User talk:Ergzay/Archives/2022

Please stop Crs-20

Hi Ergzay, 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 His is making the page stay outdated, even decay of Starlink sats is not allowed by him.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He makes non-comments even more than me lastly he said that he is using NASASpaceFlight.com ref that is outdated stop him Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)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 Wikipedia: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

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

— 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.

<ref name="McFall-Johnsen 2020">{{cite web | last=McFall-Johnsen | first=Morgan | title=Elon Musk promoted coronavirus misinformation for months. Then his own infection kept him out of SpaceX's astronaut launch. | website=Business Insider | date=November 25, 2020 | url=https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-promoted-coronavirus-misinformation-then-tested-positive-2020-11 | access-date=November 7, 2021 | archive-date=November 7, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211107204248/https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-promoted-coronavirus-misinformation-then-tested-positive-2020-11 | url-status=live }}</ref>

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 Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (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)

Closing the move discussion re: Twitter suspension article

Hi Ergzay, I think your close at Talk:December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions#Requested move 17 December 2022 was invalid per Wikipedia: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)