Talk:Rafale deal controversy/Archive 1

Too many citations in the lead
There's doesn't seem any need to have 13 citations (including 11 for a single sentence) in the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should basically summarize what comes later in the article; it shouldn't really be the only place where such content is covered unless you're the article is only a few-sentence long stub with a single section. Moreover, citations in the main body of article are preferable to ones in the lead per WP:CITELEAD, except when some really exceptional claims are being made. The article could probably benefit from a "Background" section (between the lead and "Accusations") which goes into a little more detail regarding the events or circumstances which led up to the scandal. Many of the citations could most likely be moved there or to other parts of the article. Too many citations for a single sentence like is done in this article give the impression of WP:BOMBARD and actually detract from the article; 11 citations to sources saying basically the same thing are not needed to support a single sentence, so maybe pick out the best two or three and dump the rest if there's not other use for them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I did it because of this concern -- this was needed initially because article was deleted once and government supporters dislike the article so i want it to be heavily sourced for some time, will remove sources later once article is developed and gets stable.. thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * and, see the attack on me is already started, one gentleman just said here that i am driven by some 'political agenda' haha, thats why I Am saying please let this article to be heavily sourced as of now... we can remove excess sources from lead once the article is developed and stable .. thank you --Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't thing what posted at the Teahouse is an attack at all, but rather some advices being given to you by an experienced editor trying to help you out. You need decide whether your WP:HERE or WP:NOTHERE. If want to help improve Wikipedia, then you need to understand WP:OWN and that other editors will try to improve the article to bring in up to Wikipedia's standards, which sometimes means adding maintenance templates when they're needed or removing content/citations when they're not needed. It might also mean merging or redirecting content when it's in the best interests of Wikipedia to do so.
 * On the other hand, if you're here to try and set the record straight and make sure everyone knows everything that can possibily be known about this controversly and feel that somehow it's Wikipedia's duty to do so, then you're probably going to find out that this isn't what Wikipedia's about and end up frustrated and disappointed. I'm not posting this to discourage you from further editing or continuing to try and improve the article, but only just to explain how Wikipedia works. Now, you can if you like, request that this article be draftified so that you can continue to work on improving it as a draft.Then, when you think all problems with it have been sorted out, you can submit it for review via WP:AFC. That might be one way of avoiding the article being nominated for deletion if that's something you're really worried about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for telling me about WP:HERE, WP:NOTHERE and WP:OWN.. You are a true hero ..:-) Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Copying and pasting content and citations from other Wikipedia articles
If you've copied-and-pasted content directly from other Wikipedia articles or sections of article like Indian MRCA competition into parts of this article, then you need to make sure you do so in accordance with WP:CWW. Wikipedia's licensing allows content to be reused in a such a way, but proper attribution is required; otherwise, it's technically a copyright violation. There are a couple of ways for you attribute where the content originally came from, so please see WP:RIA for more details.

