Archives

Archive 1

Your recent editing history at SpaceX Starship shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I think five reverts on multiple editors in 24 hours is quite enough at SpaceX Starship. A closer will be along soon to likely keep it a failure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now 6x in 24 hours. I won't revert it but if you don't self revert i will report it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rightfully removed something that is useless, while YOU are the one trying to shoehorn it back in. You accusing me of starting this thing is quite ironic, frankly. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 21:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DASL51984 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: ). Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at SpaceX Starship. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, as you did at Talk:SpaceX Starship, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DASL51984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

On the talk page for SpaceX Starship, there is an RfC where the majority of people have opposed trying to recategorise this from its status as "failure". It is pretty clear that this launch is a failure in every aspect, and the vast majority of attempts to frame it otherwise involve moving goalposts and various other fallacies. It is ironic that the person who is pushing an agenda (User:Fyunck(click)) is getting away with it, while I myself, who was correcting an obviously invalid position based solely on twisting the fabric of reality, has to suffer. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 23:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is nothing in your explanation that falls under exemptions for the three-revert rule. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello DASL51984,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged PK♥♦¶ for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don't want PK♥♦¶ to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DASL51984,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged PK♥♦ for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don't want PK♥♦ to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's safer and better practice to edit Template:Round in circles/sandbox (create it with the current code of the template pasted in if it doesn't exist), then engage in tests of it at Template:Round in circles/testcases, and later replace the "live" template's code with that from the sandbox after all the kinks are worked out. This prevents (usually) any changes that didn't really work right being propagated to pages that transclude the real template.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 10:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if I could use some of the userboxs on your page in mine.

Particularly, the "I love the metric system" and the "zero-tolerance for vandalism" userboxes. Redacted II (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, no problem. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 16:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Redacted II (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]