User talk:5Ept5xW

Welcome
typing four tildes (~) ; this will automatically produce your username and the date.
 * Community Portal
 * Join a WikiProject
 * Follow Wikipedia etiquette
 * Practice civility
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Archiving a Talk page
Help:Archiving a talk page.

Preview
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your amazing work!
Thanks for improving all the content in a lot of space related topics like over at: It's really nice to have cleanups of articles. Looking at this tool called xtools link here you made over 1,700 changes so far!!!! Wow, that's just amazing! Obviously I can't go to every edit and thank you for every one. But I guess I take take a few minutes to thank you for your contributions.
 * Artemis program
 * Lunar Orbital Platform – Gateway
 * SpaceX CRS-18
 * Rocket propellant
 * Vulcan (rocket)
 * Commercial Resupply Services
 * SpaceX
 * and many more!

Just as a comment, I found that XTools can be really helpful when looking for page statistics and that sort of stuff. If you want links to them, you can go to the Revision history of page and click on the links next to "External tools:" over at the top of the page (below "Filter revisions").

Hope you choose to stay on Wikipedia, we always need a helping hand. If you need any help (looks like you already know a lot (more then I did when I started editing at Wikipedia)), you can leave a message over at User talk:OkayKenji or any other editor, we will be happy to help.

Fellow Editor,
 * OkayKenG (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! -5Ept5xW (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
It is nice to see a new user catch up so fast and copyedit so many science articles. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! I actually have a BA in Chemistry 5Ept5xW (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Gender Neutral Replacements
Hi! I was wondering if it was a good idea to massively replace all mentions of "manned" to "crew". I understand that gender-neutral words should be preferred, but there is consistency in the usage of "manned" in some contexts. What do you think? agucova (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * women first flew in space in 1963, I think that we should acknowledge that. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The consensus and result at the Wikipedia Space Flight Project is to replace "manned" for "crewed". The exceptions are for historical flights before the 1970's as the lingo was such back then. Since the 1980s, NASA and ESA have also been making the switch to gender neutral terms. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * makes sense in terms of articles about the ESA and NASA, I would think that articles about the USSR (which was responsible for the 1963 flight) might have a slightly different cutoff. In any case, I've been leaving 'Manned Orbiting Laboratory' and the like. 5Ept5xW (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. That is correct, when the name of any project (past or present) includes the word "Manned", we leave it as it is. Converting "manned"  to "crewed" applies only to the prose. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * that's why i was going it, no need to state the obvious 5Ept5xW (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is, 'crewed' is such a bloody stupid word that it should be banned from Wikipedia and all serious publications. In the UK I recently heard some dumbass on the radio mention a 'crude mission to Mars', at least that's what I thought he said. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is your hearing ok? 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Crewed and Crude sound exactly the same, which is why the former is so stupid. Manned is much better. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Mars
I was wondering if you have any interest in working your cleanup magic on the article Terraforming of Mars. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rocket engine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solid state ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rocket_engine check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rocket_engine?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the mixup on the article you made edit's too.
After I read your talk page I realized my edit was a mistake. I undid my edit. Viewratio (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * no worries 5Ept5xW (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  Calidum   05:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Your recent editing history at Apollo program shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  General Ization Talk  05:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)  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 Apollo program. 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 below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

recent block: other user's threatening remarks, incivility
Please post the dif's. I can't say I'll be back this way, but once the block is expired you may want to discuss at ANI.

Letting it drop in no way ensures you won't get into another donnybrook. Hence my requirement that you understand edit war avoidance and dispute resolution.

