User talk:Jadebenn

File:Virgin miamicentral logo.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station
Hello Jadebenn. I declined the technical move of two articles that you recently requested. There is a large number of launch complexes and we should probably move all of them to the shorter names, if this is really desirable. Also some templates might need to be updated. In addition, this move would be asserting that the WP:primary topic of 'Launch Complex' would be the ones at Cape Canaveral. Consider opening a full move discussion at some appropriate talk page if you still think this is a good idea. Another idea is to create redirects at all the short names pointing to the longer names, without actually moving the existing pages. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I kept your feedback in-mind, and I think I've come up with a nice compromise between conciseness and precision in my new move request. Feel free to weigh-in if you'd like. - Jadebenn (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At least that handles all the launch sites together. But what about Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39? Is the number 39 launch pad supposed to be part of the same series as the Cape Canaveral numbering? EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Kennedy Space Center is legally separate from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It's the same reason I left Spaceport Florida Launch Complex 36 and 46 off the list. - Jadebenn (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC on booster landings graph
I'm sorry to bother you, but it would be really helpful if you could state whether you find the current graph easy to understand or not. This is what we're trying to determine, but we have very little data to go by, as only two people who are not authors of the article showed up to comment. Tercer (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:United Launch Alliance space launch vehicles has been nominated for renaming
Category:United Launch Alliance space launch vehicles, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Jadebenn

Thank you for creating Multi-Payload Processing Facility.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

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

North8000 (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Jadebenn

Thank you for creating Multi-Payload Processing Facility.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

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

North8000 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Cape Canaveral Space Force Station
I wanted to notify you about a requested move on Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, since you were involved in the first one. Talk:Cape Canaveral Space Force Station Garuda28 (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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. – Moamem (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it because you cited Wikipedia. That's unrelated to the other conflict. Please do not misapply Wikipedia policy. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 12:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

about Siemens Venture and Viaggio Comfort relations
I am not sure if Brightline(Virgin Trains USA) coach is a Venture design, it seems like Siemens mark their coach under Viaggio Comfort brand. Check out their official page: https://www.mobility.siemens.com/global/en/portfolio/rail/rolling-stock/passenger-coaches.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsm5833 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Siemens describes Virgin Trains USA as using Siemens Venture trsinsets on this page. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Just be clear, you called this split WP:BOLD but that does not apply when there’s been a discussion to not do the thing you want to boldly do. For the record, I think we should continue to “wait and see” before reverting your changes... but I encourage you to participate in future discussions. — RickyCourtney (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I offended you. I figured that if this was reverted it would've helped spark a more thorough discussion. I wasn't really seeing any reason to not go ahead with the split. Still, I didn't mean to come off as ignoring discussion. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 03:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

infobox rocket, cost per year
Hi, when I looked at the article LGM-25C Titan II, I found that the infobox lists a "cost per year" of "1969". The article's history was no help as even > 10 years back it allegedly looked the same. This made me wonder if there was an error in the template, and when looking at the history of Template:Infobox Rocket I found you made a change to this field in December. Maybe you can find the time to look into it. Regards, Seelefant (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what's going on there. Maybe it was a deprecated parameter that coincidently had the same parameter name? I'm fairly certain I didn't overwrite any already existing parameters when I made my edit. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 15:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, it was used wrong in that article since 2007 or so, with an author interpreting "cpl-year" as the year in which the "cpl" value was noted. -- Seelefant (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah. Then it sat dormant until I added a parameter which coincidentally had the same name, causing it to show up. That explains it. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 19:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39B


Hello, Jadebenn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39B".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of other editors' talk page comments : SLS Launch cost
Jadebenn You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

At this edit :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_Launch_System&diff=967572895&oldid=967572433.

