User talk:SnowyMeadows/Archive2018 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation. |
Disambiguation link notification for November 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kyrsten Sinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAFE Act. 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) 09:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act
Hello Elephanthunter. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. -- GB fan 12:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Just a suggestion
I would suggest you go back to Talk:Konami and strike through your accusation of sock puppetry. How would you like it if someone accused you of logging out to continue edit warring without any proof? All that comment does is try to shut down any discussion. Please try to AGF. -- GB fan 20:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm... you're right. They were edits made around the same time that user was active, but that's admittedly shoddy evidence. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm choosing to keep this section here to show that I am a human who makes mistakes, and I can (and will) own up to them. My thanks to GB fan for explaining what I had done in an exceptionally civil manner, explaining why that negatively impacts discussion, and suggesting how I might fix my mistake. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Elephanthunter. 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, Elephanthunter. 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)
ARBIPA sanctions alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Kautilya3 (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for notifying me. I encourage administrators to impose sanctions if the need arises. There are disruptive edits, as one of the articles you are likely referring to, Khalistan movement, is already protected. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring on Khalistan Movement
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. Thank you. DBigXray 17:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ha! I put a notice on your page that I'm about to report you, so you beat me to the punch by reporting me first. Interesting. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Kindly dont edit my comments
as you did at Khalistan Movement Talk. please fix it. --DBigXray 16:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? That wasn't your comment. That was our 3O's comment that YOU edited. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
you removed the word LEAD from my comment. not sure why you would do that. any way. I will fix it myself. please see the draft at Talk:Khalistan movement/Rfc and we will bring it tot he talk page once both parties agree on the wording and sources etc. it has to be breif to be effective. --DBigXray 17:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted your change because you chose to hide someone else's comment. I honestly did not notice you had also made updates to your own comment. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DBigXray 16:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
two brackets on rfc
I am not sure why but removing the 2 stray }} hides the Subsection Title that says "!Vote". just add the 2 extra }} and it appears. Please redo it. --DBigXray 17:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was my mistake. I thought it was a typo. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
July 2018
Your recent editing history at Talk:Khalistan movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I am giving you a chance to self revert, restore my comments and save yourself from being reported for breaking the 3RR. DBigXray 19:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
new
I gave you a chance to self revert and save the trouble, but instead you decided to file An3. So be it. --DBigXray 20:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- You were likely trying to save yourself trouble once you realized you violated 3RR. Maybe I violated it too? Anyway, in my filing I clearly said I do not want you banned. Ideally, I just want someone to step in, and I want you to stop messing with our RfC. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
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. Thank you. DBigXray 20:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DBigXray 21:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
-
- Alright. My bad. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
July 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Operation Blue Star, you may be blocked from editing. you cannot restore removed content without proving the WP:BURDEN on talk. Kindly self revert to avoid WP:3rr DBigXray 20:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Using Poor sources
Please dont use such piss poor sources, specially if you plan on editing controversial articles. understand the concept of vetted WP:RS--DBigXray 20:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Lot of wikipedia content is overtime lifted by lazy authors into books, such circular sources are not considered WP:RS, dont blindly use google hits of books as sources. they will not help controversial articles. or controversial claims. --DBigXray 20:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Using that particular source was an honest mistake on my part. It appeared at first as though the text of the book was lifted for use on Wikipedia, not the other way around. It appears I was mistaken. Thanks for kindly informing me. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for understanding. I normally check the Intro of the book, the publishing house if reliable or not, (Some honest authors do mention in intro that the content has been lifted from Wikipedia, but many dont.) I check the publishing date and compare that with the article of date around that period. If the book has copied wikipedia, remember to put this template that i linked above, or
- if you find that the Wiki article has been copied then feel free to remove it immediately as WP:COPYVIO in edit summary or copy edit it per policy. --DBigXray 20:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DBigXray 20:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
NOCON
Hi Elephanthunter, Regarding this revert, you can't invoke WP:NOCON and WP:STATUSQUO before you even raised any policy-based objections. Simply reverting edits, claiming "no consensus" is obstructive, and impedes the article's development. This is not the way to go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Revert his indiscriminate content removal? I invoked NOCON because there was an RFC. When a user removes 16k worth of information from an article (much of it directly related to the RFC), that is disruptive. After your ARBIPA warning, the barnstar you gave Adamgerber80 for his disagreement with me, and then this comment... I am feeling a little harassed. I would prefer that you refrain from editing my talk page unless you have something positive to contribute. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
August 2018
Your recent editing history at Khalistan movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DBigXray 21:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Your edits were controversial and directly related to the RfC. I'm not deliberately breaking 3RR, but I doubt I'll be found at fault considering that you are continuing to edit the summary after the RfC template was restored on the talk page. Also... you couldn't discuss your edits on the talk page first? You have to resort to edit warring? --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- We've both violated 3RR at this point. No, I kindly refuse. Please see the tag on the talk page. You need to discuss a major overhaul of the page before continuing. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
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. Thank you. DBigXray 22:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)