I know how hard it can be to stop when the emotions are engaged, but stop we must. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The what? What's ANI? What's donnybrook? Are you telling me that wikipedia administrators only take into account on side of a story when they are considering a ban? Seems like a holistic approach might be more beneficial to the community. 5Ept5xW (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, it appears as though I can still edit my talk page even while blocked(?). Is this explained anywhere? 5Ept5xW (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello? New user here, just trying to sort out things out. 5Ept5xW (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a heads-up: Normally, if you're blocked you can still edit your talk and user pages-it's just other stuff you can't edit. I know there have been cases where users have been blocked for editing their own pages, but that's usually in response to them having a nutty on their user pages after they've gotten blocked. Almostfm (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not quite right. A blocked user can edit only their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ok, was this mentioned anywhere? I discovered it by trial and error, which seems like an inefficient way to accomplish anything. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

have not seen Bb23's reply.
 * Did I not mention that I might not be back this way?
 * You are allowed to edit your talk page so as to make a publicly visible appeal of your block.
 * WP:ANI is where we report problems that lesser measures have failed to correct.
 * See-- donnybrook
 * I can't take your side of the story into account if you can't show me the offending edits, or at least who made them.
 * You still have not  addressed the reasons for your block. Please see wp:ew, wp:dr. They hold the answers.
 * Be careful about putting words into people's mouths. Some people are more sensitive about that than I. It also distracts from the issues we are trying to resolve.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * you 100% failed to mention anything of that nature.
 * Your deliberate use of archaic language is somewhat alienating, fracas would have been readily understandable.
 * So what I am hearing is that you make no attempt to determine why I felt the need to keep reverting the dishonest edits, you merely have a process where editors who revert three times in 24 hrs get blocked.
 * If you would like to demonstrate where I was putting words into other people's mouths feel free to do so, until then these two sentences are a prime example of threatening language: "Be careful about putting words into people's mouths. Some people are more sensitive about that than I." Nicely vague, yet menacing. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry
As this is the case, I will offer no further contact or advice. I've asked twice for you to show me where the other editors' offending edits were. Twice you responded with hostility and w/o doing so. Once again, please read the links about edit warring and dispute resolution. Good Day! Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone have a flowchart of this procedure? I am utterly lost at this point
5Ept5xW (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because of your persistent disruptive editing here, I have revoked Talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Date formats
Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Space Race. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia.

Making a large number of edits that can't be reverted, as you did, makes it that much harder to correct and increases likelihood of error if the dates are mis-copied. Always check to see if an article is already tagged "use mdy" or "use dmy"; don't change an existing article. Otherwise, you are free to choose either format, respecting MOS:DATETIES, and then tag the article at the top with template:use mdy dates or template:use dmy dates. Also the formats must be kept consistent in each article. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