In addition, if you're going to copy-and-paste citations found in other articles into to this article, you should try and make sure the format being used is consistent throughout the article per WP:CITEVAR and MOS:DATEUNIFY, etc. Keeping things consistent from the start will make it easier to keep them consistent as others edit the article and add more content and citations. My suggestion to you would be to use the "Day Month Year" for all the dates used in the citations per MOS:DATETIES since that seems to be the format commonly used in Indian/British English and get rid of the all numerical format currently used in some of the citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks for the inputs, didn't know this... will work on this --Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Which speaks to broader question, why this deserves page of it's own, when by it's author's own admission the topic is extension of Indian MoD MMRCA tender? (albeit abandoning legal format of that) Embedding it within MMRCA page (as elaboration of the already existing "Fate of the deal" subsection which already exists there) would remove need to restate context of MMRCA, avoid problem of "Rafale deal controversy" hardly being coherent unique identifier for this topic (when that phrase could apply to many countries' purchase or non-purchase of Rafale jet - I came across this page looking for info re: Belgian non-selection of Rafale), and be natural location to engage with community of editors who are educated on the topic - the avoidance of some hypothetically problematic editors being author's self-admitted rationale for this page. 50.113.24.80 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Lawsuit by ADAG
The article needs to be updated, ADAG has already filed several lawsuits. e.g. on the wire-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding and restoring 10 references in the lead
Hi MBL I see that you have twice Added and restoring 10 references in the lead. It appears to me as though you are completely ignorant of WP:OVERCITE please read the policy and follow it. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was actually about to remove them myself for the same reason, but you made a blanket revert before I could do it. In fact, if you bothered to read my first comment on this page, you'd see that I said very clearly that a "minuscule proportion of your edits might be productive on the face of it, it doesn't appear feasible to separate the wheat from the chaff at this moment." I even restored the "response" section you added promptly after making the revert...if you noticed. Thanks anyway. MBlaze Lightning 17:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool, glad to know that you are ok with me removing these 8 references. per WP:OVERCITE. Please let me know if you have any other concern and I will be glad to discuss. I am marking this as resolved-- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Which of these 8 references you want to delete and why? If problem was only with ref-bombing then discuss here that which references should be preserved and which ones needs to be deleted than removing the reliable references and then inserting your extreme POV. 202.69.11.23 (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Update tag on the article
Hi User:Akhiljaxxn, I see that you had placed this tag on the article here. Can you please clarify, what all information do you believe is lacking and needs to be updated ? I would like to remove the tag hence started this thread here. regards.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is looks fine now.Everything is upto dated.You can remove the tag now. Thank you. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Akhiljaxxn for the kind reply, yes, I have removed the tag now. The latest updates from the SC verdict have been included, So there is no need of a major update to the article, the allegations section can still be expanded along with, but they can be handled with regular editing cycle. I am marking this thread as resolved, cheers -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have for that reason removed the tag. MBlaze Lightning  11:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 December 2018
In the section "French Government response", there is a line that states: "When asked whether India had put pressure on Reliance and Dassault to work together, Mr. Hollande said he was unaware and “only Dassault can comment on this.”as reported by AFP" There is a missing space where the "as reported by AFP" line begins. Abequinn14 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Clean Chit
The controversial and disputed line about clean chit was first added by User:MBlaze Lightning, in this diff

On 23 December 2018 Fatsdominopizzeria removed had removed these controversial misrepresentations that were added with the edit summary

After reviewing the sources and text the verdict I had removed this controversial text, since the verdict never talked about any "clean chit" Shivkarandholiya12 and User:MBlaze Lightning among the 5 difs listed above You have pointed this diff twice (first here)   and then the same edit again

As I had mentioned in my edit summary "No Chit was given, the mention of chit is opinion and not fact. moreover SC Has Not Given Modi Govt Clean Chit on Rafale Deal, Says Sitaram Yechury News 18 article"

Below Quote is from the NDTV article No Clean Chit To Modi Government On Rafale From Court: Sitaram Yechury.

Below Quote is from the Article by Deccan Herald Rafale: SC ruling no clean chit to govt

If you think the courts mentioned clean chit in their verdict, then please point me to that line in the verdict and I will be happy to add clean chit. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My above edits that corrected the facts were reverted here en masse by User:MBlaze Lightning with a edit summary without explaining what was the problem. A while later Shivkarandholiya12 joined making the same revert  and in spite of repeated request, in the threads above neither User:MBlaze Lightning or Shivkarandholiya12 have explained their problems with my edits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Decision making process
This controversial line about this was first added by User:MBlaze Lightning, in this diff

After reviewing the sources and text the verdict I had removed this controversial addition, since this was a clear misrepresentation of the verdict

Below Quote is from the court verdict.

Accordingly I had updated the article with this text below. diff

As mentioned in my edit summary what I have added is actually based on the verdict, If you think that I made a mistake you need to clarify what is the mistake and why -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My above edits that corrected the facts, were reverted here en masse by User:MBlaze Lightning with a edit summary without explaining what was the problem. A while later Shivkarandholiya12 joined making the same revert  and in spite of repeated request, in the threads above neither User:MBlaze Lightning or Shivkarandholiya12 have explained their problems with my edits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Pricing
This controversial line about this was first added by User:MBlaze Lightning, in this diff.

