits on other modules? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just found another, Zvezda (ISS module). Can you please help reitalicize entries if you have a few minutes, thanks (and please notice that Space Shuttle names, such as Atlantis, are in italics, as are ISS module names. th.) Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And a whole crop of italics mistakes from your edits at Unity (ISS module). Please consider going over your past edits for italicization mistakes of Space Shuttle and ISS module names, lots of them seem to be popping up. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Have probably caught most of the module italics. Actually good to reread some of those pages, most people don't know that these modules were sent to the space station over time, interesting topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Nomination
You have been nominated by WikiProject Rocketry to be Rocketry Editor if the Year. Please leave your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Rocketry Editor of the Year.
Details
Users have time to nominate other users until May 31 at 23:59 UTC (6:59pm EDT). Then, voting for users will last until July 30 at 23:59 UTC (6:59pm EDT). The Rocketry Editor of the Year will be announced on July 1. StarshipSLS (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Schedule Change:
- Nominations: Ended
- Voting: Until May 31 StarshipSLS (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Why you reverted my edits? Barny22 (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Without refs CRS-20 (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- 1. Total satellites launched: This is the sum of the tabele above. There is no ref necessary.
- 2. Deorbited (in the Table): The ref is at the top of the table. I taked a look on every for every launch to see the deorbited satellites and updated it. (Same method, as somebody made it on 19 January 2021, I only updated it). If you have a better Idea, please tell it me or implement it.
- 3. Total satellites deorbited: This is the sum of the tabele above. There is no ref necessary. I let the same ref as in 2. Deorbited.
- 4. Total satellites currently in orbit = Total satellites launched - Total satellites deorbited. There is no ref necessary.
- 5. Operational satellites Deorbited: As long as only deorbited satellites from one Orbital shells there are the Total satellites deorbited - the 2 test satellites. I let the same ref as in 2. Deorbited, because from there is the basic information.
- 6. Operational satellites On orbit = Total satellites launched - Total satellites deorbited - satellites in other orbits (This point somebody forgot again to remove). This are the maximum satellites who can be in this orbit. New launched satellites are in lower orbit and future deorbiting satellites also in lower orbit and both are no "Operational satellites". Here we need a discussion or a new ref frome where we can get this information (as latest SpaceX begin to fill next Orbital shells the current ref is useless).
Where you miss a ref? Barny22 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- No answer is also an answer. I reincluded my changes. Barny22 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
From where you have the number of deorbited satellites? Calculated from the "spaceflightnow.com"?
- If yes: There are 1,677 launched satellites with the Saturday launch and "1,526 working Starlink satellites in orbit before Saturday’s mission". So the numbers of deorbited satellites are 1677 - 1526 - 52 = 99 deorbited satellites.
- On the Constellation design and status you also have to remove the 2 test satellites (see above the table), so the numbers of deorbited satellites in this table has to be 97.
Barny22 (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes for 97. CRS-20 (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
You added Starlink 29 and 30 with 550 km and 53.0°. As this Orbital shell shoult have enought satellites i think SpaceX will use another Orbit altitude and Inclination for the future flights.Barny22 (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
You won!
Both you and @Neopeius are now the Rocketry Editors of the Year! Congratulations! You are one of only two editors who received the first ever Rocketry Editor of the Year award! A template will be given to you in the future. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 17:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am very proud of this award. Thank you so much. CRS-20 (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Congrats, well deserved! Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, and you are doing a great job too. CRS-20 (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Congrats, well deserved! Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Rocketry Editor of the Year
Rocketry Editor of the Year |
You have received the Rocketry Editor of the Year award! Thank you for all your hard work in rocketry articles! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Rocketry Project) |
StarshipSLS submitted the following nomination for Rocketry Editor of the Year:
- I nominate @CRS-20: to be Rocketry Editor of the Year for outstanding contributions to rocketry articles for years.
Thanks again for your efforts! StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Palapa-C1 moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Palapa-C1, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 00:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Redirection
Hi, it appears that you tried to create a redirect at Ofeq-16, but didn't do it correctly. I've fixed it now. For future reference, the correct redirect syntax is: #REDIRECT [[target page name]] You can check redirects with the Preview button before saving them. If you have created a working redirect, the preview will show the name of the target page alongside a bent arrow (or "Redirect to:" label in text mode). — Smjg (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Tank you very much. CRS-20 (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Can you be more careful please
Again, on Space Launch System. See what happened to the references on your revision of the page. On TOP of that, stop reverting me on Template:SLS_launches/future and LOOK at the effect you are causing on Space Launch System! Giant red errors everywhere, so don't do that okay? 02:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Please follow WP:BRD in the future. When I reverted your changes saying that you had broken another page, I wish you had thought "maybe that's correct". Instead you reverted me back within the minute, with no edit summary, and re-broke the SLS page.
