User talk:Leijurv

Your UTRS Account
You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB (owner / report) 19:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just clicked that login button for fun, I saw on the Wikipedia talk that non admins could log in and was curious if I could since I'm extended confirmed now. Looks like I can't. I wasn't expecting it to work anyway so it was unsurprising. Leijurv (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Maths banner
The maths rating template hasn't been upgraded in a long itme, and it doesn't know how to handle redirects. Putting the maths banner template on them, despite the big red warning label, is the only way to get them into the correct maintenance category. I don't like it either. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All right, I guess. My monkey brain just saw the red text and thought "bad" lol Leijurv (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I guess I did screw up, because that one's actually not a redirect; there were hundreds of other number redirects I was blasting through, and I guess I assumed that was one, too. Sorry for the confusion! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Mz7 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

July 2020
Hello, I'm Leijurv. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Leijurv (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Your points about SLS cost on the talk page
Hey, just to let you know, I've got some new info I'd like to bring to that conversation that I think you might find pertinent. However, I think it'd be best to wait for the ANI and Arbcom proceedings to finish first, considering the combative behavior going on right now. I hope you can understand. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 19:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I don't know what an IBAN would mean for the dispute on the article... would it mean you couldn't weigh in if Moamem started a RfC or vice versa? I wouldn't hold your breath on arbcom by the way, I emailed them to get unblocked in July 2018 and I only got a reply in late October 2018. Leijurv (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think participating in an RfC would be an issue as long as I avoided interacting with or mentioning the other user, but I'll have to read up on the policy to check. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 20:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Jack of all trades change
Sorry if this is not the correct format, first time I am doing this and trying to follow the guidelines. I removed the quoted part that I did because looking at the source I saw it was just a personal blog. Looking it up I could find no concrete evidence of this add-on being an actual part of the quote. Many people have added it, but the phrase that dates back to at least 1732 goes as follows "A jack of all trades is of no trade." This is according to Martin Manser, The Facts on File Dictionary of Proverbs (2002) where he pulled the quote from Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia: Adagies and Proverbs; Wise Sentences and Witty Sayings, Ancient and Modern, Foreign and British (1732). The last line seems is really new, and completely changes the meaning of the proverb. Instead of the jack of all trades being essentially undesirable to it now being preferred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.244.21 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right that the source doesn't appear to be reliable. In the future you could say that in the edit summary so that it's clearer. I'll self revert then :) Leijurv (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn
Hello, Leijurv! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over a hundred and fifty other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! (p.s. I don't invite people at random anymore, but I noticed your RFP/R request and wondered if you wanted to try :) ) Ed 6767    talk!  23:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Richard
Here is the reference, a clip from Season 5; he is literally called Richard. 51.171.113.150 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding a source, I'll accept the edit. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone else reverts it, because this sort of this will generally need consensus on the talk page. Leijurv (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

85.238.103.29
Two weeks ago you reverted my change pointing I have to add the appropriate source, which means you have some experience at pointing how to do a right way. I added then and that was applied by... someone. Now that's not the case. I have a question similar to Richard's one. I am a eyewitness of Jumanji legacy at Solar Opposites (same scene, almost the same desk) and I tried to add that to Jumanji wiki. The change's being undone because of lack of confirming source. But what source can it be if I think I'm first who saw similarity of that scene in below-mentioned films? have I upload comparative screenshots?

I did not find any related information at Wikipedia rules/usability description about such situation cases.

Can you help pointing where to read to make it clear please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.102.82 (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm a little confused? I don't remember doing any such revert to Jumanji or Solar Opposites, so I checked the edit history and I don't think I've ever edited those pages? I also checked your edit history and I haven't edited any page you've edited, it appears? Perhaps your IP is changing, or you aren't logged into your account...?
 * Sorry, I thought IP published as article title will help to aknowledge me. I mean your change meant here: talk
 * Yep, both not logged in and dynamically changed )
 * Anyway, I've taken a look at your edit history and the history of the Jumanji page. I can explain even though it very much was not me who is reverting you.
 * I'm not telling it was you I just asking your advice.
 * You've already been pointed to WP:RS policy, but please also take a look at WP:UGC. This is why we don't cite eBay or most personal blogs. It's also why we don't cite reddit, facebook, twitter, etc (except in certain very specific cases. In case you're wondering, this expensive eBay sale completely fails criteria 1 through 4).
 * Yep, I already saw a WP:UGC and read criterias right now and got it but... Will write below.
 * Here's a way to think about it. Could literally anyone on the internet have written / done this? If so, it isn't reliable. Was it written in a manner where it was edited, fact checked, and published by an organization with a reputation for doing this and being reliable? Then it's a WP:RS. That's why we can cite, say, the New York Times, but not a random blog.
 * Case is there's exists citing of Chicago Tribune, but... fact is... I thing you'd better look here: WP:RSN#ebay
 * eBay does not have this reputation, it should be clear. Let me ask you a question. How do you KNOW that this isn't, say, just one person who put up something for sale on eBay then bought it themselves on another account, to make their Jumanji collection SEEM more valuable, when really no money changed hands (it went from their bank account to eBay back to their bank account). Of course, that's a little silly (I don't truly suspect that happened), but.... it could have. That's why WP:UGC isn't okay. How do we know that what was sold was truly this Jumanji board and it wasn't a cover for something else? See, eBay can be used as a source about themselves. We could certainly cite this to say something like "Items sell on eBay for tens of thousands of dollars [1]", since it's making a claim about eBay. But outside eBay, it isn't saying anything reliably true. People get scammed on eBay all the time, items aren't what they claim, etc.
 * You read my mind ) Yep, I just assume it's not a fake because there was no any info claiming it was fake later. And... Who need to buy/sell to him/herself a thing worth $60800 to just make a fake news (blog?) article? However, yes, I think that quite possible. From other point of view I think ebay lot page link is initial source about fact something was sold and not about that 'something' description. However ok... Yes. That's connected.
 * Hope this helps! Leijurv (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, it is. Thank you very much, but really I was asking you initially not about that case but about that one. Can you tell me how can I approve films scenes alikeness (similarity) if only prove is film scenes itself (and still no news exists about it)? Can it be done via uploading comparative screenshots to wiki?