After reviewing the sources and text the verdict I had removed this controversial addition, since this was a clear misrepresentation of the verdict

Below Quote is from the court verdict.

Accordingly based on the sources I had updated the the article with this text below. diff

Shivkarandholiya12 and User:MBlaze Lightning as mentioned in my edit summary what I have added is actually based on the verdict, If you think That I made a mistake you need to clarify what is the mistake and explain why -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My above edits that corrected the facts, were reverted here en masse by User:MBlaze Lightning with a edit summary without explaining what was the problem. A while later Shivkarandholiya12 joined making the same revert  and in spite of repeated request, in the threads above neither User:MBlaze Lightning or Shivkarandholiya12 have explained their problems with my edits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Offset Partner
This controversial line about this was first added by User:MBlaze Lightning, in this diff.

Below Quote is from the court verdict.

Accordingly I had updated the the article with this text below. diff

and then expanded it to below mentioned para


 * My above edits that corrected the facts, were reverted here en masse by User:MBlaze Lightning with a edit summary without explaining what was the problem. A while later Shivkarandholiya12 joined making the same revert  and in spite of repeated request, in the threads above neither User:MBlaze Lightning or Shivkarandholiya12 have explained their problems with my edits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Improvements in Lead
Hi User:Shivkarandholiya12, I had updated and improved the article lead on 28 December 2018 Which you have immediately removed by blanket reverts on
 * 28 December 2018 reverted by Shivkarandholiya12 with edit summary "(restored sourced content)"
 * 31 December 2018 reverted by Shivkarandholiya12 with edit summary "(Clear consensus on talk page)"

The content that I had added was entirely sourced to reliable sources and you have removed it and restored WP:OVERCITE and poor lead Please explain why you have removed the lead or agree to restore if you have no valid reasons.

Content that I had added and was removed from the Lead. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Rafale deal controversy/Sandbox

-- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many sources here that are inappropriately used. The Telegraph article was written based on the complaint from Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan submitted to the SC and basically presents only a single side of the argument. The India Today's "explainer" is of very low quality and contains many inaccuracies that contradict other sources. For example, the source states Under the contract, Dassault was mandated to make compensation investments (offsets) in India worth 50 per cent of the value of the purchase. but many other sources show that the offset responsibilities are split between Dassault, Thales and Safran. (,, , Trappier statment, Reliance statement) So, it is not that a single company is responsible for the entire 50% offset. More worryingly, that statement was used as a source for the statement Dassault Aviation announced a joint venture with Indian businessman Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence for the compensation investment of 50% of the value of the deal. which is not only different from what is in the source, but is basically what Congress is alleging. Many secondary sources disagree on the exact percentage of offsets that Dassault is planning to discharge through DRAL, but all of them agree that it is a fraction of the offsets, not the whole share.


 * There are many other neutrality issues with the lead such as the statement In 2018, former French president Francois Hollande revealed that Reliance was selected by the Indian side and France had no choice in the selection of the Indian offset partner. which doesn't summarize the controversy associate with his statement accurately and blatantly takes a side. The juxtaposition of The Indian government rejected the demand citing a secrecy clause in the deal. with The French president Macron stated that the deal pricing can be shared with the opposition parties of India. also amounts to WP:SYNTH as the Congress' demand was for the price to be made public in parliament, while Macron stated that details can be shared with the opposition, which is quite different. The lead presents the Congress' assertion that it negotiated a price of 526 crore, but does not present the counter-argument by BJP that Congress was comparing the price of "fully loaded" aircraft with the price of "basic aicraft" without taking price escalation and currency variations into consideration. The lead also suffers from recentism, which is also true of the article as whole now, with the material related to supreme court judgement taking up a disproportionately large amount of the article share.