- If you're curious, it's because you moved the
{{Reflist
out of the<noinclude>
, which caused a reflist to appear in the middle of the SLS page. "noinclude" means "this section shouldn't be included wherever this template is substituted into another page". Since we use reflist-defined references on that page, this overwrote about half the references over on the SLS page, since that template is substituted into the middle of the SLS page. - There's nothing I can do about this but ask you to not do that in the future, so, here I am, doing that. See you around. Leijurv (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- This edit is fine since it doesn't move the reflist out of the noinclude. Leijurv (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. CRS-20 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
ProveIt and WP:CITEVAR
Rearranging the contents of refs and citation templates makes your diffs impossible to read. ProveIt puts Cite
in upper case, other plugins put cite
in lower case. Changing some of them from upper case to lower case or vice versa (without actually changing their cite template bodies, and without making all citations consistent to each other) is annoying, there's no reason to do it, and it makes your diffs harder to understand, so please don't. The next time someone with ProveIt touches the citation, it changes one way, the next time you or someone else using that dreaded 2017 wikitext editor messes with it, it changes the other way. Leijurv (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Yet another request to be more careful
I really don't know what to say, other than to say it again: PLEASE look at what your edits are doing. Either use "Show preview" and visually look at what the outcome is, or just look after hitting publish changes. In this one, you added an extra ]], so the image caption is dumped into the body of the article. You can see it right after the "Construction" heading: tank for Artemis 2 under construction, as of August 2020]]
. This is on top of the constant changes you make to spacing, newlines, the order of citation template fields, that buries what you actually changed among a whole bunch of nothing. It's quite frustrating. Leijurv (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Same thing, again
In this one, you changed a bunch of spacing and template capitalizations and such. I cannot for the life of me tell why? But anyway you changed "Cvt" to "cvty", which doesn't exist, so now the SLS Block 1 payload mass to TLI renders as Template:Cvty instead of 27 metric tons (60,000 lb)
like it should.
You replied to me just a few hours ago, can you reply again please? To this question: why do you make all of these changes to "cvt" versus "Cvt", "cite" versus "Cite", spaces in the refs, spaces in the cites, the order of the cites? None of them actually do anything. The page ends up the same. It makes your diffs incredibly annoying to read but I read them anyway since buried in them is commonly one actual mistake among a bunch of changes that do nothing. Leijurv (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Esthetic CRS-20 (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- cvty is my error CRS-20 (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- I really wish you wouldn't. I don't agree with your aesthetic. The point of why we're here is for the encyclopedia as it is read. Please read WP:COSMETICBOT and WP:MEATBOT. Making these kinds of cosmetic changes annoys everyone else and doesn't make the encyclopedia better. The problem is that I can't trust that the edit is JUST cosmetic, so I always have to read the whole thing. If I could trust that the edit was good, there would be no issue. And if you ONLY made the actual edit (not all the cosmetic fluff), that would also be okay. Leijurv (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Cosmetic
A cosmetic edit is an edit that doesn't make the page look any different. It's an edit that has no effect, to a reader of Wikipedia. This edit IS cosmetic, because even though you added a blank line, it doesn't actually make the resulting article have any more or less space between those sections. Source: WP:COSMETICBOT. Agreed? Leijurv (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Please don't change date format of American Spaceflight articles from MDY to DMY
I've noticed you've changed numerous articles that were originally in MDY format into DMY format. For example this series of changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crew_Dragon_Demo-1&type=revision&diff=961549916&oldid=960686136
Don't do this. I'm going to go through and revert these changes. Ergzay (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- All Spaceflight dates are DMY, find out. CRS-20 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Why do you say that? NASA uses MDY in every article and post they write. Ergzay (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- See user N2e. CRS-20 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Ergzay (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Ergzay: My assumption is that this has to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide, which follows from a NASA style guide that prescribes day-month-year dates. Personally, I think MOS:DATETIES takes precedence over a WikiProject essay, since the MOS has broader consensus behind it. clpo13(talk) 00:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Clpo13: However, MOS:DATETIES says
In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles: for example, articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage.