 * Euff, it's better if you don't intersperse comments like that. The reason is that my signature is only at the end. Since it's on my talk page it's clear and I can piece it together, but don't get in that habit, I would advise :) It can get very complicated very fast on article talk pages.
 * One little thing, you said my opponent on the linked page, please remember WP:USTHEM.
 * I thing you'd better look here: I've looked there, looks like they're saying more or less the same things.
 * The combination of film imagery is definitely WP:SYNTH I fear. Now, we generally say that film plots are sourced only to the film itself. So, when writing a plot summary of a film, we don't need to find secondary sources for every plot point. However, when you combine from two different films to say this film is sort of like that one, I have to call that WP:SYNTH. Try and find a source that says those things look similar, otherwise it is probably WP:OR on your part. Leijurv (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Didn't think about your signature. Tried to do it less complicated to understand. You are right. I won't do such way anymore. Have I 'fix' previous comments order to ordinary manner?
 * But how to call a editor with opposing POV (yep admit there's some edit clash happens, but don't moan he's a 'bad guy', later - @WP:RSN#ebay)? Isn't it an opponent?
 * I don't call him an enemy, nay I trying to be respectful calling him an opponent. Just... How have I call him that way? "Other discussion editor"? That's too long name, I think. Really don't know how to call...
 * Yep, you right but still I saw there some hint - combining Chicago tribune news article telling about lot description pointing to it's URL and after-sale archived ebay lot URL approving a sell as RS. And it not even WP:SYNTH because have connection with the ebay link itself that was used both in news article and corresponding archived after sale ebay lot page.
 * About films... How strange... So, wiki editors can't make any research and just looking for 'published somewhere' proves of facts?.. So sad... Looks like limited journalism, but with no possibility to study a "problem"(article).
 * Thank you.
 * 85.238.102.245 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about fixing anything here, I understand what happened :)
 * The relevant part of WP:USTHEM is but when there is a dispute about content, no one should see themselves as being on a team. It might not be as applicable as I thought initially since it's more about teams than individual people, sorry about that. I was just trying to make a point about WP:AGF. For example, I personally try not to think of any editors as "opponents". By default, I believe that they are also making a good faith effort to build the encyclopedia. (Unless, of course, they've proven otherwise). Disagreeing on what sources are applicable is actually one of the most common things to disagree on, because it directly impacts what can be written in the article. I definitely see what you're saying about enemy vs opponent. Sometimes I'll just say "other editor". Specifically there I might write As you can see the other editor thinks ebay and other auction/sell-like listings can not be used. Or you can just write their actual username so that there is no confusion. I don't know of any options for a good single word that captures "editor I disagree with", that doesn't also convey opposing them. Because I like to think that we are really on the same side, the same team, of the people working to build, we just disagree on the best way to do it. :)
 * I see this potential source for you. I believe it is the same as the Chicago Tribune, but I'm unable to access that page without paying. (as I'm sure you'd understand, if we have a free vs paid source and they both say the exact same thing, the free one should be cited). That actually is quite a good source for this. There is a link to ebay there, but it appears to be dead? Not sure what's going on there. I think you should add in a citation to that article, it definitely would help. I would not be surprised if, checking back on the article in a few months / years, that passage will have been edited to just cite the Tribune article and not ebay itself.
 * So, wiki editors can't make any research and just looking for 'published somewhere' proves of facts?.. So sad... Correct. Perhaps take a look at WP:V, WP:TRUTH, WP:OR, and WP:RS to see why / learn more. Remember earlier I said Could literally anyone on the internet have written / done this? If so, it isn't reliable.? It's the same concept: there's nothing special about being able to edit Wikipedia, since absolutely anyone can do it. As WP:V says, Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
 * Also, you might want to consider making an account, see WP:REGISTER for why. It will probably clear up a lot of confusion. For example, if I replied to you previously, you wouldn't get the notification by now, since your IP has already changed since you first posted here! Wait how do I know it's still you??? :) Leijurv (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't you see a CT-Link? I don't see any restrictions here on that page while I'm not subscribed. However NY-link you provided just repeats told there and have same date. Even pagenames are equal and 'ct' probably means 'Chicago tribune', so then CT is initial source.
 * There is a link to ebay there, but it appears to be dead? Yep, but archived one is still online.
 * About registration: I know such cons but I still searching your and mine previous IP's pages by direct URLs. And, as you see I prefer to teach anything through examples
 * In pursuit of the correctness of the information displayed, Wikipedia is drowning in bureaucracy, because ones who add content have become much less than ones who are trying to control it, and they choose quite rude way to do it - simply canceling hours-long edits of those who are looking for relevant information and sources.
 * And no one controls the activities of these controllers, because no Wikipedia rule prohibits them to "simply undo" edits instead of revising them and bringing them to the appropriate form. And no one discusses the quality of the undo edits while attempting to understand whether it was necessary to undo the edit or whether it would be enough just to change some of the details in it.
 * Other words, there are much more “teachers” who are trying to roughly teach other editors “how to do it” than those who are interested in filling this resource with relevant information.
 * No, I do not want to be part of a project in which the "war of edits" and "opponent" is not a pronunciation mistake, but, alas, a harsh reality.
 * Over the past month, I made edits to only 2 articles of the project, but in the story with you, you explained what was wrong, and I corrected it accordingly (however sources still were complexed to become RS). In the Jumanji story - no one is trying to change anything in my edit, they are only going to cancel everything, although I initially spent at least 8 hours searching for the relevant sources, including archived ones. And why should I register? To "enjoy suffering"? ;) No thanks )
 * I'd rather just forget about filling this project with anything, because it does not make sense - this is not a resource with "collective mind" filling it, but simply a dictatorship with a huge number of "special services" in the form of such careless controllers who are trying to "guide" simple editors "on the true path" not by examples, but by humiliation ...
 * Here, no one understands that the provided Chicago Tribune news itself does not contain the final sale price and that my question was exactly about using the ebay resource exactly for confirmation of the fact of exact lot sale was successful, so then can't be a RS of confirmation item was really sold and its final price ($60800, both evented day later news was published, that info is automatically created) itself, and not "information from the description published on ebay" (that is 'user-generated'), everyone just echoes "the information from the ebay page description cannot be used in the form of a RS" not even reading a topic where said "Does ebay... can be reliable source of fact something was sold...?".
 * Therefore, it is completely incomprehensible to me - it is in Wikipedia that all the "controlling editors" who speak out there are so stupid not even trying to understand a RS problem here exists and I asking about, or is it my "skis do not go".
 * There's situations where no clear information exists itself at some 'news' but 'true is out here' in COMMON pieces (part of overall news) of some news and sources exists that can (imho) be considered as RS because of repeatable both in news and other sources.
 * Modern news are quite brief to be contented enough with full event information (example - is Jumanji game desk selling at ebay) so what to do about such event filling in Wikipedia? Not post? Even if sources complex (news one with others news is linking to) approves the fact itself?
 * I think Wikipedia lost it flexibility fearing bad news will be published there (came up with huge amount of unrelated to each other rules) however still having articles with unapproved information that just 'nobody cares' and nobody reads to examine because of leak of info (just to raise Wikipedia articles number when no alternative article view exists, even it's initially unapproved).
 * Wait how do I know it's still you??? :) By writing style and context ) And sure, by first part of IP (it's almost unchanged). With all aggregated, for sure )
 * And... They just deleted in full my Jumanji change. Again. Fill something more? Register? $) No way.
 * I even know what they will tell me (to confirm their undos) if I will continue: "CT article is @Redeye (Things to do) section and links to facebook that is user-generated blog so can't be RS any way" however there's no any info at news page itself about that's 'blog' or 'opinion' or 'newspaper did not checked that' which means that have to be true and checked by newspaper editors (about it's correctiveness) before publishing... And such justification of 'other editors' (who just cancelling my changes again and again) greatness will happens (I assume) indefinitely - instead of filling something to the resource they will just cancel everything again and again just 'because they can'.
 * 85.238.102.245 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Response to your edit.
Hi Leijurv, I added that particular content to Paoli Dam's wiki page as it is one of her films. This particular film was not included in the list and can be verified from IMDb entry [1] or film details from other sources [2,3,4]. I would request you to reinstate the content, otherwise a legitimate filmography entry would be missing.

