User talk:Ergzay

Query regarding Hubble Deep Field Image
Hi, you left a message on my talk page. I am a little confused about what you are asking me exactly. You wanted to obtain a "version of the original full size image" with my black point changes. Can you be more specific? That version is available as a picture of the day and you can view it full sized if you click it. Also, when you message someone on their talk page, you should 'sign' it by using four tilde's. Eg (~&#126;). When you save the page, it turns them into a signature, with the current time, date and your wikipedia username. This was mentioned to you previously on this page by Vsmith. Anyway, please let me know on my talk page what you were requesting of me and I can try to assist. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please sign every entry into a talk page with the four tilde's. It is rather impolite and frustrating for others if you do not. As for the original 100mb image, I'm sorry but no, I don't have that image. Can you point me to its location? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it now. I had a look at the image (or at least, enough of it to see the quality of the image, as I didn't feel the need to download all 60/100mb of it) and you are right. The noise is excessive and I don't think any extra detail is available in that image compared to the one available on wikipedia. Everything is a bit bigger, but quite soft. If you have a real need for a reduced noise/blackpoint version of this image, I could do it, but I personally don't think it is necessary for wikipedia. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 08:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is definitely a scaled down version of it. From memory, each of the dimensions are halved (Eg the original NASA image is 6200x6200 and the wikipedia one is 3100x3100). The question is whether this really matters since the original is so soft, and the answer is, at least for me, that it doesn't. The wikipedia version has all the detail that the original does, only sharper. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 06:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to pulsar spinning speed information
Hi.

the 4-5 Earth radii is the radius of the orbit of the thing, not its own radius! The pulsar itself is much smaller (maybe 10km)

best wishes

Robinh 07:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Propaganda, I think not
I read a few of the articles. These articles are propaganda. They make false statements about what scientists working in the field think. The wiki global warming article is based on primary sources published in peer reviewed journals. The article you sent me are just misguided opinions of people who don't believe in global warming.

If you think that some aspects of the wiki global warming article are wrong, you need to back that up by finding articles published in reputable peer reviewed journals like e.g. Science or Nature that support your point.

Count Iblis 12:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "don't 'believe' in global warming" 2001:8003:2989:7301:3DFA:C10C:7D:BDE5 (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're replying to a 16 year old comment on my talk page, but my views have changed since then and think that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Ergzay (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Captain Planet and the Planeteers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Radical left, Profit and Race (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Conspiracy Theories
Now, now. A black hole eating the aircraft isn't impossible. It's about as improbable as my going streaking on the moon without access to a spacecraft. ;) Seriously though, thanks for pulling that claptrap out. It's just a shame that so many people are strangers to Hanlon's razor.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Hurricane Maria
You've been warned for edit warring at Hurricane Maria per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. If you restore the contested material again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page, you are risking a block. You were insisting that the 'Fatalities' figure in the infobox required a parenthesized qualifier "(28 August estimate)" while others disagreed. There is already a thread at Talk:Hurricane Maria/Archive 1 where most people seem to be against you. See WP:DR for your other options. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand the context here. I will consider the warning ignored because the changes were reverted several days ago and the edit warring page was withdrawn. Ergzay (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

