This is an archive of past discussions with User:SnowyMeadows. 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.
Hello, Elephanthunter. 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.
Thanks for uploading File:HireRight Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I moved most of them to more specific categories, or removed them if they weren't actually Internet-based (one was a print book about online dating). Trivialist (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
September 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Operation Blue Star; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@DBigXray: If you'd like to collaborate, you are welcome to discuss the topic on the talk page. You've rebuffed the concerns of several other editors on the talk page for this article already. --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Please read and understand WP:BURDEN and act accordingly. When you add a content that is disputed by another editor and reverted, per WP:BRD you are expected to make a case on the talk page, and not indulge in edit warring --DBigXrayᗙ06:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@DBigXray: You have tons of edit war complaints against you, and you were literally just edit warring me. Even when adding new content, you edit war. One of these days its going to come back to bite you. --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
So
you added poorly sourced content, on a highly controversial article
got reverted and instead of discussing start an edit war
When warned about edit warring, start dishing Ad hominems and accuse of harassment
@DBigXray: You spam warnings to my page to an extent that it has become literal harassment. As far as my "poorly sourced content", a quick search of the archives of Operation Bluestar's talk reveals you mercilessly attack any death stat that isn't an an official Indian government figure. I quoted UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, as he was delivering his findings to a review of UK involvement Operation Bluestar. Not poorly sourced. You also blindly reverted my added content. If you continue your behavior of engaging in edit wars and rolling back changes without discussion, I'll ask at the administrators noticeboard that your rollback rights get revoked. --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I did not use WP:ROLLBACK rights here, so I am not sure what you are accusing me of. Trust me when I say that I do not derive any sadistic pleasures in warning you here. Wikipedia polices mandate that a user is sufficiently warned before a complaint is filed on WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. Please do not threaten me, If you believe I have done wrong you are always free to take it up and WP:Shoot yourself in the foot--DBigXrayᗙ06:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1984 anti-Sikh riots; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Khalistan movement; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@DBigXray: You are not making any good faith effort to discuss on these talk pages. You continue to edit war against consensus. When I address your concerns, you revert anyway. It appears to be a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You've made repeated unnecessary edit war warnings on my talk page. You are also removing changes unrelated to your comments, such as my "By whom" template. Maybe you should stop your pattern of escalation and discuss. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The alternative to questioning your good faith is to question your editing skills. I actually have respect for your editing skills, and I believe you are already familiar with WP:SECONDARY. UK Foreign Secretary William Hague was not involved with the operation, and created a report based on an interview with an SAS officer (the primary source). This is what I explained on Talk:Operation Blue Star[2] You said my choice of words were a "deliberate misrepresentation" [3] Yet here you are posting on my personal talk page about WP:AGF. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure why you are discussing things at 3 places. Like I said here.
Regarding your disturbing edit, that I called a "deliberate misrepresentation" here
The source stated "a frontal assault was attempted, which contributed to the large number of casualties on both sides".
And yet, you misrepresented it to "High civilian casualties were attributed to ... India diverging from UK military recommendations, attempting a full frontal assault on the militants".
Now please let me know if I should call this, a result of your "incompetence in comprehension" or a "malice against The Indian Army and Government" ?--DBigXrayᗙ11:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