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10574498/ [2] https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/shantilal-o-projapoti-rohoshyo-movie-review-pritam-d-guptas-insipid-film-suffers-from-clunky-writing-7231771.html [3] https://www.filmcompanion.in/features/bengali-features/the-actress-and-the-reporter-paoli-dam-and-ritwick-chakraborty-talk-shantilal-o-projapoti-rohoshyo/ [4] https://www.moviebuff.com/shantilal-o-projapoti-rohoshyo

Thanks, AmiArnab (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding some sources! But, you don't need to demonstrate it to me. Unless you put the sources in your edit itself, someone reading your edit or the page won't know if they exist or not. We need to include them in the page itself, because of WP:V. By the WP:BLP policy, we have to have sources for just about everything we say about living people. All the other films in that list have a &lt;ref&gt;, or there is a reference elsewhere in the article. You can of course redo the edit (you don't need to ask me for permission), but I suggest that you cite those sources, otherwise it might be reverted again by someone else. See WP:CITE for how to do it. I would probably only cite the later three, and not the first one (IMDB), because IMDB is not considered reliable (see WP:CITEIMDB for why). Leijurv (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you reply and suggestions. I understand the issue. I will add the references (latter three) as you have suggested.

WP:TPO - a user deleted your comment from talk page
Hi Leijurv, I noticed that you reverted vandalism to article Islam in Sweden and left a warning on the talk page of the user who did those edits. Your warning was deleted from the talk page in violation of WP:TPO, see talk page revision. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If I understand you right, you're informing me that Ofiii88 blanked their talk page, including my warning? I thought this was perfectly allowable because it's their own page, WP:OWNTALK? Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. He also did remove a discussion here on this page, and while I might have otherwise reinstated it, I don't mind in this case because it's clearly distressing to them. Leijurv (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for linking the relevant guideline. Then you may remove this commen per WP:UP. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

thank you
Thank you for archiving User talk:THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101's Sandbox page. Obviously that content does not belong on wikipedia but it's sometimes very interesting to read the writings of Blocked users on Wikipedia. Normal users are not able to view deleted Wiki pages AFAIK.  ApChrKey    Talk 22:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Pertaining The D’banj Article
Hello Leijurv, I can’t for some reason access the links you dropped on my talk page. I think was the admin who did the initial rev-del perharps he is in a better position to assist you on this. Contact them maybe? Celestina007 20:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Already resolved; there had been some communication behind the scenes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can’t for some reason access the links you dropped on my talk page Yeah sorry, perfectly bad timing, it looks like I messaged an admin directly close to the same time that you saw the message. They have been revdeled. Sorry for the confusion! Leijurv (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Leijurv. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ALeijurv enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

