Slatersteven (talk | contribs) Tag: Reverted |
No edit summary Tag: Manual revert |
||
Line 231: | Line 231: | ||
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. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:12, 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. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC) |
||
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|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 [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|the bold, revert, discuss cycle]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. |
|||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:38, 30 March 2022
Query regarding Hubble Deep Field Image
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)
- Please sign every entry into a talk page with the four tilde's. It is rather impolite and frustrating for others if you do not. As for the original 100mb image, I'm sorry but no, I don't have that image. Can you point me to its location? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see it now. I had a look at the image (or at least, enough of it to see the quality of the image, as I didn't feel the need to download all 60/100mb of it) and you are right. The noise is excessive and I don't think any extra detail is available in that image compared to the one available on wikipedia. Everything is a bit bigger, but quite soft. If you have a real need for a reduced noise/blackpoint version of this image, I could do it, but I personally don't think it is necessary for wikipedia. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, it is definitely a scaled down version of it. From memory, each of the dimensions are halved (Eg the original NASA image is 6200x6200 and the wikipedia one is 3100x3100). The question is whether this really matters since the original is so soft, and the answer is, at least for me, that it doesn't. The wikipedia version has all the detail that the original does, only sharper. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
In response to pulsar spinning speed information
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)
Re: Propaganda, I think not
I read a few of the articles. These articles are propaganda. They make false statements about what scientists working in the field think. The wiki global warming article is based on primary sources published in peer reviewed journals. The article you sent me are just misguided opinions of people who don't believe in global warming.
If you think that some aspects of the wiki global warming article are wrong, you need to back that up by finding articles published in reputable peer reviewed journals like e.g. Science or Nature that support your point.
Count Iblis 12:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
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)
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Conspiracy Theories
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)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
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)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
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)
Edit warring at Hurricane Maria
- Hurricane Maria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)
- You don't seem to understand the context here. I will consider the warning ignored because the changes were reverted several days ago and the edit warring page was withdrawn. Ergzay (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
WP Sheriff
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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
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)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Important Notice
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)
Your opinion on the SPLC is irrelevant
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)
- It appears like WP admins can't tell fake material from the truth then. I don't care about your threats. Ergzay (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
May 2021
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. N2e (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- The templates I removed were cases where the information was already cited or where information was self-evident from other information in the article. Ergzay (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches
I noticed that this article was split by someone who has a habit of forging ahead with splits that have not reached consensus. My suggestion is to restore the article to its original structure and move on.VarmtheHawk (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @VarmtheHawk Thanks for the warning. I restored the article and also restored the intervening edits. Ergzay (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- These editors do nothing but try to get articles split. I'm not surprised the (non)issue was resurrected after his "bold" move, this time by someone who has been an editor for all of 2 months.VarmtheHawk (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ergzay: Please do not call me a [phrase cover]. I am not Onetwothreeip. I am just a novice Wikipedia editor on my own who wants to make articles have manageable markup sizes. zsteve21 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Thank you for removing that message. zsteve21 (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ergzay: I'm bowing out of this article for now before I yet again get myself in trouble, as I have been sanctioned for dealing with now the longest article. It seems to be under control now, but I predict that will change. It's instructive to look at the group whose goal, no matter what they say, is to get you to split your article. A glance at the primary members who are going after these "long articles" is instructive. Looking at their Talk Pages and History shows a constant pattern of activity similar to those that you experienced. Some even delete negative comments posted on their Talk Page. As you have probably noticed, if you point out the ludicrousness of an argument, the subject is simply changed to a whole new "problem." I may be wrong, but I suspect you haven't heard the last of this. And, BTW, the post above is beyond hilarious. VarmtheHawk (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Opinion polling for the 2021 German federal election, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please self-revert your reinstatement of a contested bold edit. The edit in question was your attempt to merge two articles. If you persist, this would be considered edit warring. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip You do not be appear willing to engage in discussion about the edits so it cannot be classified as edit warring. Ergzay (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Despite the fact that I am willing to engage in discussion, that's nothing to do with edit warring. You've made a bold merger which is your entitlement to do, but when that is reverted as I have done, it's up to you to start that talk page discussion and not reinstate your edit. I am asking you courteously one more time to self-revert, and I'm more than happy to follow up with you on the article talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip I started a talk entry before committing to the bold merge, and saw no opposition, just as you like to do. Now that you have come out in opposition, you should join in the discussion to discuss why you oppose the merger, which you still had not done by the time you posted this rude message on to my talk page. Ergzay (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes there's no problem with you making a bold merge, but regardless of starting a discussion or not, you can't reinstate a bold edit without consensus when it's been contested. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion ==
- @Onetwothreeip I started a talk entry before committing to the bold merge, and saw no opposition, just as you like to do. Now that you have come out in opposition, you should join in the discussion to discuss why you oppose the merger, which you still had not done by the time you posted this rude message on to my talk page. Ergzay (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Despite the fact that I am willing to engage in discussion, that's nothing to do with edit warring. You've made a bold merger which is your entitlement to do, but when that is reverted as I have done, it's up to you to start that talk page discussion and not reinstate your edit. I am asking you courteously one more time to self-revert, and I'm more than happy to follow up with you on the article talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip How are you reporting me when I didn't continue the edit war? Please don't engage in false reporting. Ergzay (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- The report is because you made a bold edit, I reverted, you reverted back, and you haven't self-reverted after I requested you to. Those two edits you made constitute edit warring. The usual process is that when an editor's bold edit is challenged by being reverted, they take it to the talk page and they don't institute it again unless consensus is gained. I take it you have no objection to me reverting your revert then? I thought it would be more courteous to let you self-revert. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- I had assumed you had already reverted. If that's not the case let's keep it the way it is and continue the discussion. Ergzay (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've more than adequately challenged your bold edit: on your user talk page, the article talk page, the article itself. The article should reflect the status quo, as in before the recent contested edits, while discussion is ongoing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- The "status quo" is how the article looked before your recent attempts at splitting it. Ergzay (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, that wasn't recent. Many intervening edits have happened since then, so it became status quo. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Also, please stop WP:HOUNDING me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's not hounding. I've just been looking into your past editing to see what other pages you may have broken so I can fix them or point them out to others. I believe you to be a disruptive force for the quality of articles on Wikipedia. Ergzay (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's almost the definition of hounding. Anyway, can't say you weren't warned about it. Please feel free to raise any of those issues with me on my talk page. Your changing of my heading is violating WP:REFACTOR. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's not hounding. I've just been looking into your past editing to see what other pages you may have broken so I can fix them or point them out to others. I believe you to be a disruptive force for the quality of articles on Wikipedia. Ergzay (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- The "status quo" is how the article looked before your recent attempts at splitting it. Ergzay (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've more than adequately challenged your bold edit: on your user talk page, the article talk page, the article itself. The article should reflect the status quo, as in before the recent contested edits, while discussion is ongoing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- I had assumed you had already reverted. If that's not the case let's keep it the way it is and continue the discussion. Ergzay (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- The report is because you made a bold edit, I reverted, you reverted back, and you haven't self-reverted after I requested you to. Those two edits you made constitute edit warring. The usual process is that when an editor's bold edit is challenged by being reverted, they take it to the talk page and they don't institute it again unless consensus is gained. I take it you have no objection to me reverting your revert then? I thought it would be more courteous to let you self-revert. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
