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 (~~~~). 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Ergzay. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Ergzay. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
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#Hurricane Maria death toll is not 3,057 where most people seem to be against you. See WP:DR for your other options. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
Hello, Ergzay. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
Doug Weller talk 13:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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 /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced QRep2020 ( talk) 03:20, 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)
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.
Ergzay, you reverted my , 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)
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? E Eng 06:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
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. E Eng 12:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ergzay! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
<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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or revertedpart. Though if someone reverts multiple things and doesn't mention some of the other edits, you could attempt to restore them with something like
The previous revert also undid changes to things that were not noted in the edit summary and might have been by mistakeand seen if the other user was okay with it and discussing the mentioned portions at the talk page.
[...] is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. [...] Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight.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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
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:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the article about the Falcon Heavy launches! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
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)
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 (~~~~). 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Ergzay. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Ergzay. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
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#Hurricane Maria death toll is not 3,057 where most people seem to be against you. See WP:DR for your other options. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
Hello, Ergzay. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
Doug Weller talk 13:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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 /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced QRep2020 ( talk) 03:20, 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)
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.
Ergzay, you reverted my , 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)
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? E Eng 06:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
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. E Eng 12:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ergzay! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
<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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or revertedpart. Though if someone reverts multiple things and doesn't mention some of the other edits, you could attempt to restore them with something like
The previous revert also undid changes to things that were not noted in the edit summary and might have been by mistakeand seen if the other user was okay with it and discussing the mentioned portions at the talk page.
[...] is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. [...] Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight.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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
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:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the article about the Falcon Heavy launches! ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |
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)