User talk:Zae8

RfC
There is currently a discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship regarding a note that a user is repeatedly trying to insert into the "failures" section. The thread is RfC on "clarifying failure in infobox". Thank you. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 19:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. Zae8 (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Warning
Hello Zae8, you are new here so, despite my prior message, I will give you one more warning before reporting you for being WP:UNCIVIL. Accusing other editors of a WP:COI (as you did here) can be considered a WP:PERSONALATTACK. This is my final warning or I will be forced to report you. Try to focus on content and not on people. We are all here to build an encyclopaedia WP:BUILDWP so remember to always WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. If something is not clear and you have questions on this or other matters relating to Wikipedia editing just ask and I'll try to help if I can. &#123;{u&#124; Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't attacked anyone personally, and yes, I think I'm right when I point out WP:PROMOTION, and no, I'm not intimidated by threats on my personal talk page.


 * I appreciate your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Volunteers like you are the foundation of Wikipedia. Thank you for that!


 * And I totally agree with you to focus on content and not people. Let us do this! Zae8 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC) (pasted from )


 * Please see: WP:ASPERSIONS An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. Accusing other editors of WP:PROMOTION without evidence can be considered a personal attack.


 * And please don't take my "Warning" as a "threat". I am trying to simply point out that by continuing to behave in this way you are exposing yourself to potential disciplinary actions. I just wish to make sure that you are aware of this so that we can avoid further problems.


 * Keep up the good work and see you on the article pages! &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Gtoffoletto, well, your accusations are plainly wrong. I didn't accuse anyone of any "misbehavior", "being paid by a company", "attack or cast doubt over" any individual or whatever. But yes, when discussing content, I provided really plenty of evidence of WP:PROMOTION in my numerous talk page comments. You may not like or agree with my arguments, but in any case, these are not personal attacks, but focussing on content at hand, and these are no reason to "warn" me about "potential disciplinary actions". Please take a second look at my comments and read them in case you didn't read all of them. Thank you.
 * As you said very well, let's focus on content not on people. All best! Zae8 (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When several more experienced editors point out an issue to you my advise is that you should listen, read the relevant policies and try to review your contributions. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * p.s. to tag a user you need to type "User:" before the username &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 09:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, Gtoffoletto. At no time did Zae8 accuse you or anybody else of having a conflict of interest. They accused you of being a Musk fan, which is normal talkpage back-and-forth. Nothing worth blowing up into "warnings". Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC).
 * normal talkpage back-and-forth. I don't want to waste my volunteering time with such "back and fourth". I don't think Wikipedia should be like this and other editors found the unnecessarily scathing comments uncivil as well. I'm here as a volounteer to edit an encyclopaedia and I would like to avoid unnecessary WP:DRAMA. My point here was to try and help out a new editor to create a positive editing experience. However, this has already gone longer than it should have and @Bishonen you have much more experience than me so I'll stop writing here and I'm open to any suggestions if we can do something differently in the future. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 13:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