October 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Missy Cummings, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. As I have stated previously, Teslerati is not an independent reliable third party source in this matter. Additionally, you have violated policies surrounding content regarding a living person; before you attempt to modify the Missy Cummings article again, I encourage you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced QRep2020 (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, please don't write this kind of spam on my talk page. Ergzay (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Missy Cummings, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Verifying negative and insinuating BLP material with tweets is about as low as an experienced editor can get. Please don't do that anymore. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies You apparently didn't review the edits in question. The tweets were direct screenshots from the official twitter of the person the article is about. I suggest you take another look at the article. I don't know who you are but you don't appear to be an administrator so going around threatening bans is extremely rude and not conducive to constructive editing of articles. Ergzay (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your talk page history shows you've tried this tactic a number of times--of false complaints about rudeness or whatever. You can have all the constructive criticism you want as soon as you stop edit warring over BLP-violating content. And please learn what the difference is between a block and a ban. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
asking reason for revert of my edit
Ergzay, you reverted my edit, but from to launch a probe directly into a Heliocentric orbit or on a escape velocity of earth, i wanted to explain that this was the first F9 and second spacex mission after falcon heavy test flight in which the second stage reignited to place its payload on an interplanetary trajectory in a heliocentric orbit. i don't know which falcon 9 mission was like this. only fh test flight is like this. and for holiocentric f9 mission there was only one mission that is bersheet lander mission, there the lander itself did the tli burn. if you find any previous f9 mission in which the second stage reignited to place its payload on an interplanetary trajectory in a heliocentric orbit, please tell me. Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Chinakpradhan Hi, when writing on people's talk pages please try to use correct English punctuation if you are able to do so. It is hard to read what you write. The comment I wrote on the edit fully describes why I did the revert. It was not actually the first Falcon 9 to launch a satellite out of Earth orbit, it was the second. The DSCOVR mission launched into an insertion orbit of the the Earth-Sun L1 which is not an Earth orbit. Ergzay (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- which was the first mission Ergzay, i want to know Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand your question. Ergzay (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Chinakpradhan The launches that have gone beyond Earth orbit are: DSCOVR and The Tesla Roadster. Ergzay (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ergzay, then can i write first block 5 holiocentric launch Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Chinakpradhan You could but I don't see why you would want to. We don't need to label every single type of statistic for each launch. It doesn't seem very significant. Falcon 9 is Falcon 9, we don't need to label "first X of block 5" or whatever for every new thing. Ergzay (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Chinakpradhan You could but I don't see why you would want to. We don't need to label every single type of statistic for each launch. It doesn't seem very significant. Falcon 9 is Falcon 9, we don't need to label "first X of block 5" or whatever for every new thing. Ergzay (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ergzay, then can i write first block 5 holiocentric launch Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- which was the first mission Ergzay, i want to know Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Trolling
You gotta watch it with the trolling accusations. The sillies we've been talking to over the last week or two aren't trolls, but gnomes, and there's a big difference (though they're both highly annoying). Seriously, accusing someone of trolling is not to be taken lightly, and it'll get you in trouble fast. I suggest you modify your wording right away.
While I'm here, I believe you're mistaken about me somehow splitting CMD's comment, so to keep the conversation clean can you just remove your post about that? EEng 06:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @EEng Wasn't the first bullet-point type post part of his post? Ergzay (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- If you mean the bit starting
While I think this whole guideline is in dire need of reform
-- no, that's my text. What you should do, if you think you're seeing what you think you're seeing, is step through my edits in the page history to see if you can find me making a boo-boo on my part. EEng 12:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- If you mean the bit starting
Your thread has been archived
Hi Ergzay! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Please stop Crs-20
Hi Ergzay, please help me out this Crs-20 is eating my head and my edits as you can see here. I am using Twitter refs but the information written in that tweet is taken from official sites. I just discussed it with a person over the Twitter and using his replies. Please stop him of reverting. This is my earnest request to you. He reverted my edits two times today. His is making the page stay outdated, even decay of Starlink sats is not allowed by him. Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- He makes non-comments even more than me lastly he said that he is using NASASpaceFlight.com ref that is outdated stop him Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how to read that diff page you linked, it seems corrupted, at least it doesn't appear on my browser as understandable. So I don't know what you're talking about. Twitter is not an avenue of communication for Wikipedia editing. Please use talk pages. If he is engaging in edit warring then tell him to stop, and if he doesn't stop then you can use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Ergzay (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
PA
Please read wp:pa, no one is coordinating, we just happen to agree. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Also we are not trying to criminalise anything, as we do not have the power to make anything illegal. I suggest you to down the rhetoric. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)