User talk:Ergzay/Archives/2021

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)

@Ergzay: 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)

@Ergzay: 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 Wikipedia: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)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

asking reason for revert of my edit

Ergzay, 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)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Ergzay! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Help with formatting a table to properly convey information, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)