SLS
Doesn't the idea of a "crew of 4" imply that it's 4 people-as opposed to gibbons or chimps or some other animal? I know that we sent up chimps testing Mercury, but as far as I know, it's been 55 years since we've sent non-humans up as "crew". I don't think that saying "4" for the crew is going to confuse anybody. Almostfm (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The general idea was that having "1 Crew" (meaning SLS Block 1 + Orion) and "4" (meaning a four person crew) immediately adjacent is possibly confusing. See my recent edit: changed 1 Crew to 1 Orion to reflect difference vs cargo SLS with fairing. Hopefully this clears things up. 5Ept5xW (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I eel that having "4" in the column labeled 'crew" makes that clear, but not so strongly that it's worth fighting over it. Thanks. Almostfm (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RUAG Space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ariane ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/RUAG_Space check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/RUAG_Space?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss larger changes with the portal before
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spaceflight --mfb (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gender neutrality is a minor change. 5Ept5xW (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have 2000 articles using "maiden flight". Changing it in one article is a minor change, but changing it on a large scale is not. I haven't seen anyone (apart from you) associating "maiden flight" with a particular gender by the way. --mfb (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You must be quite ignorant then. If you like, I can attempt to explain why "maiden" is in fact gendered, but I thought that it was self-evident. 5Ept5xW (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm German where a chair is male and multiple chairs are female. I'm well aware of the difference between gender as applying to the object and gender in terms of language use only. Are you? "Maiden flight" is a fixed expression that doesn't have a relation to any physical gender - a flight isn't even a physical object. --mfb (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia, German language conventions are not relevant here. To put it simply, I see no reason why we should be excluding women through the use of gendered language. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Who is Mgb? I just mentioned German as example where you have the distinction in everyday life, but the concept is the same in English. Please explain to me how we exclude women if we write "maiden flight" in articles, I'm really curious now. --mfb (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * whoops, meant mfb. Ok, so in English we don't gender objects historically, and we're currently moving away from gendering position titles and all the rest. Also historically, "maiden" has referred to woman, specifically women who have not had sex. This is an incredibly stupid, toxic concept that is linked to other sexist and racist ideologies that we should not be supporting here on wikipedia. Additionally, when I am reading about rockets I don't want to be reminded of sex, I want to think about rockets. Does that suffice, or should I provide additional explanation? 5Ept5xW (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think about sex when you read "maiden flight" then that is entirely your problem, I fear. It is unfortunate that you didn't answer my question. --mfb (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Since most people share my line of thinking, it is not "entirely [my] problem". What was your question again? 5Ept5xW (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you provide any evidence that "most" people share your views on this particular phrase? By "most" I don't mean most of the people you know or talk to, but a majority of the English-speaking population (almost 400 million people as native speakers, and something like a billion overall.) Or any survey of a representative subset of that population? Fcrary (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How is the opinion of (typically) under 10 editors representative of the general consensus? I don't understand the burden of proof here - consensus on talk pages is deemed sufficient when 2.5*10^-6 % of the english speaking population is represented by those hypothetical 10 editors. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You want a change, it is your task to provide a good reason for the change. Just saying "most people agree with me" is not proving anything, especially if 90% of the Wikipedia authors involved do not agree with you. Yes this is not a representative sample, but it is a strong indication that your view might be a bit off. --mfb (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've been dealing with some administrative issues and haven't been able to form a coherent line of thought, I'll try and get back to you. 5Ept5xW (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

As Mfb wrote, I wasn't really expecting you to have a public survey handy. You were supporting your argument by claiming "most people" agree with you. That puts the burden of proof on you. If there is no way to prove it, fine. But that makes it an unsupported and potentially baseless assertion. I don't think that has a place in a rational discussion. Fcrary (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, like I said I've been dealing with some administrative issues and don't have anything handy as I wasn't expecting gender neutrality to be such a controversial topic. Wikipedia is an odd place, my point was that having a few editors agree on something in the day or so the debate is open for discussion is not a very robust way of making decisions. It would seem as though my burden of proof shouldn't need to include full public survey, all I would have to do is supply proof greater than "yeah a few guys on the internet said so." 5Ept5xW (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep misrepresenting what this discussion is about, and it looks deliberate. Having "a few editors agreeing" might not be the best thing but it is way better than a single editor proclaiming they have the ultimate truth and everyone disagreeing must be completely wrong. --mfb (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking an extreme view and putting words in my mouth instead of trying to understand where I am coming from and the point I am trying to make. 5Ept5xW (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can be a bit weird, but the idea of a consensus among editors isn't about deciding what's right. In fact, nothing about Wikipedia should be about that. (We're trying to present facts and summarize what other people have said, not decide if they're right or wrong.) The idea of a consensus is about avoiding back-and-forth edits because two or more editors disagree about something. Regardless, I said I wasn't expecting a public survey. I was saying someone shouldn't say "most people" agree with something unless they can back up that claim. If someone can't, then that person should simply refrain from making the claim.Fcrary (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree "that person" shouldn't claim to speak for the entirety of English speakers. However, since the current trend is to use gender neutral language in the general population (as opposed to the population of wikipedia editors), it would seem as though Wikipedia should reflect that trend. Note that this may run contrary to would you personally think should happen, but that's the way society is going atm. 5Ept5xW (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope you are aware 46% of the voters elected Mr. Trump in 2016. I'm not happy about that, but it makes me wonder about a large fraction of the population and leery of any statements about "current trends". The current trend among some subsets of the population is toward gender neutral language. There are also some subsets of the population seem to be opposed to the idea. Even among those in favor, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what "gender neutral" means. Personally, I'm all for saying "robotic" instead of "unmanned" spacecraft (I prefer "robotic" to "uncrewed", since it's both gender neutral and an actual word...) But some people seem to feel gendered words should be expunged from the language in all contexts other than biology, and I think that's going too far. In any case, I just don't see a clear, across the board, trend on the subject. In some circles, yes. But overall?Fcrary (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, remind me again why US national politics are relevant? Yes,

