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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Jadebenn (talk·contribs·subpages) 06:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! We saw that you posted on the NASASpaceFlight.com forums about the debate you've been participating in over at Talk:Space Launch System. We're concerned about your statement that you "could really use someone to help making this contributor see reason!". This is not only an exceptionally unsubtle violation of Wikipedia's guidelines against canvassing, which deems "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" inappropriate, but is also treading the line on Wikipedia's policy on civility, which encourages comments "on content, not on the contributor". There's a clear difference between notifying other editors and would-be commentators to a discussion, but it's a completely different thing to be asking people to support your campaign to make somebody "see reason". You really need to cease this behaviour and continue the discussion respectfully. You shouldn't be viewing people who disagree with you about a Wikipedia article as enemies. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews)11:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham: Hi, I was not aware of this anti canvasing rule but I know anti brigading rules on other platform. And I tried to stay away from that. I posted not on some anti-SLS platform but on the SLS section of NSF which is to my knowledge the biggest platform for space enthusiasts on the internet of which Jadebenn is also a very prolific member (I actually expected him to participate in this debate). My presentation was very fair IMO tho in a subsequent message ONE sentence was poorly phrased I admit. I present His arguments (fairly) and my arguments and my conclusion was as follows : "I am interested in arguments and references for the SLS launch cost (either way). I know that we do not have (and probably never will) a precise cost for SLS but I think we can have a better approximation than the one on Wikipedia : Adding the contracts already signed, Government estimates from the IOG or the OMB...".
I would like to add That I did also solicit 11 contributors active is space articles to participate to the debate with no results :
Frustrated with the lack of interest and the dismissive attitude Jadebenn that considered his position as a defacto baseline for this article, some not so kind words might have slipped my fingertips. I don't think its fair to call it "MASS Off-Site Canvassing". It was one post on the biggest forum on the subject that was quite fair with one out of line phrase over maybe 40 or 50.
I do admit my error tho and will try to avoid it next time. But just to be clear is the problem getting input from outside platforms or my (single) poorly worded phrase? - Moamem (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have closed the ANI discussion with a one-way interaction ban for six months toward Jadebenn (you are restricted from interacting with her). But I also have strongly recommended that she treats it as if it is a 2-way IBAN. If you have any questions , and especially if you end up being unsure about an edit that you believe may risk contravening this sanction, please don't hesitate to call upon me. I am at your disposal. The sanction has been logged here. Needless to say, I am assuming that you have learned the key lesson about how offwiki invitations to onwiki disputes are unacceptable. Finally, if there is anything the Arbitration Committee decides to do further, it may end up superseding this sanction. Thanks and good luck. El_C02:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Rocketry Invitation
Thank you for your recent contributions to Space Launch System. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Rocketry? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's rocketry-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