 * The lead fails to accurately summarize the controversy, which is not surprising since the article as whole is quite incomplete. I suggest spending more time on expanding the article on specific allegations and the reply of the Indian government, French government, Dassault and the Indian Air Force. Once that is done, a more neutral lead can be written that presents both sides of the argument. —Gazoth (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gazoth, Please provide the sources to back up the claims you made above. If they are verifiable there is no reason why they cannot be added into the Lead text. The article needs work no doubt, but that doesn't mean the Lead will be deliberately kept at a piss poor state like it is right now. I will respond once again after you provide the sources I asked above. regards.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Which claims do you need a source for? —Gazoth (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gazoth, Let me add tags to mark what sources I requested. It would be best, if you could replace these tags with inline refs, so it is easier to discuss further.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added the sources. Some tags were totally superfluous, I cannot present a source for saying that what you have written is different from what is in the India Today article. —Gazoth (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gazoth I have included your points related to the offset clause and added some more sources about the secrecy clause please check. Regarding the juxtapositions, these facts are reliably referenced, see India today Modi govt can share Rafale deal details with Opposition, France's Macron tells India Today. If you have a better suggestion of representing this piece of information in the lead, please go ahead and update the sandbox at Talk:Rafale deal controversy/Sandbox. Also update the lead with your other objections and then we can further discuss for a consensus version of the lead which should be the ultimate goal of this thread. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

has said pretty much everything that I would have wanted to say at first; and he is spot on with the analysis of the proposed lead. There are simply too many major issues with it, foremost of which is a glaring non-compliance with core policies like WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and not to mention MOS:LEAD; I shall elaborate on some of these further on at some appropriate future time, for writing a proper lead should be the last thing on one's mind at this stage, given how in-comprehensive and incomplete the body of the article is. I'd submit that editors should first make efforts to develop the body to provide a neutral, balanced, and comprehensive information about the subject before jumping into the lead, which by its very nature, summarizes the most important content of the body of the article. If you still think otherwise, then work on it in your userspace instead of mainspace, taking into account the issues raised here. Thanks. MBlaze Lightning 13:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:MBlaze Lightning you are again attempting stonewalling here on my efforts, if you do not have time or are unwilling to engage in a constructive discussion to improve the page, you probably should avoid the page altogether.
 * Everything in the lead draft Talk:Rafale deal controversy/Sandbox above is completely sourced to reliable sources. if you are disputing the sources, you have to be specific and point the problem. If you have specific concerns about any content in the LEAD, then point out the concern with diff and your preferred version of the content and I will be happy to include it in the draft version and the sections about other objections that I created above. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Problems exists with your lead as observed by others. Lead doesn't need 'reliable sources', it is just a summary of the content in the article. Labelling genuine concerns and suggestions as 'stonewalling your efforts' is not helpful. You had raised issues about the lead on 28 December and you had been clearly told that we have to keep  neutral content on body. This is not to say that lead cannot be developed but it should be developed with neutral content reflecting the body. Your proposal fails to do that. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * DBigXray I am not sure why this is being repeated because we have already discussed this earlier. You claimed above that "", while accusing me of having 'no regard for CONSENSUS or factual accuracy of the article or even WP:STATUSQUO.' These claims are absolutely incorrect as the page history which shows this editor was editing the page weeks before you even made your first edit. I am sorry but you should agree here with the obvious.

I don't see anything new in your additions to 'your threads' that has not been already responded and clarified umpteen times in this thread alone. You don't have to just keep arguing until you find someone to support your version which is itself not even interpreting the sources and giving inappropriate balance to a particular point of view. If you really want to us ignore WP:RSPRIMARY and these many reliable secondary (operative word) sources, then that would really never happen.

