User talk:Ergzay

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2006; 2011; 2014; 2015; 2016; 2017; 2018; 2019; 2020; 2021; 2022; 2023; 2024;

Nomination for deletion of Template:Import style/sticky2.css

Template:Import style/sticky2.css has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jroberson108 (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Report

I haven't filed the report yet.

Do you think this is enough?

The IP (and previous IP addresses operated by the same individual) has made several false accusations of WP:Original Research, regarding well sourced claims:

"Once more, Redacted II makes "original research" and exaggerates vague facts to factuals" -47.69.102.202 [1]

"original reaserch by a single editor who does not stop that nonsense" -47.69.102.202 [2] (The page being discussed in this dif is SpaceX Starship (spacecraft). 65.7% of the edits to that article were made by me.)

"stop adding rumors to WP articles pretending they are facts" -47.69.102.202 [3]

"Evey time I try to correct that 8or other things), it is changed back again by the same one editor" " -47.69.102.202 [4]

"with R. constantly putting pseudo-facts into several SpaceX related articles" -47.69.102.202 [5]

"You do not distinguish what is fact from reliable source and what is speculation, guessing and OR" -47.69.102.202 [6]

"but rated "low importance" leaves these acticles orphaned, neclected and more or less to a single editor who had put in original reseach and exaggerations while blocking others, especially IPs, from co-editing. The articles suffer greatly" -47.69.66.56 [7]

"Not "original research" by how many third parties or wp editors" -47.69.66.56 [8]

"just one more example of original research/educated guessing!" -47.69.66.56 [9] (Not directed towards me)

"Still navigating around the main issues trying to fool me. Stop OR" - 47.67.225.78 [10]

"Once more a certain editor wants to spam each and every space article with superfluous and redundant starship pseudofacts" - 47.67.225.78 [11]

"Oce more original research from a speculating source just saying" - 47.67.225.78 [12]

"Redacted II once more reverted my edit, violating not only citation and OR rules, but edit warring" - 47.67.225.78 [13] (I asked them to list the policies I violated. They did not respond)

They have declare that I have attempted to mislead other editors:

"And you still either don't understand or try to mislead" -47.69.102.202 [14]

"Still navigating around the main issues trying to fool me. Stop OR" - 47.67.225.78 [10]

When corrected, they claim WP:PA violations

"Could you please stop attacking me personally"- 47.64.203.33 [15] (This is the comment they were responding to: [16])

"Funny how you accuse me of assuming bad faith, while doing the same with implying several other "misdoings" which have been rebutted long ago... Could you and your buddies please stop rallying against me? This seems to be a campaign to discredit me and this redicect discussion while no factual arguments are made. Totally out of context and just WP:PA" - 47.67.225.78 [17]

Claims of WP:Own violations:

"act like you own the article" -47.69.102.202 [18]

They have even claimed that I am not... mentally sound:

"fake news by incapacity or intent or what?" -47.69.102.202 [14]

They claimed that a B-Class article I edit often, SpaceX Super Heavy, is my "favorite playground" [] and [] (When proposing to delete a redirect, you are supposed to notify the creator of the redirect. In this case, me. This was never done)

User:Narnianknight stated in regard to this IP's statements "By the way, I am truly sorry you're being dog piled by someone comfortable in the bottom half of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement."

I have reported them before, [19] but no action was taken. Redacted II (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it limited to personal attacks on you. Being a bad editor with poor understanding of Wikipedia policies isn't really a ban worthy offense. Fewer but more significant events is better. Ergzay (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP (and previous IP addresses operated by the same individual) has made repeated personal attacks targetting me.

They have alleged that I am not... mentally sound: "fake news by incapacity or intent or what?" [1]

They claimed that a B-Class article I edit often, SpaceX Super Heavy, is my "favorite playground" [2][3]

Multiple claims of attempting to mislead others: "And you still either don't understand or try to mislead" [4]

"Once more a certain editor wants to spam each and every space article with superfluous and redundant starship pseudofacts" [5]

"Once more, Redacted II makes "original research" and exaggerates vague facts to factuals" [6]

"neclected and more or less to a single editor who had put in original reseach and exaggerations while blocking others" [7]

They accuse everyone they disagree with of WP:OR, despite the disputed content often being well sourced. And anyone who confronts them is a WP:PA violator: [8][9][10][11][12][13]

IMO, it is clear that they are not here to improve Wikipedia, and edits only to harrass more experienced editors.

I reported their behaviour before, but no action was taken.[8] Redacted II (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Ergzay (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This is regarding the IP discussed above, you did nothing wrong) Redacted II (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duke lacrosse thing

Thanks! Springnuts (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Your recent editing history at Elon Musk shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ergzay, your logic seems to be switched off, and you're edit warring over it. Back off and follow BRD. Don't edit war, just discuss. Before continuing your discussion, turn your logic back on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've breached WP:3RR now with your last edit, so this should go to EW noticeboard. CNC (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Ergzay, stop the edit warring. Only discuss. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has gone too far, I'm drafting a report already. There are others who should face the same scrutiny here for their disruption as well, I think I clocked another breach but will check. CNC (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor I suggest you look at the edit log. The edits were different. Ergzay (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelevant, you can explain that at EW noticeboard. CNC (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor What do you mean "completely irrelevant"? Edit warring is the back and forth changes of a single change. That's not what I did. Ergzay (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and bludgeoning

I'd like to remind you to please stay on topic in the talk page discussion as well, and to stay focused on what reliable sources say rather than engaging in original research. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware also to avoid bludgeoning the discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergzay. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Elon Musk for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. – MW_(t•c) 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Midnite Wolf I haven't replied to the page in several hours. You don't need to add another notice. You are yourself bludgeoning. @IOHANNVSVERVS already mentioned this. Ergzay (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I should've read through your talk page, looked at the timing, and considered more whether that notice was necessary. I apologize. – MW_(t•c) 22:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Midnite Wolf No problem. Have a nice day. Ergzay (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ergzay reported by User:CommunityNotesContributor (Result: ). Thank you. CNC (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CommunityNotesContributor Sigh fine we can go through this process. I've been brought to ANI many times in the past. Never been punished for it. People love to falsely accuse people of things on here. Ergzay (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics alert for all pages relating to post-1992 politics of the United States

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]