User talk:KyloRen2017

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Filipino names in space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taytay. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Russian names in space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sergei Orlov.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Reid Wiseman has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Oleg Atkov, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 04:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to IM-1 did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please don't change the citation style in articles as you did at List of Starlink and Starshield launches. It is a general rule, that if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the citations should be left in the format they were originally written in. Please see WP:CITEVAR - Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page.

Don't be surprised if someone reverts your changes since you didn't first seek consensus. And you also need to fix these cite errors you created, seen here and here. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

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 SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 1, 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 the 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. Redacted II (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

CONTOUR

added a link pointing to Springer

Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter

added a link pointing to Europa

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited VERITAS (spacecraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DLR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Surface Water and Ocean Topography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Watts.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello KyloRen2017

As Isaidnoway requested back in June, please stop changing the citation style in articles without seeking consensus. Please read WP:CITEVAR carefully, especially this sentence from the To be avoided section: changing where the references are defined, e.g., moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist.

Have you considered trying to improve the citations instead, by for instance checking for dead links, fact checking, or similar?

--askeuhd (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KyloRen2017 - you keep doing this. Please stop doing this without consensus, as is stated on WP:CITEVAR. You are creating a lot of needless extra work for your fellow editors. askeuhd (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am primarily cleaning up the in-line ref junk into one reflist block in accordance to WP:ILCLUTTER. This will make the articles and the citations more readable upon editing (and by extension, avoid duplicate references being cited), as in-line references are too much of a hassle to work with, especially whenever finding some typographical errors or correcting misinformation in paragraphs for example KyloRen2017 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also may I ask what was the "needless work" you're talking about? KyloRen2017 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILCLUTTER says As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large-scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so You need to get consensus on an article's talk page before changing its established method of citation. Schazjmd (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by apologizing for my earlier remark. It was an unfortunate response stemming from a misperception of being ignored, and I’m glad to find that this was not the case.

I used to hold a similar view to yours regarding list-defined references. However, over time, I have reconsidered this approach for several reasons:

One significant point against list-defined references is noted in WP:ILCLUTTER: Note, however, that references defined in the reference list template can no longer be edited with the VisualEditor.
Additionally, I've noticed that even articles that initially implement well-organized list-defined references tend to regress to inline references, likely due to their prevalence, and probably because many editors focus on specific sections of articles, whether in source mode or on mobile, which makes working with list-defined references more challenging. Unfortunately, this shift can lead to duplicated citations and other related errors.

I believe WP:ILCLUTTER serves more as a guideline when determining citation styles for articles without an established style, rather than as a reason to change an already established format. Others have pointed this out as well.

Lastly, I’d like to suggest that if you intend to change the citation style of an article in the future (after reaching consensus on the article’s talk page), it would be helpful to avoid publishing the article in multiple stages before finalizing your changes. Using the preview function ensures the article is complete before submission, preventing it from being flagged for mistakes or clean-up, as happened in this case. This can save fellow editors unnecessary work, as they may assume that any published edit is final.

I’d also like to kindly request that you avoid changing citation template parameters unnecessarily, such as replacing |last= and |first= with |author=. While it might seem like a simplification, this change actually degrades the quality of metadata.

Thank you for your understanding.

--askeuhd (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KyloRen2017: - I am afraid you did it again. Would you kindly cease changing the citation style without consensus? askeuhd (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited C/1618 W1, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Colloquium and John Bainbridge.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]