It is not within our policy to accept your interpretation of the primary material, or any of the dodgy opinion pieces (you provided), (which we don't use for statement of facts), especially those by involved 'leader' of 'opposition parties' that you misrepresented as those by 'NDTV' in disregard of WP:RSOPINION. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Shivkarandholiya12 Here is the diff 16 December 2018 which shows that MBlaze Lightning had added all these biased and disputed content into the articles. and has been reverted by so kindly avoid using the word WP:STATUSQUO.
 * If you have specific concerns about any article content, then point out the concern with diff and your preferred version of the content and I will be happy to include it in the draft version and the sections about other objections that I created above. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't had the time to review the sources yet, but I'll make a couple of observations on the interactions here. First, this article and the issue it covers are so new that the idea of a consensus version is meaningless. Second, removing a sourced lead with the edit summary "restoring sourced content" is misleading and disruptive. Third, we really shouldn't be adding content to the lead that isn't already in the body, but the current lead is also completely inadequate; it doesn't even say why the damn thing is a controversy in the first place. Finally, reverting content citing a lack of consensus is okay if and only if you also raise (or mention a discussion of) specific issues with that content. "Fails NPOV" and "Misuses sources" isn't good enough if you're unwilling to discuss the specifics of why NPOV is being violated and how sources are being misused. Vanamonde (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That I'm not sure what are you saying. Dbig was reverted as he was removing bulk of reliably sourced content, among other things as discussed on Talk:Rafale deal controversy. As to the lead, as many as 4 editors have expressed their disagreement over it, and specific concerns have been raised above. And like others, I'm not sure why are we even discussing the lead when the content in the body hasn't materialized and is thoroughly incomplete as is. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Shivkarandholiya12 and User:MBlaze Lightning can you guys stop filibustering and comment on the actual content that needs to be improved ? If you are objecting any line in the article that I added kindly point the diff of the problem, add link of the source that proves it is a problem and explain why it needs to be changed and changed to what, provide a solution (in the form of text that should be added into the article) that way, we all can work towards a consensus version for the article. You can even go ahead and make changes to Talk:Rafale deal controversy/Sandbox as per your liking so that it can be discussed further. Everything that is in the lead will be in the article in a more expanded form so dont claim not in the article text as a reason to stonewall Lead improvements. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Page protection
, I just saw that you fully-protected the page. However, the version that you protected has no consensus whatsoever. Even a casual glance at the page history will show that DBigXray has been edit warring against multiple users since weeks to get rid of the content that he doesn't like, all the while stonewalling on this talkpage. In view of this fact, I'd recommend that you restore the status-quo version, which would be this, so as to encourage DBigXray to engage in a constructive discussion here and get support for his changes, which he currently lacks. MBlaze Lightning 12:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is going to die just because the page is at WP:WRONGVERSION for three days. Please discuss at the talk page and try to come to consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User:MBlaze Lightning it will be more helpful for the article if you respond to my last ping here and start discussing the actual issues that you have with the content instead of talking about editors. And it is interesting to note that even after achieving consensus as discussed in the these sections above which were marked resolved, you are reverting to your own preferred version and then you claim no consensus. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What you wrote is not only complete falsehood, but also something you cannot substantiate. When did I reverted to "to (my) own preferred version"? What are you even implying? MBlaze Lightning  14:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:MBlaze Lightning calling others edits as falsehood simply because you dont agree/like with it is wrong approach for consensus building, something that you have to stop right now. Even if you believe it is false why cant you pinpoint those "complete falsehoods" explaining with your source that proves it is false and then we can discuss about how to improve. All you are doing on this talk page is returning every now and then and adding more & more vitriolic accusations and comments on editor instead of content. do you believe that accusing me of falsehoods will resolve the content disputes that you are claiming here ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that's a complete misrepresentation of what I said; because I was specifically referring to the false allegations you made about me ("you are reverting to your own preferred version", etc). MBlaze Lightning  17:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:MBlaze Lightning I have explained in sections below   all my diffs that you pointed above, please join the discussion there. If you are seeing problems in the article, then kindly point the diff of the problem, add link of the source that proves it is a problem and provide a solution (in the form of text that should be added into the article) that way, we all can work towards a consensus version for the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 December 2018
Why are the people are CENSORING the facts? I recovered the correct material TWO times, but page keeps getting censored again and again and now I can't edit it. Those are just the facts as reported by mainstream media, yet they are being repeatedly censored on Wikipedia, which, ironically, boasts of reporting the existing mainstream facts. Please DO NOT censor the facts and stay faithful to the goal of reporting facts. I wrote a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of the reaction from both sides of the political spectrum, the petitioners and Dassault Aviation to the Indian Supreme Court verdict in a chronological order taking into account all the significant reactions. I also made sure all the important existing material remain preserved essentially in my write-up, yet it too was CENSORED in its entirety, and superseded by a blatantly lopsided write-up, which placed an undue emphasis on the reactions from the petitioners, whose petitions were quashed by the court, while shrugging off or outrightly erasing the reactions by other stakeholders.