WP Sheriff
Perhaps you'd like to monitor Uber and AirBnB for the regular attempts by company shills to reframe the lens through which these companies are seen. I'm quite tired of checking and reverting vandalism on both (after following one such editor from one page to the other), but it does seem like your thing, and your internet is clearly much faster than mine. More editorial eyes on that page eager to jump on any error (blatant or otherwise) with lightening speed would be helpful to the collaboration called Wikipedia.AHampton (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This landed on the wrong page, and I apologize for it. Please delete, if acceptable.AHampton (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 13:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion on the SPLC is irrelevant
and not an excuse for deletion. The Wikipedia community has discussed SPLC a number of times at WP:RSN and has accepted its use as described at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Continuing to delete it because you don't like it could lead to a block or topic ban. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears like WP admins can't tell fake material from the truth then. I don't care about your threats. Ergzay (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2021
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. N2e (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The templates I removed were cases where the information was already cited or where information was self-evident from other information in the article. Ergzay (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches
I noticed that this article was split by someone who has a habit of forging ahead with splits that have not reached consensus. My suggestion is to restore the article to its original structure and move on.VarmtheHawk (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @VarmtheHawk Thanks for the warning. I restored the article and also restored the intervening edits. Ergzay (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * These editors do nothing but try to get articles split. I'm not surprised the (non)issue was resurrected after his "bold" move, this time by someone who has been an editor for all of 2 months.VarmtheHawk (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do not call me a [phrase cover]. I am not Onetwothreeip. I am just a novice Wikipedia editor on my own who wants to make articles have manageable markup sizes. zsteve21 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Thank you for removing that message. zsteve21 (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm bowing out of this article for now before I yet again get myself in trouble, as I have been sanctioned for dealing with now the longest article. It seems to be under control now, but I predict that will change. It's instructive to look at the group whose goal, no matter what they say, is to get you to split your article. A glance at the primary members who are going after these "long articles" is instructive. Looking at their Talk Pages and History shows a constant pattern of activity similar to those that you experienced. Some even delete negative comments posted on their Talk Page. As you have probably noticed, if you point out the ludicrousness of an argument, the subject is simply changed to a whole new "problem." I may be wrong, but I suspect you haven't heard the last of this. And, BTW, the post above is beyond hilarious. VarmtheHawk (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Opinion polling for the 2021 German federal election, 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 your 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. ''Please self-revert your reinstatement of a contested bold edit. The edit in question was your attempt to merge two articles. If you persist, this would be considered edit warring.'' Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Onetwothreeip You do not be appear willing to engage in discussion about the edits so it cannot be classified as edit warring. Ergzay (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that I am willing to engage in discussion, that's nothing to do with edit warring. You've made a bold merger which is your entitlement to do, but when that is reverted as I have done, it's up to you to start that talk page discussion and not reinstate your edit. I am asking you courteously one more time to self-revert, and I'm more than happy to follow up with you on the article talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Onetwothreeip I started a talk entry before committing to the bold merge, and saw no opposition, just as you like to do. Now that you have come out in opposition, you should join in the discussion to discuss why you oppose the merger, which you still had not done by the time you posted this rude message on to my talk page. Ergzay (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes there's no problem with you making a bold merge, but regardless of starting a discussion or not, you can't reinstate a bold edit without consensus when it's been contested. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Onetwothreeip How are you reporting me when I didn't continue the edit war? Please don't engage in false reporting. Ergzay (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The report is because you made a bold edit, I reverted, you reverted back, and you haven't self-reverted after I requested you to. Those two edits you made constitute edit warring. The usual process is that when an editor's bold edit is challenged by being reverted, they take it to the talk page and they don't institute it again unless consensus is gained. I take it you have no objection to me reverting your revert then? I thought it would be more courteous to let you self-revert. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I had assumed you had already reverted. If that's not the case let's keep it the way it is and continue the discussion. Ergzay (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've more than adequately challenged your bold edit: on your user talk page, the article talk page, the article itself. The article should reflect the status quo, as in before the recent contested edits, while discussion is ongoing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The "status quo" is how the article looked before your recent attempts at splitting it. Ergzay (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't recent. Many intervening edits have happened since then, so it became status quo. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, please stop WP:HOUNDING me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not hounding. I've just been looking into your past editing to see what other pages you may have broken so I can fix them or point them out to others. I believe you to be a disruptive force for the quality of articles on Wikipedia. Ergzay (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's almost the definition of hounding. Anyway, can't say you weren't warned about it. Please feel free to raise any of those issues with me on my talk page. Your changing of my heading is violating WP:REFACTOR. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Missy Cummings, 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 your 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. ''As I have stated previously, Teslerati is not an independent reliable third party source in this matter. Additionally, you have violated policies surrounding content regarding a living person; before you attempt to modify the Missy Cummings article again, I encourage you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced'' QRep2020 (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, please don't write this kind of spam on my talk page. Ergzay (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Missy Cummings, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Verifying negative and insinuating BLP material with tweets is about as low as an experienced editor can get. Please don't do that anymore.'' Drmies (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Drmies You apparently didn't review the edits in question. The tweets were direct screenshots from the official twitter of the person the article is about. I suggest you take another look at the article. I don't know who you are but you don't appear to be an administrator so going around threatening bans is extremely rude and not conducive to constructive editing of articles. Ergzay (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your talk page history shows you've tried this tactic a number of times--of false complaints about rudeness or whatever. You can have all the constructive criticism you want as soon as you stop edit warring over BLP-violating content. And please learn what the difference is between a block and a ban. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about. Ergzay (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