Perhaps the same concept should be applied to NASA, as applied to the US military? Leijurv (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)- That's a possibility. It was previously brought up by FlightTime here, though that edit was apparently overwritten. clpo13(talk) 23:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Clpo13: However, MOS:DATETIES says
- (talk page stalker) @Ergzay: My assumption is that this has to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide, which follows from a NASA style guide that prescribes day-month-year dates. Personally, I think MOS:DATETIES takes precedence over a WikiProject essay, since the MOS has broader consensus behind it. clpo13(talk) 00:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Ergzay (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- See user N2e. CRS-20 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Why do you say that? NASA uses MDY in every article and post they write. Ergzay (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Explorer 25
Hi, in your expansion of Explorer 25 did you write the new content from scratch (perhaps with reference to or copy from another article already in wikipedia. If the former, then there is no problem, but if the latter then appropriate attribution is required in the edit summary. Also the photo provided is of Explorer 20. Polyamorph (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Per your revision, it is NOT the same satellite: see here - it is different! Polyamorph (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is the same type of satellite: Explorer 20 was Ionospheric Explorer-A and Explorer 25 was Ionospheric Explorer B CRS-20 (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. But the photo is incorrect. They do not look the same. If you're going to include a photo it should be of the actual satellite. Polyamorph (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- I will not reinvent the wheel. CRS-20 (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- What a bizarre response. All you need to do is use the correct image! The two satellites had a similar function but they did not look the same and so you can not use a photograph of Explorer 20 claiming it is Explorer 25. Polyamorph (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- I will not reinvent the wheel. CRS-20 (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. But the photo is incorrect. They do not look the same. If you're going to include a photo it should be of the actual satellite. Polyamorph (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- It is the same type of satellite: Explorer 20 was Ionospheric Explorer-A and Explorer 25 was Ionospheric Explorer B CRS-20 (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph: The text is pasted from the NASA.gov website. For example, compare this to this. Since the source is cited, said citation invokes Template:PD-notice, and the source is indeed public domain, this is fine. (It also explains how CRS-20 makes these edits so fast, appearing to add a paragraph like this every few minutes at some points). In my opinion this is fine and good. Leijurv (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Leijurv:, CRS-20 does need to be careful they include appropriate attribution. They did not do so initially at Explorer 30. There is nothing wrong with using NASA content provided attribution is carefully considered. The note about the photograph was a strange one, as it was knowingly introducing factual innacuracies. So in my opinion this is good work but please be careful to ensure the information provided is accurate, with appropriate attribution to the NASA source - both in the references and preferably in the edit summary when they add the content. Polyamorph (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Edit to SpaceX Crew 3
Hello! I was just wondering why you removed most of the citations from the infobox? Thanks.
Sincerely,
Rafaelmanman (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Too many unnecessary references CRS-20 (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Double Asteroid Redirection Test
On 25 November 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Double Asteroid Redirection Test, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Explanation of reversion of edits at LICIACube
Hello, could you provide an explanation as to why you reverted my edit on the LICIACube article? I believe that the infobox individual space vehicle is more appropriate than Template:Infobox spaceflight as LICIACube is part of the Double Asteroid Redirection Test mission and not a separate one -- LICIACube is one of two spacecrafts involved in the mission. This is similar to Ingenuity (helicopter)'s and Perseverance (rover)'s infoboxes: they're infobox individual space vehicle as they're part of the Mars 2020 mission and are not at all separate from it. Thank you. Nigos (t c) 12:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
from CoolChib124
Hey, can you help me change this image to this image:? Someone added an unapproved nasa patch, please change to the real one, change it at SpaceX CRS-23.
Please don't delete non-breaking spaces, like you did recently. They are useful to prevent awkward line breaks, such as in
- ... SpaceX's Falcon
9 launch vehicle ...
