Hi Foonix0! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Malerooster (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to the Starship article. I suggest instead of just reverting a contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship_orbital_test_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1155933655 I suggest to fix it instead.

Let me also address a potential misunderstanding: You have commented: "It's not that simple. Engines in different failure modes may or may not produce light." Yes, you are right, a failed engine may not show up as missing white dot. But this is not relevant here. What is relevant here is that vice versa a missing dot definitely shows a failed engine.

Thank you!

All best! Zae8 (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Foonix0. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Views of Elon Musk, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a COI with this subject matter in question. To the best of my knowledge, I don't even work in any of the wide variety of industries that Musk has a hand in. Foonix0 (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that all but two of your edits in your entire time here have been directly related to Elon Musk? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stick to subject matter I'm familiar with. If you have an issue with a specific edit, I'm happy to discuss it. Otherwise, please WP:AFG, and be aware of WP:AOBF. Foonix0 (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 2. 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. Redraiderengineer (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD I reverted a proposed edit, used the talk page. I proposed my own compromise edits in response to a separate user's edits around the same time. I used the talk page to discuss what was going on as appropriate. My edits are within WP:3RR and I already planned to avoid further edits until the discussion unfolds. Foonix0 (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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 arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 07:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. All edits appear to be in the process of supporting Elon Musk. Even if no COI is present, a clear bias is. Hexware (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out an incident where I added my own "commentary, your own point of view, or [..] personal analysis" to an article? I try to avoid doing such things, but I'm always happy to learn more.

My goal in most of my edits is often specifically to implement wp:voice or at least, keep it from getting worse. For every edit I make, I read hundreds of other edits. I try to only get involved when I feel I have something significant to contribute, or basic wikipedia policy is being disregarded. If those tend to come down in favor of musk, so be it. Every BLP subject deserves fair treatment under wikipedia policy. So this comment comes across as WP:AOBF. Foonix0 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]