asking reason for revert of my edit
, you reverted my edit, but from to launch a probe directly into a Heliocentric orbit or on a escape velocity of earth, i wanted to explain that this was the first F9 and second spacex mission after falcon heavy test flight in which the second stage reignited to place its payload on an interplanetary trajectory in a heliocentric orbit. i don't know which falcon 9 mission was like this. only fh test flight is like this. and for holiocentric f9 mission there was only one mission that is bersheet lander mission, there the lander itself did the tli burn. if you find any previous f9 mission in which the second stage reignited to place its payload on an interplanetary trajectory in a heliocentric orbit, please tell me. Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Chinakpradhan Hi, when writing on people's talk pages please try to use correct English punctuation if you are able to do so. It is hard to read what you write. The comment I wrote on the edit fully describes why I did the revert. It was not actually the first Falcon 9 to launch a satellite out of Earth orbit, it was the second. The DSCOVR mission launched into an insertion orbit of the the Earth-Sun L1 which is not an Earth orbit. Ergzay (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * which was the first mission Ergzay, i want to know Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question. Ergzay (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Chinakpradhan The launches that have gone beyond Earth orbit are: DSCOVR and The Tesla Roadster. Ergzay (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ergzay, then can i write first block 5 holiocentric launch Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Chinakpradhan You could but I don't see why you would want to. We don't need to label every single type of statistic for each launch. It doesn't seem very significant. Falcon 9 is Falcon 9, we don't need to label "first X of block 5" or whatever for every new thing. Ergzay (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Trolling
You gotta watch it with the trolling accusations. The sillies we've been talking to over the last week or two aren't trolls, but gnomes, and there's a big difference (though they're both highly annoying). Seriously, accusing someone of trolling is not to be taken lightly, and it'll get you in trouble fast. I suggest you modify your wording right away.

While I'm here, I believe you're mistaken about me somehow splitting CMD's comment, so to keep the conversation clean can you just remove your post about that? EEng 06:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @EEng Wasn't the first bullet-point type post part of his post? Ergzay (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you mean the bit starting While I think this whole guideline is in dire need of reform -- no, that's my text. What you should do, if you think you're seeing what you think you're seeing, is step through my edits in the page history to see if you can find me making a boo-boo on my part. EEng 12:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Please stop Crs-20
Hi, please help me out this Crs-20 is eating my head and my edits as you can see here. I am using Twitter refs but the information written in that tweet is taken from official sites. I just discussed it with a person over the Twitter and using his replies. Please stop him of reverting. This is my earnest request to you. He reverted my edits two times today. His is making the page stay outdated, even decay of Starlink sats is not allowed by him. Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * He makes non-comments even more than me lastly he said that he is using NASASpaceFlight.com ref that is outdated stop him Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to read that diff page you linked, it seems corrupted, at least it doesn't appear on my browser as understandable. So I don't know what you're talking about. Twitter is not an avenue of communication for Wikipedia editing. Please use talk pages. If he is engaging in edit warring then tell him to stop, and if he doesn't stop then you can use Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Ergzay (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

PA
Please read wp:pa, no one is coordinating, we just happen to agree. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Also we are not trying to criminalise anything, as we do not have the power to make anything illegal. I suggest you to down the rhetoric. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your restoration of a Russian fake news website as a source on Azov Battalion
In this edit, you restored a section to Azov Battalion in which the sole source cited was "nahnews.com". The website is a well-known piece of Russian troll farm operations. Please be careful to avoid citing unreliable sources for extraordinary claims. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
— Mhawk10 (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverts at Musk
It's hard to sort out the recent flurry of edits, but there's a good chance you're close to or at a 3RR violation, FYI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Firefangledfeathers I don't revert without reason and include comments in the revert. Feel free to join on the talk page here or on Elon Musk talk page. I'm eager to talk to people who will listen. Ergzay (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're definitely past WP:3RR now. Can you please self-revert? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers WP:3RR only applies if you're putting back the content identically to what it was before, which I did not. Additionally the revert was valid even without that as you broke the page metadata (the reference you reverted was broken and referencing nothing). Please check the edit log. If you don't like the new variant of the page feel free to state what is wrong with it in the edit log and revert again and I will try another variant until we get one that you are satisfied with. Ergzay (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, because you removed a source later in the article, my edit left an unnamed reference error. If you self-revert, you can add back the source. Or, I can add it after you self-revert. Your edits have definitely counted as reverts, having undone, in whole or in part, the actions of other editors. Please consider whether you'd be willing to defend these edits at the relevant administrator's noticeboard. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to rush to the administrators board despite us being able to converse, be my guess. I think you'll find them questioning why you're wasting their time. You don't appear to have any interest in the D part of WP:BRD. I made edits, you reverted, I made different edits, you reverted, and yet you don't want to discuss the variations of edits I provide. Ergzay (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Closing the move discussion re: Twitter suspension article
Hi Ergzay, I think your close at Talk:December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions was invalid per Requested_moves/Closing_instructions. First of all, they "should generally be applied only after the normal seven-day listing period has elapsed" except in WP:SNOW cases which this wasn't. In addition, by making your supportive comment first, you became involved.

