User talk:Ergzay

Archives (Index)

2006 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Regarding the reversion of my redirect, from South Padre Island to South Padre Island, TX The island (South Padre Island) is more thoroughly encompassed in Padre Island and Padre Island National Seashore and as a local to the SPI area this "South" designation to the article or query is really more relevant to the city (my opinion only).

Your thoughts and edits are appreciated. I'm not rolling it back, just presenting another perspective to consider. 162.198.97.65 (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is some content upstream that is affected, Someone split Padre into an "North" and South" article, though I consider Padre to be one big island that stuff *exists* and opinions vary.

So I will agree with you and abandon my redirect. 162.198.97.65 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@162.198.97.65 One thing to note is that there's two separate concepts, the geographic and the census-based. The island is a physical thing and is split into two north and south islands. The dividing line is the Port Mansfield Channel that divides the island in two. On top of that is the city of South Padre Island within the Island of South Padre Island which is smaller than South Padre Island itself. This can easily be seen on Google Maps. If you enter in "North Padre Island" it draws the borders of where that starts and ends and you can see that the City of South Padre Island's border is not where "North Padre Island" on google maps is. Ergzay (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who performed the research and co-authored the paper that is cited. These satellites are fainter than Gen 1 but they are nowhere not 19% of the brightness. Please do not revert this again. Thank you. Planetary photometry (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Planetary photometry Firstly, whether you wrote the paper or not is irrelevant. Please see WP:Original Research. Wikipedia editors quote what is in papers not the personal opinions of Wikipedia users who claim to be scientists. Wikipedia content is not dictated from on high. Secondly, the paper claims a 19% drop in brightness and that is what is in the article. Thirdly, if you revert again you will be engaging in edit warring which could result in temporary or permanent bans on editing of certain pages or all of wikipedia depending on the behavior. Do not revert, engage in discussion on the relevant talk page. See and understand Wikipedia's "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". You made a bold edit, I reverted it, now it is incumbent upon you to make clear the problems with that revert in discussion. The discussion should happen over at the talk page of the article. I WILL revert again, if you revert my revert without discussion, and then report you for edit warring. Ergzay (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made the same mistake my first-time editing in Wikipedia. I thought being an area expert meant that I was uniquely qualified to insist certain edits be made. ut, that's not how Wikipedia works. Anyone can claim to be an expert and there's no way to know for sure you are who you say you ;re, therefore the policy is to back up any facts with reliable citatio Use your expertise to find the mistakes and find the relevant citations. ns.War (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cited a more recent source in the SPI page for rocket launches, as the one I cited earlier was outdated and frankly a bit bleak. You seem to literally be a rocket scientist or enthusiast, if I'm deducting properly? Thanks for your edit and comments. 162.198.97.65 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your new edit is better, but it reads too much like an tourism advertisement. Rather than quoting I think it should be reworded. Ergzay (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@162.198.97.65 Ergzay (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damnatio memoriae I think that is what you are doing. Shame on you! 2A00:1110:143:1160:D1BF:A9E6:C3C3:862D (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you? Ergzay (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]