|
User talk:SnowyMeadows/Archive2018 1
Barnstar
Disambiguation link notification for November 22Hi. 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 ActHello 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 suggestionI 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)
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 messageHello, 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 This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
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)
Edit warring on Khalistan MovementNotice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Kindly dont edit my commentsas you did at Khalistan Movement Talk. please fix it. --DBigXray 16:56, 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)
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 rfcI 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)
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.
newI 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)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
TalkbackMessage 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)
July 2018
Using Poor sourcesPlease 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)
ANI
NOCONHi 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)
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} August 2018Your 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)
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
|