Besides all that, you you should have used a template to indicate non-admin closure. CharredShorthand (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies as it's my first time closing a move. I did notice a couple of mistakes I made in the process, but by looking at all the comments given there were many more in support of the change than those against it. It seemed consensus was sufficient to make the move. Ergzay (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably should have given it more time. Oh well. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Many more in support of the change." By my count there were 8 votes in support of the merge and 6 against, so clearly not "many more". I know it's not a vote but I do agree that the discussion was closed prematurely (it hadn't even been open for 24 hours), a true consensus was not reached, and I think it would've been more appropriate if a non-biased observer had closed the discussion, given your clear support for merging the article. — Hunter Kahn 02:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This was a totally inappropriate early closure by Ergzay of a contested move request. CharredShorthand's complaint is quite correct, as is page creator Hunter Kahn's. Now that there's an AFD on the subject, IMHO we should avoid another move discussion at this moment. BusterD (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

April 2023
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ''There has been discussion on the talk page, where you have been engaged. Instead, you have engaged in unilateral POV-pushing. Undo your edits and seek an alternate consensus if you want your edits to stand. ~'' Pbritti (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * @Pbritti I've repeatedly tried to talk to you to discuss the reverts but you insist on doing wholesale reverts of multiple edits, some that are completely uncontroversial. Please discuss without edit warring. Ergzay (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're the one edit warring in defiance of consensus, performing mass-deletion without proper rationale. You then claim I haven't engaged you in discussion; no, you failed to acknowledge the extant discussion and embarked on a unilateral series of edits that undid the efforts of multiple other editors. You've been warned many times about this type of behavior. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti I've been taken to the notice board and have been repeatably been found to not have violated anything. Pleas don't lie about my past history here. Secondly, there are no "additional editors". There is only you. Ergzay (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a lie to say you've been warned. Not sure why you'd accuse me of lying, which is textbook WP:UNCIVIL. Please review WP:FIVEPILLARS considering the repeated demonstration of unfamiliarity with multiple policies and the style guide. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti I'm familiar with wikipedia editing. I've been an editor for a very long time. I apologize for calling you a liar as it's more correct to say you have a misunderstanding. There is no past history of me being warned other than by other disruptive editors who wanted to hammer through their edits without discussing things and then accuse me of disruptive behavior. I've been exonerated many times. Ergzay (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

If the you think Firefangledfesthers is just a "disruptive editor"—another uncivil accusation, mind you—you don't understand what being disruptive is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No I do not think they are. The issue was resolved. Ergzay (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You just said you had only been warned by disruptive editors then said an editor who warned you wasn't disruptive. You need to self-revert. You have a history of being bias on matters relating to Musk and I think you may need to have a topic ban if you can't abide by policy without frequent warnings. You've used Wikipedia for a long time, but seem to have not pick up on the policies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm working through the issues you've brought up on the talk page. Let's continue to discuss rather than trying to close down discussion with accusations. Also I wasn't warned by Firefangledfeathers. Ergzay (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I discussed the issues with you. You either said there wasn't a consensus against you (there is) or raised irrelevant/inaccurate points. That's called Tendentious editing. You don't get to bludgeon multiple other editors by pushing the reverts to maximum limit, exhausting editors who try to engage with you, and then making misleading/inaccurate/uncivil statements. Discussion with you has failed. Consider this a final warning to straighten out your conduct. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pbritti Thank you for the discussion that you have done, it is appreciated. However you raise several incorrect things that did not occur. Firstly how can there be a "consensus against me" when the edits in question haven't even been discussed? I only just made them and you are the only person who has responded/reverted. I'm not understanding you here. Secondly, I have not "bludgeoned" multiple other editors because I've only been talking to you. Please follow WP:UNCIVIL yourself in not making false accusations... I have made many changes to the article since our discussion began reverting portions or rewriting my changes if you would only look. Feel free to make all the "final warnings" you like though I'd prefer to continue to discuss with you and make more edits. Ergzay (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding one of your replies at Talk:SpaceX Starship orbital test flight
This is intended to be a reply to this message, but I am posting it here for two reason; the first so that we can stay on topic and the second so that you can control the appearance of this message since that would be harder to do if it wasn't posted here.