Trump is president, and if you asked him he either wouldn't know what you meant or be very opposed. So what? 5Ept5xW (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that he was elected means that, for some reason and like it or not, a large fraction of the American public (and therefore a large fraction of the English speaking population) apparently agree with him. That means my views, and the views of the large majority of people living near me (Boulder, Colorado) are not representative. Trends in the views of those people may not be overall trends. That would be an overgeneralization. If that logic were true, and the people I'm normally in contact with were typical, Mr. Trump wouldn't be in office. That doesn't make him, or any particular view, right. It means phrases like "the current trend" don't mean anything if they are based on what a particular subset of the population thinks. Fcrary (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "and therefore a large fraction of the English speaking population" is a step too far - US voter turnout is at record lows, and the English speaking population is larger than just the US. 5Ept5xW (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose "large fraction" is a vague phrase. I used it to mean large enough that I'm not comfortable assuming my friends are typical and members of that "fraction" are not. If you want numbers, there are 158 million registered voters in the United States and about 400 million native speakers of English. A dismal turnout in the 2016 election meant that only 56% voted, and of those 46% voted for Mr. Trump. That means 10% of the native speakers of English voted for Trump. That's not a trivial fraction. Good, valid surveys are based on a vastly smaller number of people. 10% is enough to make me wonder if my views, and the views of people I know, are "typical" or if trends in our opinions are "current trends" in the overall population. That also means I'm not comfortable making claims to those effects, or believing other people's unproven claims along those lines. Fcrary (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm comfortable with blatant sexism - certainly there seems to be an argument that "maiden flight" isn't sexist, but we are so far away from the issue at the moment that I am struggling to recall it. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you propose we decide things on Wikipedia? Anyone in the world (at least with a modicum of English language knowledge) is free to become an editor. Any editor is free to weigh in on an RfC. Aside from the 5 core pillars it's all decided by consensus among people who have freely shown interest. It's actually an ingenious system IMO. Rules and procedures are part of life, so is working with other people. Again, who do you propose ought to decide whether to change all instances of "maiden flight" to "first flight"? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I propose that we consider what this looks like from the outsider's perspective. 5Ept5xW (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So start a neutrally worded WP:RFC and in your !vote (which you would have the opportunity to place at the top of a Survey section) suggest that we consider what this looks like from "the" outsider's perspective. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would love to, unfortunately my experience is limited to articles and talk pages. The complexity of the WP stuff means that the learning curve heavily favors the established editors. 5Ept5xW (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't you say you are part of the next generation of technical people? Reading instructions is going to be part of that. Just work through WP:RFC step by step and if you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page, or at the WP:HELPDESK or WP:TEAHOUSE. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely a part of the next generation of technical people, and knowing when not to do things in an overly complex, archaic way is absolutely a part of that. All of the wp articles I have encountered so far were essentially unreadable, and (no offense meant) I highly doubt that you would be able to change that if I were to come to you with questions. 5Ept5xW (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If WP documentation is unreadable to you, I think you are going to find technical documentation, science and math texts, and lectures impossible. The docs are in English and explain the process step-by-step. However, I am willing to start the RfC for you, and you could have the first or second !vote in the Survey section (assuming you wanted to prepare one to do so in time, if not your !vote might come later) and make your case further in the Discussion section if you like. Honestly, I think the Wikipedia procedures are the opposite of archaic and inefficient, as I said I think they are ingenious and very groundbreaking for mass group collaboration. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My degree would disagree, but feel free to think whatever you would like to think. If you start an RfC (a what?) please ping me or leave a message here or otherwise get my attention. Thanks, 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RfC started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. If you need an example of how to !vote, there are two examples listed in a comment in the Survey section (edit that section and you will see the comment). —DIYeditor (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved your !vote to the correct subsection and added my own !vote. Please note, it is very important not to WP:CANVASS - do not contact individuals you might feel are interested in this topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that I would engage in inappropriate conduct.... 5Ept5xW (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a very common problem that could derail the RfC, and you said you have difficulty finding and understanding Wikipedia policies. It is not necessarily obvious not to CANVASS. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Established" Wikipedia editors become established by doing a variety of tasks, some of which take them out of their comfort zone and, sometimes, away from their preferred activities for a time. As DIYeditor suggests, the RfC process is well-documented and you should not find it much of a challenge.  General Ization Talk  22:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can copy edit technical articles all day, wouldn't know where to start with the wp’s. 5Ept5xW (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You would start by clicking on the blue link in DIYeditor's comment above, or this one: WP:RFC. I seem to recall we have had this problem before.  General Ization  Talk  23:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misunderstanding me: I have read wp instructions and found them to be poorly organized, inconsistent, and oddly structured. Perhaps if the instructions could be cleaned up misunderstandings might not be so common. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. In the meantime, editors are required to at least make an effort to follow our policies and procedures here, instead of making up their own, so you might make an attempt at it. You can suggest any improvements to the documentation at WT:RFC.  General Ization  Talk  23:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly I am in fact following your policies and procedures, no need to go throwing around assertions like that. My point about accessibility remains. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