3RR Warning—Suggested Self Revert
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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. Here are the three edits in which you inserted text back into the article after it had been challenged: . You have been reverted by three different users. You were repeatedly told to wait—to let a discussion happen and reach a consensus. You do not get to evade that process by making minor adjustments to your edit. If you don't self revert, I will head to WP:ANI-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This is not true. I was never "told to wait". I was never "undoing another editor's work". I always only added work, never changing other editor's work. In all cases I added different work, doing exactly what the other editors requested (adding reference, adding a exact time stamp, not adding a inline comment). I never reverted anything from other users! Zae8 (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you self reverted (although the edit summary is not very promising...) so I think @Jerome Frank Disciple will agree that as a new editor you can get some WP:SLACK here. However there is normally very little tolerance for WP:3RR (read it!) violations as far as I know. It usually results in a ban.
 * As I've tried to tell you before: there are several problems with your editing that you need to fix ASAP. You are a new and enthusiastic editor which is great. But you really must go a bit SLOWER and LISTEN to other editors or it is just a matter of time until you get banned from the project. We are trying to help you out here but you need to listen and learn more from other editors.
 * Some tips:
 * - If another editor reverts you, don't just edit back in the content that was disputed. Try to follow: WP:BRD which is a safe editing method.
 * - Try not to discuss with other editors in the edit summaries (use the talk page!) and ABSOLUTELY do not do so in the article contents! Like you did here.
 * I think you are approaching the end of your newbie WP:ROPE here. Try to be extra careful from now on. If you have questions just ask and we'll try to help out. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 22:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for your convern, but I don't need any slack or rope here from you.
 * I am interested into meaningful contributions, and it would be nice if the culture here would be not reverting objectively harmless changes and then threatening reporting. This seems to be a quite ugly culture here, maybe not whole Wikipedia, but it seems the community of these SpaceX articles.
 * Again, I still don't see how I violated the WP:3RR. Yes, I read it. I never reverted anything. I added different content each time, each time fully addressing all concerns - each time a different new one! - of each editor! The sequence was: Change - revert(!) by another user citing reason A - new different contribution taking reason A fully into account (no revert!) - revert(!) by another user citing a completely different reason B - new again different contribution taking reason B fully into account (no revert!) - and so on. I really jumped through multiple loops to make some other editors happy and address their concerns, even if my contribution was obviously and trivially correct. Please explain to me more in detail how exactly this violates WP:3RR which explicitly talks about "more than three reverts" - which I never did, or retract this accusation. Thank you.
 * "If another editor reverts you, don't just edit back in the content that was disputed." I didn't do that. The revert messages were very clear what the reason for the reverts were, and I addressed each of them fully. I like to ask you to retract your accusation, too.
 * If you really insist on these accusations, I am happy in discussing them in some formal WP:ANI (whatever this exactly means) to get guideline clarifications from higher level.
 * About the "discussion" in article contents: What is the preferred way of preventing misunderstandings by other users? I think I have seen such comments also in other articles (but don't have one at hand).
 * Question, since you are already mentioning various Wikipedia policies: Can you please explain to me why these reverts of the other users were not violating WP:ONLYREVERT? Is this also something to discuss via WP:ANI?
 * No hard feelings from my side. I hope not from you, too. I trust you that you only have the best for Wikipedia in mind. And I am sure you made zillion times more and more useful contributions to Wikipedia than me. Thank you a lot for that!
 * Wikipedia is based on people like you. But still, something is wrong here in this SpaceX Wikipedia community (not individual persons), I think it would be valuable to sort it out. Maybe WP:ANI is the right place for that.
 * Thank you! I wish you all best! Zae8 (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know reverts can be annoying when you spent time editing something. But they are a part of Wikipedia. It's important to accept them. Articles will never remain like you wrote them as they are a collective effort (see WP:OWNERSHIP). Try to listen to the other editor's concerns and understand them fully. In this case you were trying to make an edit with poor sourcing and several other issues and reintroducing it multiple times. All those edits count as reverts per WP:3RR. Also always read at the top if something is policy or an essay. WP:ONLYREVERT is just an essay.
 * This is the advice nobody gave me when I started editing and I got into trouble and was even blocked a couple of times. Wikipedia can have a learning curve. Just go slow, be humble and don't get "attached" to your content.
 * What is the preferred way of preventing misunderstandings by other users?: I would advise to keep it short and to be direct and precise. Let multiple editors chime in if possible. Also avoid sarcasm and jokes as they can be easily misunderstood.
 * One final advice: you want to avoid ANI (aka WP:CESSPOOL) at all costs. Unless you enjoy WP:BUNGEE jumping. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 23:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Where didn't I "listen to the other editor's concerns and understand them fully"? After "trying to make an edit with poor sourcing" I addressed them immediately. Regarding other issues, where was I "reintroducing it multiple times"?
 * I ask you again: please either provide evidence for your accusation, or otherwise retract them, especially on the talk pages. Thank you.
 * It seems you dodged my question if the reverts violated WP:ONLYREVERT, essay or not.
 * I am sure you didn't mean it that way, but your "final advise" sounds again like a threat to me.
 * I am not annoyed by any reverts, I don't have problems with that. I am surprised by this culture here, this threatening and misrepresentations in discussions.
 * Again, I wish you all best (but please don't forget to support or retract your accusations) Zae8 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Some admin comments
Zae8, I'll make a few admin comments. First, to and : it's a little strange to see experienced (ish) users talking repeatedly about taking edit warring to ANI. It would be promptly thrown out. WP:AN3 is the right noticeboard. Secondly, Zae8, I took a look at your edits to SpaceX Starship, and I'm afraid your edits that JFD links to are reverts, as defined in Edit warring. That said, you made three reverts, which warrants a warning. It does not warrant a threat to take you to a noticeboard (and implicitly to get you blocked) unless you self-revert, because three reverts are not a violation of the 3 revert rule. The violation comes at four reverts. You needn't have felt "forced" to self-revert, Zae8. Please try to avoid misleading the new user, JFD.