Pinging someone who does not want to be pinged could be considered to be harassment. Regardless, please don't ping users who have asked not to be pinged. Give them a chance to reply on the talk page themselves. The discussion about ignoring consensus was a prior one, so I think re-discussing it here would be moot. I covered SELFSOURCE/de minimis in the other reply, so feel free to follow up on that over there. The reliable sourcing part was covered by myself in an earlier discussion and by another user in a second earlier discussion. If you sincerely believe that CNBC, NYT, or individual articles are unreliable in discussing space, Elon Musk, or some other topic, then you can take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, though you should have evidence that they are unreliable and should review past archived discussions to see successful and unsuccessful discussions. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Super Goku V Thanks for the reply, though I don't delete stuff from my talk page in general so this will be staying up. They were pinged in this case because they reverted something that was already in discussion on the talk page and reverted two different reverts of their revert by two different people thus they were going against consensus. Yes if I repeatedly pinged someone it would be harassment but in this specific case it's valid, as it was a one-off. I only pinged them once. Also again, I didn't ignore any consensus because I was making independent edits just looking at the status of the page without looking at the talk page. I think expecting people to have read the entire talk page is setting false expectations. Many discussions run concurrently and it was fast moving. Also it is not CNBC or NYT that is unreliable but specific reporters that are unrelabile. For example CNBC's dedicated space reporter is very reliable whereas that author of that specific CNBC article has a known history of muck raking against specifically only Elon Musk-related companies. They're biased and thus cannot be used for such topics. I'm not sure of the reliable sources noticeboard is capable of such nuance. Ergzay (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @: Gotcha. I haven't been fully paying attention to the article, which I probably should be given that there appears to have been three dozen reverts in the last 48 hours (How?), but I do want to say that from what I can see in the history, Pbritti was already notified when you did the revert at 00:09 UTC on the 27th.  Thus, your ping three minutes later to Pbritti was not needed as he was already notified.  (You also mentioned said talk page discussion in the revert, so if then ping was to alert them to the talk page discussion, then it also wasn't needed for that because of the edit summary.)  If you still want to have the @ symbol in a message to someone without pinging them, then you can see what I did in this reply and use a that or a variation so that others don't get pings when they don't want them when replying.  Granted, if someone asks you not to use  in messages to them, you should not use it.  (Same with .)
 * Regarding consensus and reverts, I would recommend going through WP:CON and making sure that what it says is what you are following. If you think that you have consensus, then fine, but just cautious because I am not fully sure.  (You are correct that there are multiple discussions, which is why I am unsure.)  As for sources, if you have issues with specific reporters, then you should consider taking it to the noticeboard.  To me, the sources are reliable, so we should be using them.  If you have evidence that they are bias, then you can bring it to the noticeboard and they can discuss things.  (I don't think that a specific individual has been deemed unreliable outside of things like individual talk shows, but the noticeboard is for matters of when reliability is questioned.  If you do decide to use it, do make sure that you take the time to properly word a proposal and make sure that your examples are ones that can be accepted.)  In any case, I do think the noticeboard is capable of handling things.  --Super Goku V (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Super Goku V Ah good point on the notification. I think I forgot that reverts notify people when I pinged him. I think I remember also thinking that pinging him would help him find the relevant talk section faster. Either way, water under the bridge at this point.
 * How would I activate what you describe when using the Wikipedia editor. I use the "reply" button underneath posts to do the reply which autoformats and autocompletes the @ when I type it, is there a way to autoformat and autocomplete it without a ping?
 * To be clear, I didn't think I had consensus of any sort, for or against me. I was just making bold edits, as I always do. Then the other use came and did a batch revert of every single edit I did, including many smaller edits and cleanups of typos describing all the edits as "Restore page prior to absolutely unacceptable rejection of reliably sourced content deleted for POV reasons" which is how things started.
