Jump to content

User talk:Ergzay/Archives/2023

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


April 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. There has been discussion on the talk page, where you have been engaged. Instead, you have engaged in unilateral POV-pushing. Undo your edits and seek an alternate consensus if you want your edits to stand. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti I've repeatedly tried to talk to you to discuss the reverts but you insist on doing wholesale reverts of multiple edits, some that are completely uncontroversial. Please discuss without edit warring. Ergzay (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
You're the one edit warring in defiance of consensus, performing mass-deletion without proper rationale. You then claim I haven't engaged you in discussion; no, you failed to acknowledge the extant discussion and embarked on a unilateral series of edits that undid the efforts of multiple other editors. You've been warned many times about this type of behavior. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Pbritti I've been taken to the notice board and have been repeatably been found to not have violated anything. Pleas don't lie about my past history here. Secondly, there are no "additional editors". There is only you. Ergzay (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not a lie to say you've been warned. Not sure why you'd accuse me of lying, which is textbook WP:UNCIVIL. Please review WP:FIVEPILLARS considering the repeated demonstration of unfamiliarity with multiple policies and the style guide. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Pbritti I'm familiar with wikipedia editing. I've been an editor for a very long time. I apologize for calling you a liar as it's more correct to say you have a misunderstanding. There is no past history of me being warned other than by other disruptive editors who wanted to hammer through their edits without discussing things and then accuse me of disruptive behavior. I've been exonerated many times. Ergzay (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Regarding one of your replies at Talk:SpaceX Starship orbital test flight

This is intended to be a reply to this message, but I am posting it here for two reason; the first so that we can stay on topic and the second so that you can control the appearance of this message since that would be harder to do if it wasn't posted here.

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

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

RfC

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

I hate the groupthink

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

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

Cut the WP:NPA and edit warring

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

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

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

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on 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)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ergzay/Archives/2023&oldid=1250241489"