See my write-up here:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafale_deal_controversy&diff=875288413&oldid=875288056

Click on the following link showing an old version of the page, 'which should be recovered....it also contains my write-up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafale_deal_controversy&diff=875698049&oldid=875697420

If the people of this page can't be expected to edit neutrally and without any hidden agenda, then I ask an independent moderator for keeping an eagle eye on the page and foil all attempts to suppress the facts. NavjotSR (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Your concerns are noted, and I essentially agree with them, despite your rhetoric. Although not much can be done right now given the page will remain protected for the next two day before we can edit. Again, I agree that the said version should be restored. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. A lot of your edits in the response section was politicial mudslingings and WP:UNDUE if you think a particualr line is relevant and must be added, please start a new section and explain why you feel it must be added to the article and then we can discuss on it. none is censoring anything but adding opinions as facts is not done.   D Big X ray ᗙ  14:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted your trolling you did here:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rafale_deal_controversy&diff=876001486&oldid=875983696


 * You are not an admin who is allowed to moderate this request. NavjotSR (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * NavjotSR, Noting that you have reverted my reply on the edit request with a blatant personal attack. You should remove this attack or risk being blocked.
 * An Admin here has no special rights to approve your controversial version. The only way forward here is to discuss the edits and make consensus. And not to edit war your own preferred version of the article which is controversial and factually incorrect and misleading.
 * Your edits here were adding nonsense such as this below into the article.
 * No admin in his right mind can approve un-encyclopedic content such as this above.
 * Shivkarandholiya12 and NavjotSR The article has been locked out so that you guys can stop edit warring and join the talk page for discussion and not to make edit request to get back your own preferred version bypassing the discussion. I would suggest you to join the threads below or create more to explain your stand for improving the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To conclude that your removal of the edit request which wanted an admin to moderate (who have 'special rights' to make edits to fully protected pages) constituted 'trolling' behaviour and that is not a personal attack even if you think it was offensive. You have not shown evidence how you are an admin. Which admin discussion you are talking about if you claim that no admin would accept this request? Similarly you are trying very hard to hog the whole page with your absurd.
 * Stop making vague handwaves. No bits in my version are 'factually incorrect and misleading', everything was sourced nicely to reliable sources.
 * I am still can't see how that paragraph containing significant and much reported reactions from the leaders of the ruling party, against whom so called corruption charges were leveled, should be called 'nonsense'. It seems like you are only interested in promoting your agenda. Why their reactions should be treated any different from the petitioners' reaction that everyone else (except you) believe have been given undue weight in your version.
 * Since you have nothing better to say you can move on now and stop edit warring yourself. I have removed the request because I can now recover the version you are censoring. Thanks. NavjotSR (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are seeing problems in the article, then kindly point the diff of the problem, add link of the source that proves it is a problem and provide a solution (in the form of text that should be added into the article) that way, we all can work towards a consensus version for the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are seeing problems in the article, then kindly point the diff of the problem, add link of the source that proves it is a problem and provide a solution (in the form of text that should be added into the article) that way, we all can work towards a consensus version for the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)