 * Thanks for the tips, but I probably won't go to the noticeboard because it would be an uphill battle as an outsider with relatively rough understanding of all of the lawyering that would be thrown against me if I were to attempt it. The repeated misinterpretations thrown against me by that other user on relatively simple topics like WP:SELFSOURCE show me all I needed to know. I would also be (rightfully) accused of being biased myself as I am indeed biased on this specific subject as I've been following this topic (SpaceX) closely for almost 15 years and editing on it for almost as long. It would be a lot of emotional trauma for no gain. It's better to talk to individual editors and convince them of the facts of the situation and demonstrate to them individually the unreliability of individual articles rather than going through a bureaucratic process that's unlikely to succeed. Notably there's more unreliable authors on SpaceX than there are reliable ones so it would be a long process. Ergzay (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Regarding the @ symbol, you can hit the esc key and the pop-up box will disappear.  Clicking elsewhere on the page should also do the same.  Regarding the consensus part, just be careful when making bold edits.  If someone makes a revert of your edit, then that would not be an edit with consensus per WP:EDITCON's  part.  Though if someone reverts multiple things and doesn't mention some of the other edits, you could attempt to restore them with something like  and seen if the other user was okay with it and discussing the mentioned portions at the talk page.
 * Regarding sourcing and the rest, I will agree that it would be difficult, but I disagree with the rest. If you were to be sincere with your attempt and make an effort to show your side of things, then I would expect that other users would respond to your efforts and attempt to meet the criteria.  I don't see your point of view regarding "misinterpretations" at the moment.  I will say that WP:RSPTWITTER, WP:TWITTER,  and WP:RSOPINION also explain how to handle using Tweets as a source, with the first saying that Twitter   I do get that you are concerned regarding the vehicle tied to the launch, but the main problem seems to be that we don't have the sourcing to clarify things at this time.  It is possible that the FAA report down the line could allow this to be revisited if a reliable source doesn't appear in the next few days.  In any case, everyone has a bias, in fact there is even an essay on bias.  The best you can do is to try to recognize when you are bias and to do your best to let it not impact your editing.  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Super Goku V I disagree with wikipedia policy regarding twitter for many cases. While it makes sense in broad strokes, the policy was written when the world was a different place. Much fundamental ground level reporting is done directly on Twitter and Youtube nowadays and those are reliable sources. Now of course sourcing random twitter users should not be allowed but more nuance is needed in those policies and too easily sources from social media are automatically dismissed. Also on bias I think bias is actually helpful as it gives energy to doing further investigation of claims that others would accept at face value. It helps sort out misinformation from information in a cleaner way. You can take it too far of course, and I have at times, but in general it's useful to have. Ergzay (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC
There is currently a discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship regarding a note that a user is repeatedly trying to insert into the "failures" section. The thread is RfC on "clarifying failure in infobox". Thank you. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 19:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I hate the groupthink
Now a group of editors has basically couped the SpaceX Starship page and don't listen to others chiming in. Only their version is allowed and that has basically fucked the article. Should I file a proper ANI report? This is getting a bit egregious. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here isn't that they are bad of editing, nor they are bad people overall, but that they are not willing to listen to others in any capacity. I've done an ANI report but then I've retracted it because my ANI post constitutes a personal attack to an editor, but still, I don't think that WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behavior is appropriate on Wikipedia. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @CactiStaccingCrane I think you should do what you think is right. You've been carefully managing the page for a long time so you should do what you think is right. Ergzay (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Cut the WP:NPA and edit warring
You are flagrantly violating several guidelines (WP:ONUS, WP:STATUSQUO, WP:BRD to name a few), making personal attacks (SPA? Really? Have you even read the page that you are quoting?), edit warring with no effort at cooperative editing, and you are then threatening others with admin action?