First versus Maiden Flight
I reverted your changes for several reasons. Please see comments on the Spaceflight project talk page.

First, you made major changes, such as moving (renaming) an article without any discussion and when there was no consensus for such a change. That alone is sufficient reason to revery a change.

Second, you are taking gender-neutral language too far. It does not mean the elimination of all gendered nouns. Specifically it is about using gendered words to describe groups or professions. See the Wikipedia article on gender neutrality

Third, the Wikipedia Manual of Style says ships can be referred to as "she", so gendered words are allowed when they refer to an inanimate object.

Fourth, the MOS also says that, when gendered to non-gendered language are both acceptable, changes should only be made if there is a "substantial reason to do so." You have not expressed any such substantial reason. Fcrary (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * RE:Substantial reason - basic human decency? I am not a woman, but if I was I would not feel too good about seeing some variation of "manned" or "men" about every other word. If you have seen "Hidden Figures" you would know that women have played a significant role in human spaceflight from the very beginning, and I think that it is appropriate that we acknowledge that. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Changing "manned" to "crewed" is good (and I have done myself so in multiple articles), but that's not what this discussion is about. --mfb (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think there are contributions from women going back way before the events in "Hidden Figures." But acknowledging that doesn't mean stripping the English language of ever word and usage which has gender implications. That's why it's ok to refer to a ship as "she" (or, in some languages, "he"). That's what it isn't a crime for many languages to have "masculine" and "feminine" nouns for inanimate objects and different conjugations and declinations for them. I can understand objecting to a something like "manned", which has a direct relation to the passengers and implications about their gender. But I think objecting to "maiden" voyages is going a bit too far. It certainly is for a unilateral, major change to a Wikipedia article. If we discuss it, and most people disagree with me, fine. But I want that discussion to happen before the edit. Fcrary (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is no longer ok to refer to ships as "he" or "she". I understand that this concept may be difficult to grasp for you, but we have gotten less sexist as time has progressed and more data has become available on the negative impacts gendered language can have. The next generation of technical people (including me) would like to focus on technical things and leave the gender discussion to the gender studies majors and anyone else who cares - I am perhaps a bit ahead of the curve but you should start to see people like me more and more over the coming years.
 * In response to your other assertion, there was in fact a discussion and you did in fact provide me with clear direction to "rename" (move) the article as a means of resolving the conflict. Your conduct in immediately reverting my work seems disingenuous - perhaps next time you clearly state that you are personally opposed to gender neutrality (for reasons yet unclear). Assuming I can remember your user name, I will try and keep this in mind for the next time a similar issue emerges. 5Ept5xW (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to leave the discussion to others then why do you push this topic so much here?
 * I'll repeat myself: No one said "move this article". Fcrary said you can initiate the necessary procedures for a page move. I put a link to the relevant policy there in the meantime. I don't see how this could be misunderstood unless you deliberately wanted to do so. And accusing people of "being opposed to gender neutrality" just because they don't share your exact view what gender neutrality means in a specific case is not helpful. --mfb (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat myself: I'm not sure what you personally have against gender neutral language, but your style of arguing is exhausting and every talk page edit is effort that could be spent cleaning up citations, grammar, sentence structure, etc on the many thousands of shitty articles here. Is this a good use of our time? 5Ept5xW (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk page discussions do avoid edit wars. Which is a greater waste of time? Fcrary (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The greater waste of time is applying 1950s thinking to 2019 internet culture. Do you edit Wikipedia on a typewriter? 