IvarTheBoneless123
A belated welcome!
edit
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, IvarTheBoneless123! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
If you have questions, ; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! - FlightTime (open channel) 18:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Titan Moon revert
editHi Ivar, I reverted your edit to Titan Moon adding #a9a8cf because it made little sense in itself and you gave no reason. Now I know that it is a hex colour that's fine but I'd recommend that you ALWAYS provide a reason for an edit. To the incognoscenti, putting #a9a8cf just looks like somebody having a play. Best Ex nihil (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- I SHOULD have given a reason for the change but I was too busy with life-stuff.
- The reason for the change is the following:
- 1) make terrestrial planets (i.e. bulk rock + metal) into one color scheme
- 2) make icy planetary bodies (i.e. bulk ice + rock, rock + ice or just ice) into another
- Titan (as Doublesharp has reverted it before) is in the no. 2 category.
- Granted, I've changed some of the infoboxes of the planets anyway - but since no one other than you, me, Doublesharp and maybe a couple others cares anyway why should anyone be bothered? Especially since I went out of my way to make the infoboxes as intuitive as possible. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Besides, do you really want to go on a cornucopia of change for absolutely nothing (less than nothing really---far less...) IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hey, I just reverted the change on the Mars article (mistakenly assuming it was just that one) as the new colour genuinely makes link text a lot harder to read, both on dark and light mode. These changes are not "less than nothing" - they genuinely affect how people will interact with the article, it is crucial for accessibility and with that in mind we need to prioritize readability first, and your personal preference for organization second. This is really the kind of thing that should be discussed in talk pages or project pages beforehand. For now, I have reverted to the older colour where relevant for readability. If you would like to propose an alternative that is perfectly fine, but changes across so many articles, even if you think they are minor, should really be discussed with other editors in order to avoid issues like this. XiphosuraTalk∞Edits 04:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- It would be good to sort out a standard for this sort of thing, so I've raised the topic over at the astronomy talk page. XiphosuraTalk∞Edits 08:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for reverting it. I've been too busy lately to respond to these changes. But anyways, let me tell you this @IvarTheBoneless123:. The colors are just too dark and unreadable. I absolutely hate how the darker color blends with the black text in the infobox, making it harder to see. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hey, I just reverted the change on the Mars article (mistakenly assuming it was just that one) as the new colour genuinely makes link text a lot harder to read, both on dark and light mode. These changes are not "less than nothing" - they genuinely affect how people will interact with the article, it is crucial for accessibility and with that in mind we need to prioritize readability first, and your personal preference for organization second. This is really the kind of thing that should be discussed in talk pages or project pages beforehand. For now, I have reverted to the older colour where relevant for readability. If you would like to propose an alternative that is perfectly fine, but changes across so many articles, even if you think they are minor, should really be discussed with other editors in order to avoid issues like this. XiphosuraTalk∞Edits 04:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
Edit warring
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.
Important points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.
You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)