User talk:Death Editor 2

Hello Death Editor 2! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! User:Chongkian (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Hi @

You have recently edited a page related to articles about

contentious

. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Generalrelative (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Vichy France. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But Vichy france was quite literally fascist, it was lead by a fascist, had fascists in government, and was a puppet state of nazi germany, a well known fascist state. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vichy France. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me why Vichy France isn't fascist, when it was lead by a fascist, had a fascist government, and was a puppet state of another fascist regime. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Weldon Olson. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 01:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Than remove his death from 2023 deaths page. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information you wrote of his death date is wrong 2600:1014:B00F:16A0:4195:3828:7BB:A88D (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you random BoN! Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 May 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ella Stack, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Harald zur Hausen, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jessie Maple, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Robert Holmes Bell, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 03:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Danny Masterson, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. glman (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is literally in prison, he is a FORMER american actor. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your removal of the "Historical accuracy" section at

By categorizing this article into "white supremacists" category, you are adding a very controversial statement, ungrounded in any secondary reliable source, which could harm a living person. This directly violates a number of Wikipedia rules. --Amakuha (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to calmly and kindly explain to me why a member of the literal paramilitary branch of the NSDAP wasn't a white supremacist. Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking too much. In Wikipedia, editors don't think much. We simply take reliable secondary sources which state something like "Mr. N is a Canadian white supremacist". Then we copy such statement to Wikipedia and we provide a reference. That's it.

If you don't have a source which says exactly this then such category is unwarranted. Especially because this made up claim is about a living person. --Amakuha (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death Editor 2, you are being asked: don't think for yourself, and that's not even meant as irony! --87.170.197.110 (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to change the number of planned flight tests from 2 to 1 with a clear consensus against you constitutes vandalism. Please stop. Redacted II (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said and I quote "Sure. The NASA Commercial LEO Development page for SpaceX had the first payload Q1 2024 (the site was taken down later, or at least the bookmark I had made is now broken)." Can you see the problem? Death Editor 2 (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is against you (out of the 4 editors to comment, 3 were against you), so that changes nothing.

You also have a large history of policy violation (this is the 6th warning you have received).

So, consider this your last warning. Redacted II (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"(Moving to the left) I don't see how flight 4 planned for Q1 2024 would imply flight 3 to happen in 2023. If the second flight is successful, it's even possible SpaceX does not launch S26 at all and goes directly to S28. A third flight in 2023 looks very unlikely now, but I don't mind either way for the graph." Another quote from another editor who does not really care either way, so it does not seem like 3 people are against me, just you. Death Editor 2 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1: When a consensus cannot be reached, the status quo is maintained. So even if there isn't a consensus, then your edits still constitute vandalism.

2: "With New Year's eve being more than 3 months away and the precedence of flights happening days after receipt of permit, I would say to keep the table as is for now. Lklundin (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)"[reply]

No one has taken your side here. So stop. Redacted II (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New year's eve is less than three months away, and given your source has been taken down I am simply following the logical conclusion that only one more flight will happen in 2023, maybe. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's called Original Research. I recommend reading the attached policy. Redacted II (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that hadn't been taken down? Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that directly states "there will only be two flights in 2023"?

I'd love to see one. Redacted II (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. the first flight was called the SpaceX Starship Integrated Flight Test.

2. I don't, but I do have a source that says the next test flight might happen in 2024 that you removed for some reason. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because the listed date was NET. No Earlier Than. Adding on the 2024 note was pointless.

And what even is the point of "1. the first flight was called the SpaceX Starship Integrated Flight Test."? Redacted II (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because one flight definitely happened in 2023, and the second flight in 2023 is highly unlikely maybe. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources didn't state what your saying. They stated that it might, not that it's likely or unlikely. Redacted II (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

anyways none of this matters, the third flight is made up with no sources what so ever. Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't negate that you made several edits in violation of a consensus, then readded them after they were reverted. Redacted II (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alright, I will ask for Consensus. Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting left.

You can't just ask for a consensus. A consensus is formed by an agreement between editors. Currently, that agreement is against you. So please, self-revert your edits. Redacted II (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You possibly made up a source and that fact wasn't known to other editors at the time. Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the source again and it's back online. It's right here:[1].

It is out of date, though (it listed Q3 2023 for IFT-2). Redacted II (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's out of date, than it cannot be used. Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If one piece of the source is out of date, that does not invalidate the entire source.

For example:

In the SpaceX Super Heavy article, citation 41 is a tweet from Elon, stating "Final decision made earlier this week on booster engine count. Will be 33 at ~230 (half million lbs) sea-level thrust". However, the thrust per engine was later changed to 269 tons per engine. The source is still useful, as it states the final decision on the engine count of the booster. Redacted II (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

embarrassing that we are using Elon Musk as a source. Also it invalidates your entire point that the third flight is going to be in 2023 Q4! Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does it invalidate the point that the third flight is going to be in 2023 Q4? Redacted II (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it obviously has been pushed back if the second flight is happening in 2023 Q4. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a delay of roughly 1 month. And that's not really how SpaceX operates.

B10 is receiving engines (so is S28), S29 has underwent cryogenic testing, and S26 is awaiting static fire testing. So a delay to IFT-2 doesn't mean a delay to IFT-3. Redacted II (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second launch isn't going this year to happen due to the wildlife agency not approving their launch. So the third launch is literally impossible. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No...

As I said on August 25, "Permission to fly wasn't granted until 6 days before IFT-1 (and 3 days before the first attempt). Removing the graph because they don't have approval would make no sense whatsoever"

The FWS investigation could conclude this month, or next month. Just because the flight doesn't have the license doesn't mean it isn't planned.

But this is the wrong place to have this debate. It belongs here. Redacted II (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Redacted II (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

?????? Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may need to properly fill it out. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Kfar Aza massacre, you may be blocked from editing. Jeppiz (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was remove the beheading part from it because I believe the evidence is too weak and the IDF too inconsistent for us to put it in the methods section. Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but please use edit summaries. I disagree with you on the above, but disagreement is no problem. Removing content without an edit summary is almost always a problem. Jeppiz (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Death Editor 2, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You got me, this is actually my second account because I lost the password for my first wikipedia account, called Death Editor. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for 1RR violation and repeated removal of content without engaging on talk page, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week from certain pages (Kfar Aza massacre). You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I concur that moving it a second time was very much out of line.

edit warring is not a means to an end. You've been blocked for it already. Please, don't continue to edit war. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  // Timothy :: talk  19:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I removed the compromise note as it no longer applies (the FWS review concluded yesterday). If you have any objections, then please revert the edit. Redacted II (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alright, do you have a source that says that they concluded it? Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

FWS:

https://www.faa.gov/media/72781

https://www.faa.gov/media/72766

https://www.faa.gov/media/72796

https://www.faa.gov/media/72791

https://www.faa.gov/media/72786

FAA Reevaluation:

https://www.faa.gov/media/72816

Hopefully the links work. Redacted II (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alright, that looks good to me. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Redacted II (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Sam Bankman-Fried) for BLP vios.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change articles to say someone has died without citing a

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, you may be blocked from editing. You have again changed Nagorno-Karabakh conflict without consensus. There is a talk page discussion which you are aware of at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#Is the conflict over?. You are engaged in a slow moving edit war [4], [5], [6] to get your POV on a subject into the article.

This area is covered by three different CTopics warnings, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Infobox edits, and Eastern Europe.  // Timothy :: talk  20:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict isn't over because of what? Azerbaijan won completely and utterly. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  // Timothy :: talk  21:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Virgil_Griffith regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TIB (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]