5Ept5xW (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Think about the children! Arguing that I would be "against gender neutral language" because I think "maiden flight" is gender neutral is absurd. If you are so worried about time spent on talk pages then stop wasting your time here. It should have become clear that you have an extreme minority view. --mfb (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean on Wikipedia, or in real life? The two are not equivalent. 5Ept5xW (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you feel the majority of English speakers agree with you. I get the feeling that you have very narrow exposure to "real life" and are extrapolating from that. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. 5Ept5xW (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Your recent editing history at Atlas V shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have now reverted twice: once was the comma. When the other user had an issue, I added additional information to the article (leaving the comma in the same location in the sentence). This is an improper warning, and your revert was improper. 5Ept5xW (talk)
 * About the edit warring notice, I thought the edits were more similar. In one of your edits, you stated that comments on the talk page should be disregarded, which is why I thought that edit was against consensus. — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I asked the user in question what was going on, as their edit didn't seem to comply with grammatical rules. 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"Didn't seem to comply with grammatical rules." Sigh.

I am the user in question. As I have said again and again, please read the relevant section of the Manual of Style. You will find that this is a Berenstain Bears situation: the grammatical rules are not what you think they are, and your feeling of certainty is not reliable. I really wish you'd just go and read it. You've "split the difference yet again"; very well. But there isn't any difference to split. I think your proposed sentence is overlong and tortured. Sure, sure, nobody can identify anything actually wrong, and you're just adding detail; but very little is added, and this in the summary, where it isn't merited, and all in service to your refusal to accept that "She went to school in Jakarta, Indonesia and Lawrence, Kansas" is simply WRONG. "She went to elementary and high school in Jakarta, Indonesia, and she went to another high school in Lawrence, Kansas" is not better; it is worse. Please: don't condescend to humour me with this "compromise". Just go thou and visit the MoS. Thank you. Regulov (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Dude, why are you this pissed off over a comma? 5Ept5xW (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that way. And certainly, I would think twice about putting it that way if I had the talk page you do. Have you read the MoS entry on commas in dates and places yet? I solemnly swear that will satisfy me. I think I've said this before, but it isn't that I'm pissed off over a comma; I'm pissed off (if that is the phrase) because you are still trying to be right, instead of just saying, "Oh, now I see. My mistake." And now you're trying to make me out to be wrong, not because I'm wrong, but because I'm petty enough to care. You care just as much as I do; it's just that I've read MOS:GEOCOMMA and you haven't. Regulov (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Dude - what? How does my talk page factor into this? 5Ept5xW (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I withdraw the remark. Have you read MOS:GEOCOMMA yet? Regulov (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Such hostility - why? 5Ept5xW (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The hostility is in your mind. "I withdraw the remark. Have you read MOS:GEOCOMMA yet?" is civil. Have you? Regulov (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See my response on the Atlas V page, no need to be this aggressive. 5Ept5xW (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it too aggressive for me to say I think there's no need to be so defensive? Regulov (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you still responding here? 5Ept5xW (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I get it. I seem extremely aggressive to you, because you wish I would just let you have your way, and it seems unjust, hostile, even malicious of me not to throw up my hands and walk away at this point—over a comma! Please accept my assurance that from here it looks more like you are being unduly defensive.