Till now you have made 4 controversial edits to the page without trying to seek consensus (or discuss them at all), 3 of which have been reverts. Revert your additions to the page that you know lack consensus, are controversial, and are only there to "clarify" (your words) using only the POV of one party. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @CapnJackSp The edits have only been controversial to you. You've had a tremendous number of people disagreeing with you only to repeatedly revert multiple good faith edits and variations of edits by other people (not just me). Clearly anything that puts India in a negative light is abhorrent to you and you'll revert any edits made in that light. I will not be reverting my additions given your own edit wars against everyone else. The edits have consensus (your reverts are the ones that lack consensus) and your edits are the ones that are controversial. Also, don't reply on my talk page. Reply on the talk page of the article. I'll be removing any further comments by you to my talk page. If you revert my edits without discussion then I'll be taking you to the notice board. Ergzay (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are the only one edit warring on the page. First you edit warred to keep the material you didnt like out of the article - When @GhostOfDanGurney self reverted and reinstated the material, you then made every attempt to water down the wording. You have only pushed a one sided POV in your 6 edits to the article, with minimal effort to discuss on TP, and you accuse others of POV editing? You have made several WP:OR violations (like inserting "publically" when Al jazeera stated it unqualified, on your claim that no one could know private conversations). You are knee deep in your efforts to brute force your preferred version of the article through. You are free to remove whatever you want to from your own T/P. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp You reverted this edit by @GhostOfDanGurney, and did it in a silent way to avoid a revert notice being sent to him (whether intentionally or accidentally). Ergzay (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any "revert notice" issued upon reverts - And no, I clearly stated what I was doing right under GhostOfDanGurney's last message in the discussion thread. It was not by any means a "sneaky" edit.The partial revert I made was removing a Canadian government claim that it was to protect their methods. To not present a one sided claim is a reasonable basis and was made clear on the talk page. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Presenting one sided claims by one of the two parties is completely fine as long as it's clarified as their viewpoint, which it is in the article (if it isn't clarified enough for you I'm completely fine with adding such clarifications if you feel them necessary). Additionally, this is a standard claim given in response to _every single intelligence_ report question. I've heard it probably hundreds of times over the years whenever a press officer gets asked about the source of some information put out by the US government. It's not unusual or surprising.
 * Also I didn't see any comment to GhostOfDanGurney's last message that you were going to revert the information. You just stated that it was "misleading". Also it is indeed in RS. "Canadian police have not arrested anyone in connection with Nijjar’s murder. But in an August update, police released a statement saying they were investigating three suspects and issued a description of a possible getaway vehicle, asking for the public’s help." from the CNN source. Ergzay (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is still a claim, that when presented in an editorialised manner, is absolutely a POV statement to make. Regardless, I request you to direct content discussion to the article talk page - User talk pages are for raising issues with user misconduct, content discussions are better handled on the article T/P. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp Oh and for the record, WP:ONUS is on you, not me, given that you originally added some of the information that the discussion is actually about (and also reverted multiple other people's attempts at removing those edits). There was an initial phase where I already somewhat agreed to keep the information that I originally completely deleted based on discussion (which is by definition cooperative editing) as it was in the sources, but then you also deleted the clarifications I added to your edits which was also in the sources. Ergzay (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. You wanted to remove some material, but when you failed to get consensus for it, you then started watering down the wording with one sided "clarifications". WP:ONUS is on you for including those "clarifications", the material I wanted was discussed by me on TP and reinstated by a third editor.Unlike your claim, you have NOT discussed any of the edits before making them. You have first reverted twice to your preferred version, then told others why you think that version must be followed. After they decided not to follow it, you have again made edits first and tried to justify later. That is the opposite of collaborative editing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Watering down an edit" (as you call it) is by definition cooperative editing. My initial change was unacceptable to some so it was modified to properly contextualize the information using data from the sources already on the page. I still maintain that it doesn't belong on the page at all as it's an attempt to twist the information away from what is presented in the sources. Ergzay (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, watering down any criticism of one entity without trying to discuss the changes you want is called WP:POVPUSHING and is disruptive editing. Watering down others edits is not cooperative editing, discussing your edits before reverting to your preferred version is. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're the one doing WP:POVPUSHING... You're trying to keep content that explicitly pushes the POV that the Canadian government is lying, which is not a position pushed by any unbiased source used on the page. I was removing content that was implying that, which was simply an easy way to handle the issue. You came along and good faith reverted it and then I started discussing it (though I'll agree I did a revert along with the discussion). I tend to do what I call "BRR+D" where I follow up with a final revert if I'm relatively confident that the content belongs followed by immediately starting discussion along with a ping to the reverting user. (If I didn't do that this time then I apologize, the dates have got me confused, but this was my intention.) Ergzay (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BRR+D is a redlink for me, so it doesnt seem like Wikipedia guidelines approve of your way of editing. In my edit (which you reverted without discussing, hence reinstating the contentious material) I had removed material that presents only the claim of the Canadian government, and does so in an editorialised manner. Just because it was the "easy way" is not a good excuse for edit warring while avoiding discussion. You have been reverting first and adding your comments later, just as you have done now. I will again urge you to revert yourself, and if you still intent to take this to admin boards, I would be interested in having your conduct reviewed as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp To be clear here, if it turns out there is consensus against my edits, I'll gladly revert the edits and try a different variation. Right now, consensus, according to what I see, appears to be in favor of edits. That's why I'm not reverting. Ergzay (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edit was the last insertion by you, and no one has supported it yet (there is only a single line of the edit where there is any support - supported by Ghost, and opposed by me). You are supposed to get consensus before making the changes, not reverting after you fail to get others to agree to them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Both Ghost and Southeastasian supported my edits... with both of them arguing against you. Consensus was already implied, and there was no failure to get consensus. My pinging of the two users is to get them to state emphatically their own opinion for your benefit. I cannot read minds however, so my comment you just to replied here was only admitting what I'd do in the unlikely possibility that there turns out to not be consensus, which would be to follow wikipedia policy as normal and revert. Ghost even clicked the "thank" button on my edit. Ergzay (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Ergzay. Thank you for your work on List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2020–2021). SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   10:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

