Talk:RL60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Info[edit]

RL-60 is mentioned on page.25--Craigboy (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This project is highly dynamic. The information previously posted was grossly out of date and somewhat incorrect. The information now posted is with in the last year updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.201.73 (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring by 99.194.201.73[edit]

This user has been reinserting badly sourced material and partially unsourced WP:OR material over the objections of other editors without engaging on the Talk page first, as requested, and as per WP:BRD. The edit-warring has been happening both here and over at RL10. Some of the proposed material can no doubt be added to the page, but it needs better sourcing and a consensus first. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Edit warring by CommanderBill[edit]

I replaced an 11 year old out of date posting on the RL-60 development program with all dead links with the best available data on the status of this program. The source material is the best and most accurate accessible. Martijn Meijering keeps reinserting a minimally accurate very old post that misleads more than informs. Clearly Martijn Meijering is contributing to edit warring rather than constructive data. 20:01 Thursday, December 4, 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderBill (talk • contribs)

So you are 99.194.201.73? If so, I'm glad you've now started editing with a named account. First, a procedural point, I'll come to your substantive argument below. I'm afraid you are the one who is edit-warring. You made a contentious edit, which was repeatedly reverted by several editors, but you kept reinserting it over their objections without an attempt to seek WP:CONSENSUS, which is totally against the rules. Whether you think you are right makes no difference at all. Heck, even if you really are right, it still makes no difference, per WP:TRUTH. The procedure is to make a Bold edit, but if someone Reverts you, then you have to Discuss it first on the Talk page, as per WP:BRD. You can only insert your changes again after you've reached a consensus for them. Until that time the WP:STATUSQUO should remain. Right now, you do not have a consensus, in fact there is a consensus against you. You should self-revert your changes or risk being blocked.
Now for your substantive argument: I'm sure some of your edits are improvements, but not all of them are. The depletedcranium post you linked to is of very low quality and does not meet the criteria for a WP:RS. Your statement that RL-60 has likely been abandoned is almost certainly true, but we need a reliable source that says so, not your personal interpretation of what's written on several sites, as per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Several editors have told you this. Removing dead links would be fine as a first step, after you've self-reverted your disruptive edits. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I apologize if I broke protocol. My motivation was to shed some light or an apparently poorly lite but important subject. I do a Wiki update about once every year or so and all the Wiki speak is not fluid in my vocabulary.

Apparently there are those that don’t like “Depleted Cranium” as a reference. The article actually is pretty good beyond the suggestive name. It is the best material on the subject I have so far read.

As for the status of the RL-60 program the conclusion that it is in flux is clear. There are one or two NASA sponsored advanced upper stage development programs. If it is Boeing and MHI or Aerojet Rocketdyne and MHI or both is less clear. Within several months NASA documents discuss each development separately. In either case it seems the RL60 legacy research is likely incorporated in this engine.

The RL 60 article mentions the confusion and in my view that is better than not relaying the particulars at all. (User talk:CommanderBill) 12:35 Thursday, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on RL60. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RL60&oldid=1209756139"