and are almost mandatory between numbers and units in quantities. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Why are you doing this again? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Useless CRS-20 (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Your opinion contradicts MOS:NBSP recommendations and common practices. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- You have the wrong client. CRS-20 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, I don't think you are really here to edit Wikipedia, since you are being uncooperative when being reminded. I suggest you to be more receptive, but you do what you want. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- CRS-20, you've twice now said "you have the wrong client". What do you mean? They are indeed talking about you. There is no mistake. Leijurv (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- I've tried to communicate with them before, assuming good faith they may not be a native English speaker. Nigos (talk | contribs) 13:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- I believe CRS-20 is French, see here. Diffs are 1, 2, 3. Leijurv (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Someone is threatening me. Can you take care of it. Thank you. I think he's a troll. CRS-20 (talk)
- No one is threatening you. In fact, quite the opposite: you are being disruptive and unreceptive to others. You need to change, or else you will be blocked by others. I hope this is not the case for you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Let's see what Leijurv thinks of the situation then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, CactiStaccingCrane is not a troll. CactiStaccingCrane can't block you from editing, but they can report you to somewhere where an admin could. I am also not an admin. CRS-20, your continual edits with no explanation confuse everyone. Including me. You should read WP:ENGAGE. Wikipedia doesn't work if you don't talk to people and don't explain what you are doing. You can see this, up and down your talk page. From myself and others. I see that you replied a few times in French, are you using a translator? I really think you should make more of an effort to reply in good faith to when people come to your talk page, even if it seems like they are threatening you, and even if it is annoying and tedious to translate their messages then translate your reply. You could be blocked if you keep refusing in this way (see the first, third, and fourth bullet points of this page). Instead of asking someone else (me) to "take care of it", just reply to them yourself. If they're right, try and change your behavior, if they're wrong, tell them so. CactiStaccingCrane is frustrated with your edits to a few pages (at least), maybe you could explain why you made the edits you did, and definitely you should include edit summaries in the future. Leijurv (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- No one is threatening you. In fact, quite the opposite: you are being disruptive and unreceptive to others. You need to change, or else you will be blocked by others. I hope this is not the case for you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Someone is threatening me. Can you take care of it. Thank you. I think he's a troll. CRS-20 (talk)
- I believe CRS-20 is French, see here. Diffs are 1, 2, 3. Leijurv (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Je pense que le modèle {{Infobox individual space vehicle}} est mieux pour 2 raisons: LICIACube est un véhicule spatial individuel, et il n'est pas une mission tout seule, la mission est Double Asteroid Redirection Test. Ne pas défaire les modifications de The Unsinkable Molly Brown, s'il vous plait. Merci. Nigos (talk | contribs) 15:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Palapa-C1 has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
Bkissin (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Regarding Michael R. Clifford page
I did rollback your edit as declaring him dead requires reliable source; Sadly all the other changes were reverted at the same time. →AzaToth 22:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Incorrect table formatting
Hello, I've seen on several occassions with various Space related articles that you've reformatted tables incorrectly. Rather than having the -|
that marks the beginning of a table row at the beginning of the table with a preceding newline, you move it to the end of the previous row and add a following newline. I've fixed this several times only for you to revert it. Could you please discontinue doing so? Here is one example where you have done so. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Starlink&diff=1055800634&oldid=1055725687 Ergzay (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Where is your reference? CRS-20 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
List of Starlink launches edit reverts
What is the problem in my edits any reason you are not specific it in edit summary so I want to discuss the matter here Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- No refs CRS-20 (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I am using the data that the site is currently using that is of Jonathan McDowell what the problem in that CRS-20 Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- No refs CRS-20 (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
And I am giving refs then why you are telling no refs. Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Where refs of Jonathan McDowell? CRS-20 (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean by no refs explain clearly Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
See this is used "Starlink Statistics" https://planet4589.org/space/stats/star/starstats.html Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Good ref CRS-20 (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Now any problem CRS-20. Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- They have a tendency to revert other people's edits without leaving an edit summary and giving vague reasons like "no refs" or "wrong information" when asked on their talk page. I'd suggest just going ahead with the edits. They do not seem to be an English speaker as well, hence the extremely vague and short responses. Nigos (talk | contribs) 11:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Page name changes
It looks like you've changed the name of a number of astronaut's pages to include their middle initials. As I mentioned on John Young's talk page, WP:MIDDLENAME specifies that this should only be included if the middle initial was the primary way of referring to someone. Looking through WP:RM#C, it doesn't look like any of these page moves were requested there. Please look for community consensus and Wikipedia guidelines before making these name changes. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Warning, last time
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make unexplained changes to information on Wikipedia. This include articles such as the Space Shuttle and List of Starlink launches. Thank you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is not the first time you have being like that. I suggest you to engage in discussion and use edit summary intensively. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane: please don't use the standard warning template messages, you could take it up to WP:ANI instead. Level 4/4im templates can be perceived as a threat and may not be so helpful when disruption like this occurs. Nigos (talk | contribs) 02:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)@Nigos: Then it should be CSD'd, don't you think ? - FlightTime (open channel) 02:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not really, they can be used somewhere else, but I don't think standard templates should be used in cases like this. Nigos (talk | contribs) 05:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)@Nigos: Then it should be CSD'd, don't you think ? - FlightTime (open channel) 02:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- In my experience, ANI is the worst place to resolve disputes. Better take it here to solve the thing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- We could take it up to dispute resolution as well, but I agree we can keep it here for now Nigos (talk | contribs) 05:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane: please don't use the standard warning template messages, you could take it up to WP:ANI instead. Level 4/4im templates can be perceived as a threat and may not be so helpful when disruption like this occurs. Nigos (talk | contribs) 02:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)