August 2020
Your recent editing history at Rusher shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BLDM (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * @BLDM, WP:DTTR and leijurv hasn't actually broken 3RR yet. You must WP:ENGAGE with other editors, especially experienced ones, and discuss changes and removals. Ed  talk!  21:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why it's a warning. BLDM (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DTTR: These templates serve to explain the various policies to new editors. When novice editors breach policies, it is quite possible (if we assume good faith, which we must) that they are unaware of them, and educating them is helpful. On the other hand, most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies. If you believe that they have broken (or are about to breach) one, it is frequently the result of some disagreement over the interpretation of the policy, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to the "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counterproductive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil. Leijurv (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. We both made the same number of edits to the page (three). You could go one more time and still be fine (because your initial edit was not a revert for these purposes), and I could not undo it. Regardless of the count though, I really do suggest you consider going with WP:BRD. After the initial bold edit to the page (removing the bullet saying "no source") and my revert (explaining that sourcing isn't needed here, and there's a source on the linked page), at that point it would have been preferable if you had gone to the talk page for more clarification. Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. This warning that you templated me with ironically suggests following BRD. Leijurv (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Space Launch System
You reverted my edit about the expected dates for the SLS. The earliest report in both version of the article is the one from CBS news in 2011, which says "the first test flight in 2017". Then we get the Planetary Society article, part 4, from Oct 2016, which says "When feasible, the agency was also directed to use or modify existing Constellation contracts, and both the rocket and Orion should be ready for test flights by the end of 2016."; and part 5, from Nov 2016, which says "When the Space Launch System was formally announced in September 2011, NASA said internal and external audits estimated it would take $18 billion to get SLS, Orion and the associated ground infrastructure ready for a test flight at the end of 2017." The "end of 2016" date was a desire from Congress; NASA's first estimate, in 2011, for what was possible was the end of 2017. Please change the article back to the version I left it as. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm. But doesn't Congress direct NASA? If Congress passes a funding bill saying "launch in 2016" but then a little while later NASA says "we will launch in 2017"... isn't that a delay from 2016 to 2017? What am I missing? Leijurv (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "When feasible ... should be ready ..." - it was a desire, not an expected date. And we know that NASA said in 2011 that it wouldn't be possible until 2017. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't read the "when feasible" as applying to that? I read it as "when feasible use existing contracts, and be ready by the end of 2016". NASA said in 2011 that it wouldn't be possible until 2017 Yes, within the first year (so, still within 2011) NASA said they couldn't make it by 2016 and delayed to 2017.
 * If the original mandate from congress was "test flight in 2016" but NASA almost immediately said "actually we can't make that, we'll test in 2017" that's still a delay, is it not? Leijurv (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "should be ready" is not "be ready", and I don't think we can read it by missing out the 'should'. The 2017 date was given in the formal announcement, from NASA. The 2016 date came as a desire from the non-technical, non-planning Congress. It was not an expectation, but a wish. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Precisely, the act calls it a "goal": "It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016." https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf So we definitely should not mention "October 2016", and I think if we mention 2016, we should say that was Congress's "goal". Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article writes The intended uncrewed first flight of SLS. I believe should be ready, or shall be the goal to achieve ... by Dec 2016 as defined in the original Congressional bill, counts for this. I don't think we need to write out the source of every intended launch date in the article, that's what citations are for. As of October 2010, the date on that bill, the intended first flight of SLS was December 2016. Later, it was delayed by NASA to 2017... What am I missing here? Leijurv (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added that source, thank you for finding it! here Leijurv (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Bates method
I don't know whether you saw my response to your comment at ANI, as that page gets a lot of activity. If you think that "essentially all of" my comments at Talk:Bates method were "pushing pro-Bates POV", then you misunderstood at least some of them, in which I was trying to explain why some apparent improvement isn't necessarily what it seems. Belteshazzar (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in arguing this, we are both reading the same page and seeing different things it appears. I took another read just now and I stand by my assessment of nearly all your comments pushing POV of the Bates method being effective. And yes, some of your suggested additions are not so weighty as to say Bates is effective, some of them are smaller claims, such as the very first one in which you say that looking into the sun can cause perceived temporary improvement and suggest adding that to the article. You also went on to say that the source explains some risks of sunlight exposure. But which part of the source did you suggest adding? The former, not the latter. Looking into the sun is bad for your eyes. So yes, even that example is pushing pro-Bates POV, because you wanted the article to say that looking into the sun made some people think their eyesight improved. I understand that you read it differently, or intended differently? I'm not sure if that matters. Leijurv (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Bates method article already explained the risks of looking at the sun, but did not explain that it might cause fleeting improvement due to the pupil changing size. That is why I suggested adding that part. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mmhmm. And when I read that suggestion, in light of the contents of the source, what I see is a pro-Bates POV. When it's combined with pages and pages of the same or very similar suggestions and arguments and debates, it becomes POV pushing. Especially when you're trying to make synth-y arguments, the only people on your side are also brand new editors, and editors who really know policy (not including myself under that!) are disagreeing. Leijurv (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're going to talk about "synth-y arguments", do you think it is correct for the Bates method article to use a source which doesn't mention Bates to state that "these changes are far too small to account for the necessary changes in focus"? That seems closer to a WP:SYN than anything I have suggested. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are referring to Laboratory tests have shown that the human eyeball is far too rigid to spontaneously change shape to a degree that would be necessary to accomplish what Bates described.[2] Exceedingly small changes in axial length of the eyeball (18.6–19.2 μm) are caused by the action of the ciliary muscle during accommodation. However, these changes are far too small to account for the necessary changes in focus, producing changes of only −0.036 dioptres.[15] I don't much of a problem. This is almost like WP:CALC, saying that one number is less than another. Trying to argue along the line of "if Huxley isn't a liar, and he says he believes Bates improved his eyesight, we can't also then say that Bates is ineffective" is very much SYNTH/OR, however. (please don't nitpick my exact phrasing in that quote, it isn't the point) Leijurv (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That was an argument for removing something, not for affirmatively stating something. However, I was thinking more about a reference to pseudomyopia. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You lambast me for "synth-y arguments", and now you restore "frequent criticism" when we have only one source which makes said criticism? Yes, this is a minor point, but considering everything else which is excluded due to WP:OR, WP:MEDRS, etc.... Belteshazzar (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're trying to argue. But maybe take the hint that consensus is against you when 3 different editors across 2 days revert your changing of that language. Take a serious read of WP:IDHT which Hipal (who is evidently far more experienced than either of us, with >100k edits) pointed you to in the edit summary. Leijurv (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know that anyone else would have reverted my last edit, which was a fair amount different from my previous attempts, essentially just removing "frequent" and re-ordering the subsections. Belteshazzar (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine. Go at it again with yet another slight variation on the edit you want to make, I won't revert. (wouldn't have anyway but). We'll see what happens. Maybe you'll strike upon something that no one can find issue with (I hope). Who knows. Leijurv (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You could revert your own revert. I don't want to edit war. Belteshazzar (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I could. But I don't think I will, I do believe that the two examples under that section are good enough. I also think that one source is sufficient to call criticism 'frequent', if it is a meta source that is talking about the, shall we say, history of the scholarly opinions on Bates. Leijurv (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Check out what this user, who gave up on the Bates method article, had to say about that source. Belteshazzar (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, bring it up on the talk page and achieve consensus, then make the edit. WP:BRD. If you can't get people to agree, then don't. Maybe should have done that after the first revert, but now we're at, uh, (checks history), three. Leijurv (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I will instead now DTS, unless someone else now sees my point and makes a further change. This bothered me mainly because of the inconsistency in how content policies are applied in the article. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for 2b2t
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your hook and image made our all-time list of lead hooks with more than 25,000 views! Congratulations! Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

2b2t
Dear Leijurv, I see that you reverted my edit on 2b2t. The cited source states "There are no such rules on the anarchy servers. They are by nature inhospitable..." The source does not describe anarchy servers as nihilistic but spesifically the server 2b2t. Since 2b2t is a anarchy server it is safe to assume 2b2t is also inhospitable, but since an anarchy server might not necessarily have all the attributes 2b2t has we cannot conclude that anarchy servers are nihilistic in general. On the contrary the Wikipedia article states both 2b2t and anarchy servers are nihilistic. ("The culture of 2b2t and anarchy servers in general have been described as "inhospitable" and 'nihilistic'.")