I'll also respond to Gtoffoletto's comment above, about "suggestions if we can do something differently in the future". Yes, WP:NPA has good suggestions for what to do if you think somebody's attacking you: "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it". Please read the whole paragraph. That's my suggestion too in this case: ignore it, focus on content discussion. And stop telling Zae8, as if from a great height, what they need to do differently. I agree much of it sounds like threats. Better to model good behaviour than to dispense reproaches. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC).


 * Thanks @Bishonen. I'm just a normal editor and don't claim to be an expert in "admin procedures". Quite the contrary, as you well know they have mostly gotten me in trouble in the past and I try to avoid them at all costs :-)
 * I would like to point out that I don't feel directly involved in the disputes mentioned on this talk page. I'm trying not to sound "paternalistic", but I see Zae8 heading in the wrong direction and causing a lot of disruption (mostly due to inexperience, I think) and I believe a "strong" intervention is in his best interest or they will run out of WP:ROPE soon. I hope @Zae8 sees I'm trying to help. If you or him think it is unhelpful just say so and I will stop posting here. Bishonen is an admin and the best reference point here for future "behavioural" questions. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 10:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you or him think it is unhelpful just say so and I will stop posting here. I thought I just did say so. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC).
 * No, no, for me don't stop. I really appreciate each of your comments (including your latest feedback wrt 3RR). Thank you! I already had seen your previous comment, but didn't respond simply because I thought it was a nice conclusion, I take lessons learned with me and move on.
 * Also User:Gtoffoletto, while I strongly disagree with many of your activities, I appreciate your Wikipedia contributions and your open discussions on this and other talk pages! Thanks for that, too!
 * Have a nice Sunday! Zae8 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry Zae8, but Bishonen is the admin here. Ask her if you need any additional help. I'm glad you agree that me (and Jerome) were trying to be helpful and not just "threatening" you. Good luck and see you out there. &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 12:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup sorry meant Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, which is where I got the above template and where I was in the process of writing up a post (after three requests to self revert) before Zae8 did self revert, at which point I abandoned the post (as I noted on the article talk page). Best of luck, Zae8.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Apparently, Redacted II is at it again with the "distinguishing failures" at Talk:SpaceX Starship, now with bar graphs. Reeks of WP:BLUDGEONING to me. Since I don't have as much patience as I did to deal with the last two intergalactic wars, I've brought it up at WP:ANI this time. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 22:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

January 2024
I've just written Redacted II up again at WP:ANI after they tried to pull another oh-so-clever one at Talk:SpaceX Starship. This is far from the only time they've done this since the last time I wrote them up.

This guy is getting all defensive but I'm not backing down since it's gotten way out of hand. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 13:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)