I've filed a request for a third opinion at Third Opinion. Maybe that will help.

Regulov (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you even on about? There are two issues here: your conduct and the edits to the actual article. I personally would prefer it if you would leave my talk page alone but you seem to have chosen otherwise, the article is a separate issue. 5Ept5xW (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, one of those reverts was of a mistaken change, as acknowledged by the responsible user. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't pick fights.
Re. your most recent reversion of a minor, good faith edit to Atlas V: let us please not go through all that again. Vandalism? Really? MOS:DATECOMMA — Regulov (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It looked wrong, and you have been consistently aggressive with me. 5Ept5xW (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever you do, don't check first. Just continue to assume my edits are personal attacks. I've said this before, and so have several others: no one is attacking you. You are being unreasonably defensive. I mentioned, in passing, exactly this case of parenthetical comma in my very first response to your very first incorrect reversion, on July 19, saying:

"Next time you come across a correction of this kind (see also: 'On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon.'), I hope you will refrain from reverting it, recalling that your intuition is not reliable in such cases."
 * This is that next time. As I thought we had established over the last week and a half, the fact that a comma "looks wrong" to you is not sufficient reason to revert it, because your idea of what looks wrong is wrong. Please familiarize yourself with the Manual of Style. The parenthetical comma is also explained, maybe a little more simply, here. I have been extremely patient with you. I feel now that you may be trolling me, hoping I will lose my composure and call you a tiresome imbecile. I have linked you directly to the relevant section of the MoS again and again. It's right there in our old friend MOS:GEOCOMMA. I'll ask again: have you read it? It isn't long. If you can read my replies, which I suppose I have to admit isn't a given, you can certainly manage this.
 * "It looked wrong."
 * Regulov (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See what I mean about aggression? I try not to get too worked up about anything that happens on Wikipedia - hostility isn't healthy and I value my health over an online encyclopedia. Have a nice day! 5Ept5xW (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Tagging rampage
I noticed you have spent the last several days tagging hundreds of passages with "citation needed". While regular editors sometimes come across such need, your systematic campaign is quite annoying, especially when tagging trivial information or text that is already referenced in the previous sentence or through the intralink. If you are interested in supporting text, I invite you to actually research and document what you consider controversial and in need of additional supporting references. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion, please refrain from this hostility. You might instead ask me for my motivations, but your mind seems to be made up: tagging "rampage". I would further encourage you to mind your own business. 5Ept5xW (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Besides your motivation to act with such hostility, I certainly do not care about your other motivations for disruptions. But thank you for providing another nail for your next ban. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? The point is that asking editors to provide citations is not a disruption, it is simply good practice. I’m sorry that I had to be the one to tell you this, but no one cares about how articles get on Wikipedia. They care about the quality of the articles, which is dependent on having information from reputable sources explained clearly and coherently. Also, please stop spamming up my talk page. Thanks, 5Ept5xW (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Adding to this, plot summaries do not need citations except in very exceptional cases, and this does not constitute one. --Prospero One (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * EVERYTHING in Wiki needs verifiable sources. 104.169.37.99 (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)