Also I couldn't find any information about writer of Newsweek's article. So although the information is cited, it's still not clear who states that. Best regards, --Visnelma (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please bring this up on Talk:2b2t in the future so that others who edit the article will see it too.
 * I believe this is a nitpick that wouldn't make the article better. :/ The author is clearly painting 2b2t and anarchy servers in general with a broad brush. How would you rephrase the sentence? Perhaps: The culture of 2b2t specifically has been described as "inhospitable", and anarchy servers in general (of which 2b2t is an example) are generally described as "nihilistic" (so one can presume that 2b2t is also nihilistic), according to Roisin Kiberd of Newsweek. I think it clearly passes WP:V as is, I could see the argument for WP:INTEXT to say who made this quote, I'll remove the quote marks so that that isn't confusing (they really shouldn't have been there to begin with). The culture of 2b2t and anarchy servers in general is inhospitable and nihilistic. is better. Honestly maybe even "and anarchy servers in general" should be removed. Leijurv (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations on one of the Top Hooks of 2020
Out of several thousand DYK hooks featured on the Main Page during 2020, your hook for 2b2t, "the no-rules Mincraft multiplayer server", ranked as the No. 23 hook of the year with 1,546 DYK views per hour. A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of the year can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook's remarkable showing, and keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoops. Inadvertant stepping on your edit.
Hi. I think my edit just inadvertantly stepped on yours. Sorry. I'll go away for a bit to allow it to get fixed.

Or if you don't want to redo it, I'll come back later and try to add your edit back. I liked your edit! But our edits are too many too fast just now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, although I'm not sure I'm seeing any edit conflict actually? Leijurv (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

HARMONY (ISS module)
I put some info in the Harmony infobox, but they don't appear, why? CRS-20 (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You made a number of edits to the page, I'm not sure which you mean. Can you point out which specific diff you meant to add information to the infobox but it didn't display? Generally that is because those parameters do not exist in the specific infobox variant. Harmony is Infobox space station module so it might have different options than what you're used to, maybe? I'm not certain. Leijurv (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * names_list, mission_type, operator, manufacturier, ... CRS-20 (talk) 07:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like those fields just don't exist in the template, sorry. Look here: Template:Infobox space station module. Your options are: Leijurv (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Help!
You said that there was already an article named Space Exploration. Thank you for letting me know! I have decided to make my draft about American Space Exploration. How do I change the name of my draft: Draft:Space Exploration? 64.121.103.144 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think you have permissions to move a page unless you have an account. Source: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Moving_a_page it says Some wikis (such as the English Wikipedia) allow only users who have logged in to move pages. Might as well make an account? WP:WCA :) If you really don't want to do that, I suppose you could make a new page and copy paste over the contents. That probably wouldn't be a big deal since, so far, it's all written by you so there's no issues with copy pasting it around (otherwise, you'd want to follow WP:CWW). Leijurv (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the image problem for me but...
Hey, I'm the person that you said the image on 2b2t wiki might have copyright. Thanks for pointing that out but I auctually flew around 2b2t spawn myself while world downloading and made the render myself. So I don't think there will be any copyright problems. But if you think that the image or logos in the image might have some copyright problems, feel free to talk to me and I will change it. --EEEric01726 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All right. It's a little complicated regarding images of 2b2t for copyright. I wrote a summary of it here: Talk:2b2t/GA1 for the Good Article review, because WP:GACR requires that all images used in the article be aboveboard (from a copyright point of view). Regarding GACR#6a: The 2b2t logo is normal fair use for a logo. For the renders, it is a pleasant surprise that they are actually usable on Wikimedia Commons. The stars aligned there. It survived a four month long deletion request on Commons here that saw multiple admins of both enwiki and Commons weigh in. The idea is that the renders are so high level that the copyright held by the players that placed and broke blocks is "de minimis", the Minecraft procedural terrain generation is also a tiny part of the image (so, also DM) and doesn't show human creativity, the Minecraft program being used to place these blocks holds no copyright, the textures used in the render are free and not from the Minecraft game, the program used to make the render is licensed under GPL, and the creator of the image licensed the output under a proper license. Yeah, stars aligned.
 * I am trusting in the outcome of that decision and working from there, and the "constraints" that were discussed there.