Anytime you want to edit other's comments please refer to :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments - Moamem (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Your edit was in violation of talk page guidelines. That's also not how RfCs work. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

3RR
Also, you are now in violation of the three-revert rule. from this. I won't template you but... aren't you as well? It isn't obvious vandalism if there's a RfC on the exact change to be made, no? Leijurv (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am? I thought I was on my last revert. Was a different IP also, so I guess I messed up on the edit summary too. I do think that particular edit could be construed as vandalism though - user claimed to remove the material because it was "unsourced." It was emphatically not. Glad got the page semi-protected.
 * Taking a break from the talk page. I lost my temper when I saw that things were once again disrupted immediately after your excellent comment. I feel like we've been at a standstill because the RfC process has been continually interrupted every time a discussion's gotten going. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 03:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By my count you reverted 4 times from 16:52 UTC July 13 to 19:43 UTC July 13. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 * Very reasonable to take a break. That comment was almost-not-quite fun, but certainly very time consuming to write.
 * I actually found this from randomly reading WP:ANI. The sheer number of deleted revisions in the history of the talk page was horrifying. Pieced some of it together though. Turns out (redacted). Neat; small world. It's quite jarring to scroll through the talk page and see the exact same stuff across many months in time. Hope I was able to add something new. Leijurv (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You should probably redact that, but thanks. Frustrating to see (what I consider) repeated blatant disregard of Wikipedia policy and consensus-building just because of a user's personal grudge against me. I probably should just refrain from further participation until the Arbcom investigation finishes. Probably is in my best interest, too. Would rather not get slapped down for incivility or an (unintentional) 3RR vio. Hopefully I didn't just shoot myself in the foot. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 03:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I should have let sleeping dogs lie. Sorry. Leijurv (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not your fault, don't blame yourself. I've had to deal with this kind of behavior for a while now. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 05:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Deleting my comments on the Space Launch System Talk page by Jadebenn. – Moamem (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2020 (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. Moamem (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Jadebenn

Thank you for creating Siemens Venture.

User:Whiteguru, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

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

Whiteguru (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox rocket and cpl-year
Hi Jadebenn! I've just been speaking to a user on the IRC help chat about Delta IV Heavy's infobox, which states the "Cost per year" is "2018". This is clearly incorrect, as 2018 is not the cost per year, but the cost per launch in a specific year. The template documentation also states that the cpl-year parameter is  , which appears to match the usage of this parameter.The change affecting this appears to stem back to this edit you made in 2019 to the infobox template, splitting that parameter out into a new line. My instinct with this is to undo your change to put the year of the cost-per-launch data back onto the same line as the cost-per-launch, but I'm a) not sure what your intention of splitting this out was, and b) less comfortable with editing templates than I used to be. Would you mind taking another look at this? Thanks! stwalkerster (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Are there any other pages that use that parameter, and in which context do they use it? I thought it was unused at the time I made the edit, and repurposed it for an edit to Space Launch System. I don't know if it's proliferated since then, or if that remains the only use. Depending on the answer, it might be worthwhile to split out a new variable for the new or old usage. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 22:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I decided to get some actual data before responding here, so I went through all 351 transclusions of this template:
 * 277 don't use the cpl or cpl-year parameters at all.
 * 46 only use cpl to show a value
 * 15 use cpl to show both a value and a year (Space Shuttle, Delta II, Angara (rocket family), Atlas V, Falcon 9, Long March 4B, Juno II, Saturn V, Delta 4000, Delta 5000, Falcon Heavy, Falcon 9 v1.1, Titan IIIM, Falcon 9 Full Thrust, and User:Chessrat/Interplanetary Transport System (2016 proposal))
 * 9 use cpl to show a value, and cpl-year to show a year (HGM-25A Titan I, Titan IV, SSBS S1, Saturn C-4, Saturn C-3, Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 6, Falcon 9 v1.0, and List of Delta IV Heavy launches)
 * 2 don't use cpl, but do have a year in cpl-year. (Troposphere (rocket family) and ILR-33 AMBER)
 * 2 use cpl and cpl-year to show a value (Space Launch System and User:SandowTheHeretic/sandbox)
 * I think your suggestion to split this out into a new parameter is a good idea, and for the sake of least-invasive changes to other articles, I suggest we put cpl-year back to it's original use, and introduce a new parameter for cost-per-year? Does that sound good to you? stwalkerster (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 19:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Archival of Discussions
Among the five editors to comment in the More up to date images, 3 want to archive the discussion.

Therefore, would it be improper archiving to remove it? Redacted II (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't undo consensus changes
This was a revert of consensus. I won't revert it again but I'd request you undo this revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&oldid=prev&diff=1215000207 Ergzay (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There was no "consensus." It was an active dispute that is still ongoing. I will not remove the notice of dispute. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 13:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There was consensus, going back weeks. I'd say it even qualified for WP:SNOW at that point. Ergzay (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)