South Padre Island
Regarding the reversion of my redirect, from South Padre Island to South Padre Island, TX The island (South Padre Island) is more thoroughly encompassed in Padre Island and Padre Island National Seashore and as a local to the SPI area this "South" designation to the article or query is really more relevant to the city (my opinion only).

Your thoughts and edits are appreciated. I'm not rolling it back, just presenting another perspective to consider. 162.198.97.65 (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I see there is some content upstream that is affected, Someone split Padre into an "North" and South" article, though I consider Padre to be one big island that stuff *exists* and opinions vary.
 * So I will agree with you and abandon my redirect. 162.198.97.65 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @162.198.97.65 One thing to note is that there's two separate concepts, the geographic and the census-based. The island is a physical thing and is split into two north and south islands. The dividing line is the Port Mansfield Channel that divides the island in two. On top of that is the city of South Padre Island within the Island of South Padre Island which is smaller than South Padre Island itself. This can easily be seen on Google Maps. If you enter in "North Padre Island" it draws the borders of where that starts and ends and you can see that the City of South Padre Island's border is not where "North Padre Island" on google maps is. Ergzay (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Brightness of Starlink Mini satellite
I am the person who performed the research and co-authored the paper that is cited. These satellites are fainter than Gen 1 but they are nowhere not 19% of the brightness. Please do not revert this again. Thank you. Planetary photometry (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Planetary photometry Firstly, whether you wrote the paper or not is irrelevant. Please see WP:Original Research. Wikipedia editors quote what is in papers not the personal opinions of Wikipedia users who claim to be scientists. Wikipedia content is not dictated from on high. Secondly, the paper claims a 19% drop in brightness and that is what is in the article. Thirdly, if you revert again you will be engaging in edit warring which could result in temporary or permanent bans on editing of certain pages or all of wikipedia depending on the behavior. Do not revert, engage in discussion on the relevant talk page. See and understand Wikipedia's "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". You made a bold edit, I reverted it, now it is incumbent upon you to make clear the problems with that revert in discussion. The discussion should happen over at the talk page of the article. I WILL revert again, if you revert my revert without discussion, and then report you for edit warring. Ergzay (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I made the same mistake my first-time editing in Wikipedia. I thought being an area expert meant that I was uniquely qualified to insist certain edits be made. ut, that's not how Wikipedia works. Anyone can claim to be an expert and there's no way to know for sure you are who you say you ;re, therefore the policy is to back up any facts with reliable citatio Use your expertise to find the mistakes and find the relevant citations. ns.War (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Space X Launches at SPI
I cited a more recent source in the SPI page for rocket launches, as the one I cited earlier was outdated and frankly a bit bleak. You seem to literally be a rocket scientist or enthusiast, if I'm deducting properly? Thanks for your edit and comments. 162.198.97.65 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think your new edit is better, but it reads too much like an tourism advertisement. Rather than quoting I think it should be reworded. Ergzay (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @162.198.97.65 Ergzay (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)