 * Copyright held by Minecraft players - your render is actually in a better situation there. Most of the space is taken up by the overall terrain, and the logos made by small groups. Very little of it is the chaos of the middle of spawn, unlike the previous renders. The idea is commons:COM:DM, but applied broadly. Each individual player's contribution is DM, but collectively it isn't. So, for example, if the entire thing had been made by one person, it wouldn't be okay, but since it was hundreds of thousands of people that each individually did a tiny part, it's okay. It's weird, I know. A metaphor is that if you take a panorama view from above of New York City, no one has copyright claim to that but you, even though every single thing, person, building in the image could be copyrighted to its creator, each one is so tiny that you own the result. But if you zoomed in and took a picture of just one billboard, that would no longer be DM because the nearly the entire image is copyrighted to someone else. (like the example in commons:COM:DM). Reading that page now it's quite confusing, for example see the warning under the image it uses: commons:File:Downtown_Burj_Dubai_and_Business_Bay,_seen_from_Safa_Park.jpg. I guess this would only apply in the USA?
 * Copyright held by Minecraft players for specific structures - this one is trickier. The Square and Compasses is probably fine since the overall design is public domain; it's ancient. Specific permission was given for the smaller one. I could get the same for the larger one if need be, I know exactly who it was that made the vector graphics for it. The owo is more complicated - they lifted the design from the album art for Meet the Woo and just rearranged the "o" before the "w". That is unquestionably copyrighted, I assume by the record company. I don't think we could call that DM either, sadly. The reason is that the "point" of this image, the reason why it would be shown in the article, is to demonstrate specifically these logos... and a part of an image can't be DM if removing it would make the image useless for what it's being used for. (and as I said previously, DM "scales" to how many things are in the image - if it's really just two big logos as the focus of the image, and one of them is copyrighted, that would almost certainly fall on the side of making DM inapplicable).
 * Copyright held by Mojang/Microsoft for Minecraft world generation - I worry about this one. In the other renders, you could get rid of the Minecraft vanilla worldgen and it would be just as good of an image. (in other words: DM applies, in my opinion). In yours, a huge portion of it is just vanilla, since it takes a much larger view.' On the other hand, you could still crop it down to just the spawn area and the point of the image would be undamaged. I don't know to be honest. There was also some confusing talk about "human creativity" and the "sweat of the brow" rule about if procedurally generated terrain can be copyrighted to begin with.
 * Copyright held by Mojang/Microsoft for the Minecraft client/server system being used to generate this data - this doesn't matter, unchanged from the other ones.
 * Copyright held by the program you used to make the image - I don't know what program you used. For example, Chunky, which was used to make the other renders, is GPL licensed. From a Commons point of view, this (I believe) falls under their "screenshots of programs" rule, even though technically it isn't a screenshot. Like, it's technically possible to write a computer program and put it out with a conditional license like "anything you generate with this program must be released under X Y Z license and you have to credit this render program". If you make a Minecraft render with such a program, it would be a copyright violation to post that render without following those conditions. (and those conditions might not be compatible with the licenses allowed on Commons, in other words those conditions might be nonfree).
 * Copyright held by the textures / color palette that that program used - I also don't know. Your image looks darker, I don't immediately recognize the tint. Is that Leaflet? Minotaur? Journeymap? I'm not sure. If it uses the colors from the game, I think that is okay, but if it uses textures (more than just single colors) that isn't? I'm also unclear on this. In the discussion this was brought up and IronException posted how Chunky has just single color pixels. You can see in his image that the single colors are actually changing according to the biome map. I assume that that temperature blending function (or whatever) counts as non copyrightable procedural generation? I have no idea, again. This is all a little bit silly if you think about it - your render is so high-level that you can't see blocks at all, so why should it matter if you made them from copyrighted vanilla Minecraft texture assets, or from uniform single color pixels per Minecraft block? I agree that's silly but that's how it works. I think. DM talks about cropping images, but what about high/low resolution? If I post something with copyrighted text at such a low resolution that you can't read it, is that okay? If I reupload at higher resolution, does that make it no longer okay? Or is it only not okay if you crop in? The DM page only talks about cropping, but I wonder if resolution should also have an effect on DM. I worried about that while posting commons:File:2b2t Lavacasts.png and uploading the super-high-res versions of the ThebesAndSound renders.
 * Last but not least, copyright by the person who "made" the render - Like a photographer in real life, you set up this image. No one put effort into creating this specific file other than you, spending time to world download it and then putting it into this program. You've put it up under the default which is CC-BY-SA, which is a perfectly fine license. So, no issues at all there.
 * Phew. So, balancing everything, I simply cannot say for certain if your image is more or less risky than the others. There are factors going in both directions, such as it being very zoomed out being both a good thing (you can't see any block textures) and a bad thing (much of the image is just Vanilla Minecraft terrain generation).
 * However, I am most worried by the owo, as I don't think it can be DM. For that reason, while I can't say for sure, my opinion is pretty strongly that this file is probably not within Commons copyright policy. At least, it's less okay than the other renders are.
 * I'm cautious because I don't want to overly rock the boat regarding the 2b2t renders; I suspect if one gets deleted, all of them will. The Commons admin Geni said in the original discussion: I think we need to be very clear that this is one courts could jump either way on so we are balancing risk factors ... Overall I don’t think there is a right answer here so its more of question of “is it worth the risk”. These things are on a spectrum and it's a judgement call balancing them. The Commons admins have a low risk tolerance for ambiguous situations like this so we're "lucky" that we have the renders we do on 2b2t. I count my blessings there, and I think it really does make the article a lot better with the visuals.
 * Regarding adding the image to the article though! Which is a completely different concern than whether it can be posted on Commons at all copyright-wise. (Although, if the image isn't used on any wiki article then it's probably best if it isn't on Commons, because then it's all risk and no reward, from the point of view of my worry about all the images getting put on the copyright chopping block).
 * WP:V has to be followed. This is a bit of a strange standard. Take a look at Talk:2b2t/Archive_1. For example, it's (by my interpretation of the rules) fine to say something like "this image is 4000 Minecraft blocks on a side" because you could verify this by zooming in and counting the blocks. Saying that there's a square and compasses in the image is fine because you can look at the image and then look at the article on square and compasses (which has sources of its own on the design) and know that this is an example of that. Other things are a little bit iffy. For example, I wrote a caption on the 2017 ThebesAndSound render that it's the -X (western) axis going out from spawn. You could verify that by logging into the server and looking around. (that relies on WikiProject_Video_games/Sources which more or less states that you "can", in some limited scenarios (that I believe apply here), use a game as a source about itself). All that being said, your caption went above and beyond what is verifiable. I don't know how to verify that these structures were built by groups. I could verify that they were built though. I don't know how to verify that these structures are meant to be symbols or logos. I don't know how to verify that this particular one is known as "The Masonic Eclipse". (like, I do, because I wrote the software that constructed it, but from a Wikipedia perspective on what counts as a reliable source, I don't. WP:OR / WP:VNT). I don't know how to verify that the group that made it is called the "SpawnMasons". I don't know how to verify this in the plural, in how you said that these structural (plural) are built by groups as their logo - so, we would need a source for the general statement, going above and beyond a source for just this specific example of the mason logo. (by the way, if this is confusing regarding how I can say all these unverified/uncited things on internal pages (such as deletion discussions, talk pages like this one or Talk:2b2t), the reason is that per WP:OR, thankfuly, we have This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. So, it only applies to what the Wikipedia reader will see. Good thing too, otherwise it would be impossible to have discussions and make decisions on what sources are reliable (WP:RS/N) or have general discussions about policy such as this (e.g. through WP:EDITDISC)).
 * All in all, I'm sorry to have had to undo your addition of that image + caption, but I don't think the idea behind it can be put in the article while falling within Wikipedia policy. Well, I guess if one day someone writes a textbook on 2b2t, or a reliable source publishes something about the logos, then we could, but not until then, not until it's verifiable.
 * Hope this helps! Leijurv (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, I read through it and found out that my image achieve the most thing you said, but not all. I understand that it might be risky and dangerous to put the image on the page. So it's your choice to delete it or no(because I don't really know what to do with it). I don't really care if you deleted it or save it for the future. No need to ask me if you want to delete it. Thank you! EEEric01726 14:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All right. Thanks for reading :)
 * I am not an admin myself so I cannot do anything to an image that someone else has posted, other than propose it for deletion. The problem is that that is the exact thing I want to avoid, if one of these images is requested for deletion it is likely an admin may look at all of them and remove them all from Commons.
 * However, under policy commons:COM:GCSD, the uploader (you) can request deletion no-questions-asked within the first 7 days as long as the file isn't in use (which it isn't anymore).
 * Could I trouble you to go to commons:File:2b2t Spawn Feb 2021.jpg and edit in at the top? You could write whatever reason makes sense. I might put something like  but it's up to you.
 * Thanks! Leijurv (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well you've done a normal nomination for deletion which is exactly what I wanted to avoid :(
 * Could you go here and remove the
 * and replace it with
 * please? Thanks! Leijurv (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That's perfect :) Leijurv (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks For the Advice! I'm sorry for using the normal nomination. I requested speedy deletion and I think it's going to be deleted soon! Sorry for wasting your time. Thanks a lot to you too!!! EEEric01726 15:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That's perfect :) Leijurv (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks For the Advice! I'm sorry for using the normal nomination. I requested speedy deletion and I think it's going to be deleted soon! Sorry for wasting your time. Thanks a lot to you too!!! EEEric01726 15:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion
A friendly reminder: Please remove the listing from Third opinion first before providing a third opinion, thanks. ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 01:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Will do. Thanks! Leijurv (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Userbox love
Hi Leijurv! If you'd like to maximize your love for userboxes even further simplify the code on your userpage, you can use the code, with COUNT replaced by a number representing the extent of your love. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 😹😹😹😹 Thank you for the suggestion! However, after thinking through the consequences of such an action, I fear that could provide an untoward effect on any readers of my user page... It might give them the the wrong impression of me. The reason is that I picked the number such that it would be a solid rectangle, without a ragged bottom, on my desktop monitor. That turns out to be seven userboxes wide. I tried it on a few other computers / browsers / zoom levels and I decided that I'd like to pick something that works at a width of 7 and all numbers below it. In other words, the number of userboxes should be the least common multiple of the numbers 1 through 7 inclusive. The problem is that equals 420. If someone was reading my user page, they would see . Now, I could add a comment explaining myself, or a link to here, but I just fear that it could come off as a justification / rationalization for wanting 420 userboxes. And if I change the number it'll look like a cover-up (e.g. if I add in "8" to the calculation the result doubles to 840, but that'll look like I'm just doing it to avoid the appearance of untowardness, and also it's just far too many userboxes). I think my only way forward is to leave it untouched. But I'm open to ideas on how to get out of this mess I've gotten myself into... ;) Leijurv (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

New message from LemonSlushie
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship § Proposal to Split. &#x0020;The original proposal has been updated after reviewing the comments left.-- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 16:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd probably put the new proposal below the current "Discussion" labeled section, maybe make a new label saying "Second Proposal" then yet another label saying "Discussion" under that. Leijurv (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you the same Leijurv from 2b2t, Baritone, and the skiing and toenail clipping videos?
It's interesting that I find you here too on Wikipedia! What a small world it is! Félix An (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol, yes indeed! Leijurv (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Space Launch System
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Space Launch System you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CactiStaccingCrane -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please respect other's editor contributions, namely CRS-20. You have revert their edits not for improvements to the article, but to "prove" that writing content is somehow better than cosmetic cleaning. Cosmetics can be extremely important for an editor, and no one should be discouraged to make good contributions.

Also, please do not canvass on Wikipedia and other platforms, specfically on Discord. Canvassing meant leaving messages on a biased choice to notify other users of an ongoing community decision. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, nevermind. Stuff is a lot lot more complicated than this. Sorry for templating CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The matter is resolved, but I will write a reply here for anyone in the future who views my user talk:
 * It is, indeed, not quite that simple. The communication on Discord was with an enwiki admin. I explained the situation to them, and provided links to every recent diff in which I had reverted CRS-20. They also reviewed the edit history to the page themselves. They decided to warn CRS-20 and not me. Perhaps I was given some leeway because the edits I was reverting actually did break the page (e.g. moved half the references section up to the center of the page, or making template errors appear). You can review the WP:DISCORD conversation that I am referring to here.
 * You can also see on CRS-20's talk page, that I have attempted many many many times to WP:ENGAGE with them. I want to be clear that I am trying my best to avoid WP:BITEing them. I have very consistently gone on their talk page and explained exactly why I have reverted them, if I think it was unclear from the edit summary (or if I wanted to say something more complicated than could fit in an edit summary). They rarely reply to me, though. Here are some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. I know that's a lot of links but I recommend the first one as it was the most egregious, and frustrating since they never actually replied to me, to explain what happened or anything, despite continuing to edit in the meantime. Leijurv (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Space Launch System
The article Space Launch System you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Space Launch System for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Space Launch System
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Dynamics Explorer
Can you remove Dynamics Explorer article because I created Dynamics Explorer 1 and Dynamics Explorer 2 articles? Thank you. CRS-20 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin so I cannot delete articles any more than you can. You can nominate it for deletion following the instructions at WP:AFD though! Leijurv (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you need to create the AFD nomination page at this link :) Leijurv (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. CRS-20 (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on SpaceX Starship
You know what this is, interplanetary sending human to Jupiter by Elon, etc. The article since is now much improved, and I think that you, as a NASA and SLS fan, would give excellent comments on the article's tone and speculations. So, what do you think about Starship's article? What is it falls short on? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, just spent two hours putting this together for you :D Special:Diff/1061541508 Leijurv (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot lot! These feedbacks are very, very valuable! I promise that I will do quo for quo for you, let me know when you need it :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

requetes
any comments on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requetés#Why? this]? --Dd1495 (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As you can see at that link, I noticed Raderich's long-term revert, and questioned why. Raderich said The diff is too complicated for me to make sense of, I'm afraid. I am unfamiliar with Spanish sources and I don't know the political context of the time. I think you'll have to give your own thoughts on that talk page. Leijurv (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * hope this is going to make you reflect upon how Wikipedia is edited.
 * Two years ago you did not seem to believe it was "too complicated", but taking advantage of your posititon you enforced changes you did not understand.
 * I think it is high time to re-consider whether in case you have no idea what the whole thing is all about, it is worthwile to step in. Please do not get me wrong. I do not question your impartiality. But just being impartial is not enough, especially if you are totally ignorant of the case disputed (which in some cases might be an advantage, I admit). If I should take you seriously, now you should revert all changes done this year, as they run exactly against the rationale you advanced in 2020. Do not tell me it is "too complicated". In 2020 it was not too complicated for you.
 * Should I take you seriously? Dd1495 (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , at the time, in 2020, I was replying to a specific question posed at WP:30, which is specifically a place to request a neutral third party, who has never edited the article before, to weigh in. So I did. When it came to specific questions of Wikipedia sourcing policy between you and Raderich, I was able to share what I knew, and provide links to Wikipedia policies to back up what I say. I don't need to be able to read Spanish, and I don't need to have the books you cite, in order to say, for example, that Facebook couldn't be cited in the way you did back then.
 * In short, I'm not an admin, and I don't have any special authority, I apologize if I confused you into thinking I did. I don't know what you mean by because I don't have any position or authority beyond you or Raderich. Perhaps you are recalling, who is actually an admin, and who also reverted some of your edits around that time? While WP:ADMINACCT  does bind admins to explain themselves, I am not an admin, for me Wikipedia is WP:VOLUNTARY.
 * If you want this edit reverted, I think you should do it yourself citing WP:BRD, then defend your position on the talk page, perhaps, indeed, even citing the mid 2020 discussion as to why. If you want me, or another unfamiliar editor to weigh in, you should explain on that talk page what policies or guidelines Raderich may have gone against.
 * And to answer your more general question about me not knowing the topic: my response is that while I am totally unfamiliar with the Requetes, I am familiar with Wikipedia policies. So, you don't see me weighing in on what the page should say directly, I just comment on where and how I see Wikipedia policy as applying to the page. Leijurv (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello,.


 * to cut it short and save the usual mumbo-jumbo.


 * In 2020 you stepped in to spoke in favor of edits made against me by Raderich. Since in 2022 he/she reverted the edits exactly to the version you opposed, I now call you to step in and – with the same degree of authority and competence and engagement – to speak out and take the stand. --Dd1495 (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . No, I don't think I will. Please refer to my last message ^ regarding WP:BRD. In other words, go revert Raderich yourself.
 * My recollection of the disagreement in 2020 is hazy, but I'm pretty sure I was mostly on the side of Raderich back then, so your request makes me confused. It might also violate WP:CANVAS. I don't particularly feel like piecing together what I said on the talk page 2 years ago against this massive diff (+37,505, which is HUGE) from Raderich to see which parts I specifically talked about. When Raderich did the revert, I asked what was happening, on the talk page. Why don't you go there and dispute the edit?
 * Recall that WP:3O is a voluntary process with no authority. I am no longer a neutral third party. If you have a specific question about Wikipedia policy as it applies to a specific part of a specific edit, I probably wouldn't mind weighing in again, but I won't fight your battles for you; my answer is no. Perhaps go back to WP:3O or pursue other avenues of WP:DR. But first, do the edit yourself instead of asking me. Leijurv (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, hope this episode might be a source of reflection for you, just as it is for me. My suggestion is as follows: in case “the diff is too complicated” for you and you “are unfamiliar with sources” and you “do not know the political context” – in brief, in case you are totally ignorant about the subject – perhaps it is better to stay out, as you can do more harm than good. Ever watched Polanski’s Chinatown? --Dd1495 (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Two years ago my input on that page was requested at WP:3O. My input was related to Wikipedia policy, not to the specific facts of this political movement. For example, my initial comment was giving a third opinion saying that you could not cite Facebook. Your passive-aggressive comments like and  are very dramatic and not called for. With respect to, yes, it is. It's enormous (+37,505). Whereas two years ago, the Wikipedia policy questions were simpler. , yes, many are written in Spanish. This is not a source of inconsistency, even two years ago I declined to comment on interpretations of such sources, just as today. , well, like it or not, Wikipedia is commonly edited by non-experts. See WP:EXPERT: . Please also see WP:CHOICE, I am under no obligation to return to the Requetes page if I don't feel like it. I don't think I've done anything inappropriate, not in 2020 and not recently. Please stop with these vague aspersions that I misguidedly edited unless you have some specific criticisms of specific things that I said that were incorrect, and if so I will adjust my behavior accordingly. Leijurv (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi
Hi leijurv 0xDeadbeef (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @0xDeadbeef ―sportzpikachu  my talk  contribs  06:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

SLS Lead Paragraph - location and dates
Hello! I noticed that you reverted my edit on the lead paragraph of the SLS article. Appreciate the edit was reverted to keep the lead simple, but I don’t think adding a location and some dates adds any complexity. SLS is all over the news at the moment and this is the information that people will be looking for when they search for it, and so I have added this information back in. Starlights99 (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's take this to Talk:Space Launch System please Leijurv (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Relevant RfD?
I figure you would want to be aware of Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_13, but this seemed more polite than pinging you from there. signed,Rosguill talk 20:39, 13 August 2022 (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) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

July 2023
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Don't want the talk page to get infested like the last two times, so I'm writing Redacted II up at the noticeboard. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 22:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification, but this confused me because your signature timestamp of "18:49" was probably pasted from this diff notifying Redacted II, the timestamp really should have been "22:35". So I thought I'd missed it lol. Anyway, I've gone and replied at ANI, but I don't think anything will happen to Redacted II. Leijurv (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2023 (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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Redacted II reported again
I've just written Redacted II up again at WP:ANI after what just happened on the SpaceX Starship talk page. He's getting all defensive but if I see the same user try to game the system three or more times I'm writing them up. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 14:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Laguna Honda Hospital
—Kusma (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

weird redirect from lane change assistance to Vehicle blind spot#Blind Spot Information System
Hi,

I disagree with your change on Lane change assistance.

I explain why in this Talk:Lane change assistance section. 86.67.202.2 (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't edited that page, see the history here. I think you've got me confused with the one who actually reverted you: JalenFolf (probably because my signature is at the bottom of his talk page because I wished him a happy birthday recently). I'll also write this on your talk page. Leijurv (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that you wished him a happy birthday on this User talk:JalenFolf page while this page is not editable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.202.2 (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I recently wished him a happy birthday on his user talk page. Again, it wasn't me that reverted you, it was Jalen. And yes, I just checked and it looks like IP addresses can't edit his user talk page. Instead I'd recommend pinging him (such as by using Template:Reply to) on the talk page of the article in dispute (so, on Talk:Lane change assistance). If he doesn't reply (per WP:BRD) you might as well redo the edit you want. Leijurv (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed