Talk:Rafale deal controversy/Archive 2

Main discussion
, I've reverted a series of edits by you, for the following reasons: because you outright removed a considerable amount of well-referenced content, while simultaneously adding cherry-picked content from a primary source (e.g.,, ), and you did so, in most cases, spouting your personal opinions (e.g., ), which is disruptive. You've also removed content, which again was sourced from mainstream secondary sources under the false pretext of "misrepresentation", (e.g.,, ) when the content was perfectly representative of the cited sources. While 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. Please explain them one by one and get consensus. MBlaze Lightning 14:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am willing to discuss each of my edits. Please explain why you disagree and explain your position so that I can reply to it. merely pointing diffs and accusing is not helpful. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've outlined my concerns succinctly above. You need to realize that it is incumbent upon you to explain your edits and get support if you want them restored. You haven't done so yet, but you still went ahead to put them back in the article, which again is disruptive. Brushing off my concerns with a terse response certainly won't get you anywhere, nor will the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour. MBlaze Lightning  15:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Instead of having a confrontational attitude against fellow editors that got you banned indefinitely from India pakistan articles by Arbcom  why dont you edit in a collaborative manner. This kind of extremist attitude will soon lead you to a site ban if you do not improve. I have explained my edits in the edit summary. you say you have succinctly outlined your concerns, but all I see above is your vitriolic accusations and my diffs above, I need you to explain what you think is the problem with those edits (with evidence for your position) so that I can respond to it. and remember WP:Comment on the content, not the contributor -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * MBlaze you are showing obvious WP:OWN issues and this is highly disruptive, please refrain from blanket reverts and restoring WP:REFBOMBs discuss on the talk first. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds ridiculous and misleading, because I'm actually collaborating with you by asking you to explain your edits, in order to reach consensus, whilst you're just forcing me to quote myself again, and since you insist upon it: you've removed a considerable amount of well-referenced content from the Judiciary's stand section, whilst simultaneously adding cherry-picked content from a primary source, and you did so, in most cases, citing your personal opinions. You've also removed content, which again was sourced from mainstream secondary sources under the false pretext of "misrepresentation", when the content was perfectly representative of the cited sources. Please explain why.  MBlaze Lightning  16:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

MBL, I see that you are protesting my edits, bt you need to actually point why exactly you are disputing my edit and what you would want it to be made, so that we can have a meaningful discussion to improve the particular line. I have started one below as an example for you to follow. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm actually pointing out why I am disputing your edits, and since I do not see an explanation forthcoming as to why, among other things, you engaged in mass deletion of reliably sourced content on one pretext or another, notwithstanding the above neatly laid out questions, and the subsequent repetition of the same, I take it as you do not want to engage in a constructive discussion and get consensus for your edits, in which case there is no need for me to post in this thread any-longer, unless of course, you change your current approach.  MBlaze Lightning  12:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:MBlaze Lightning I asked you to share the diff, why you think it is wrong and what is the correct version for it. Your comment on top that you somehow "neatly describing your concern" is nothing but a list of accusation of disruption without saying why ? Unless I understand what your concern is how can I proceed explaining if the Question itself is not clear. And again I see you have reverted and starting adding back your own version in complete disregard of talk page consensus.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DBigXray, you need to focus on content not editor. From what I can see the above editor 'shared' not one but a numerous diffs along with better reasons as to why they were against Wikipedia policies. When a person ably backs the 'accusations', they are no longer accusations but statements of facts. I also don't see where MBlazeLightning has reverted you any recently. He was restoring content per his last edits. This article is attracting some on-going news events and should be edited carefully. Misleading edit summaries won't help us. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shivkarandholiya12 so why dont you start with why you are restoring the WP:REFBOMBs and poor WP:LEAD. if you dispute something talk about it and we can resolve with discussion. See the threads below and create similar so that we can discuss your objections. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Come off it, . The diffs are there in my first comment, for all to see. So stop going around in circles, repeating yourself. MBlaze Lightning  14:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So why are you going in circle ? Yes, I can see the diffs, what is your problem with the diff ? are they not reliably sourced for you ? did I write something that is not mentioned in the source ? what really is the problem there ? and where is the evidence that shows it is a problem ? You are asking me to answer somthing without actually stating the question. and this is the third time you are doing the same. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User:DBigXray, please answer to the actual arguments raised by the other editor, in place of stonewalling them or pretending as if they were never raised or you want to only hear the question and never answer it.  Problems with your edits are too apparent and have been already described. You have been asked often to explain why you have a) deleted a large so much of sourced content citing your personal opinions; b) deleted content citing misrepresentation when the no source was misrepresented; and c) supplanted the deleted content with cherry picked text from primary sources. These are unacceptable edits and are not allowed. Don't say that evasive behaviour here notwithstanding WP:ONUS and refusal to discuss your edits in face of these objections is unacceptable, because it isn't. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shivkarandholiya12 and User:MBlaze Lightning, you are asking me to answer the actual arguments ? where are the arguments ? unless you make the arguments I cannot really answer, it appears as though you feel putting a diff and accusing is enough. Please note that every edit that I made was included with inline citation that supports the said content, You need to read the source. all my individual edits had edit summaries that explained my edits.  I asked both of you 4 times but it appears to me that you are determined not to explain your problem or objections. See that sections below and start new one if I missed anything that you dispute. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is concerning to see that you are still not willing to collaborate with what multiple editors have already said. Since you created a plethora of sections just to repeat your edit summaries, offering nothing that was not already refuted, and since all of them concern same removal which we have already discussed above, I am responding here: Your personal opinions have no bearing and/or place here. Read WP:RSPRIMARY and understand that Wikipedia reports what the reliable secondary sources say about a topic, or about the primary material since Wikipedia is itself not a primary source of information, it relies on what secondary sources report. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shivkarandholiya12, you will not create your own discussion threads, neither will you participate in the threads created by me, and you are simply edit warring here without engaging in discussion. Please note that this is highly disruptive behavior and the admin can issue blocks if you continue your editwarring. you have reverted User:Akhiljaxxn falsely claiming a consensus, while it is clear from this talk page that there is no consensus for the edits that you are repeatedly edit warring into the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I know I won't bludgeon like you do, but I just replied you and you have failed to discuss your violation of WP:RSPRIMARY. Per WP:STATUSQUO and clear agreement by 4 editors, I restored the right version while AkhilJaxxn only asked a question which has been appropriately answered to him with my revert that consensus exists in talk page. Though since he has not even participated here, I can assume good faith and say he is unaware. You can go start an RfC and try convincing people that you should be allowed to violate WP:RSPRIMARY and I will vehemently oppose it. You have no other way because bludgeoning and evasion of these concerns will be likely ignored. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look into the article history the controversial content was added by MBlaze Lightning just a day age before my edits, so if you are going to claim WP:STATUSQUO then you should be reverting to the version before the edits by MBlaze Lightning because the dispute started due to that edits. The simple reason that you are reverting to a preferred recent version shows that you have no regard for CONSENSUS or factual accuracy of the article or even WP:STATUSQUO. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , please desist from using the talkpage for spreading falsehood like you've been doing notwithstanding reprimands. Comments like that just goes to show a lack of scruples on your part in resorting to absolute falsehoods and prevarications, and are just an evidence of your inability to refute the actual arguments put forth by others. You were nowhere to be seen when I was updating the page, as can be clearly seen from the article's revision history. You turned up only after over a week following my edits, by which time my text had stood unquestioned in its original state, thus making it a part of the de-facto silent consensus, which the current version of the page reflects. But that's not the case with your edits, which were contested by me on the same day. And, like I had said earlier, you ought to realize that the WP:ONUS is on you to make reasonable efforts to obtain consensus for your edits; but unfortunately it appears that you were never really interested in doing that. MBlaze Lightning  17:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What said. I'd just add that notwithstanding the time that has elapsed just trying to get the point across that you don't go around removing large chunk of well referenced material from articles, citing your personal opinions or throwing vague allegations of "misrepresentation", when even a casual glance disproves that, since I opened this discussion,, up until yesterday was still like, "where are the arguments?", "where are the diffs?", "why are you asking me answer somthing without actually stating the question?," and so on. Needless to say, it pains me to see that DBigXray still thinks no arguments were put forward, nothing was refuted; when even a casual glance of my very first comment on this talkpage would show, for all to see, that I made my reasons for reverting DBigXray's edits clear, which were largely ignored throughout the discussion proceedings by him. In the aforementioned sections created yesterday, I see nothing but the same repetition of the same three or four refuted rationale that DBigXray had advanced in his edit summaries.Even though Shivkarandholiya12 has already said what I was going to say, I'd just add that literally every source covering this unambiguously describes the SC verdict as a clean chit for the Indian government, given the categorical statements by the supreme court that it did not found any " substantial matter to interfere with issue of procurement, pricing and offset partner ", nor it found any " substantial element to show that there is any commercial favouritism to any private entity ". Given the fact that the mainstream reliable sources have been explicit in their usage of such a term, that's what this article will report as well in exactly the same way in compliance with Identifying reliable sources. We are not going to censor the facts on the basis of someone's personal opinion of what is right and wrong.Unless somebody comes up with new and persuasive arguments in support of the rather weak position that DbigXray tried to defend, this should be the end of it. The arguments are clear to the reader or evaluator, and so is the consensus.  MBlaze Lightning  17:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi User:MBlaze Lightning, I am quoting you from your statement above . Well, how would I know that you were updating this page, did you invite me to review your "updates" if so please share with me the diffs because I did not get any such invitation.
 * This incident was all over the news and when I became aware of the news, I made corrections to the mess that you had created with 13 edits on 18 December. What you are calling facts above are obvious misrepresentations and I have replied to you explained the problem with your edits in detail in thread below   . The article is currently in the bad shape and instead of commenting on me, you should join the threads below and explain your objections clearly so that we can reach consensus. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:MBlaze Lightning 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  14:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

section header
re: Special:Diff/875070519
 * Like I said, the original header was perfectly fine because we're here discussing about the series of contentious edits you've made to this article. It's also not in violation of the TPO guideline, contrary to your claim. Now, will you stop tampering with the header in view of the objection, and per the very same guideline. MBlaze Lightning  16:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:TPO again and I am quoting it for you.
 * You have deliberately selected an attacking heading with which I am not ok with, so following TPO I have made it "more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided"-- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi again, DbigXray. I'm curious: where is the attack in that? Why are you making things up? The issue with your edits wasn't just limited to a single section, which is why the original header was appropriate, and indeed descriptive. MBlaze Lightning  11:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that all the controversial misinterpretation of the Supreme court judgement has been added by you, as the article history suggests. and your edits were already reverted by User:Fatsdominopizzeria with the edit summary  "".  So tell me, why should we not rename this section as "Source misrepresentation by MBlaze Lightning" ? the same logic applies to you as well.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? You made a rather ridiculous claim that there was an element of "attack" in the original header ; that's a claim you haven't been able to substantiate yet. As to my edits, If you believe that I have engaged in "source misrepresentation", then feel free to open a new section and substantiate your allegations on the spot because that's a rather serious charge. MBlaze Lightning  12:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:MBlaze Lightning are you ever going to discuss the article content you have problems about or are you only interested in Talk page section titles and edit warring/ANI threads ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not the first time you've failed to substantiate your claims. And, you know very well that you are yourself guilty of the very thing, you criticize me for. MBlaze Lightning  14:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So why did you change the talkpage section heading ? I have explained why it is inappropriate and yet instead of discussing on the article content you are interested in name calling. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So why did you change the talkpage section heading ? I have explained why it is inappropriate and yet instead of discussing on the article content you are interested in name calling. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Addition of undue political mudslinging in Reactions section
The below three paragraphs have been added by User:NavjotSR and restored through mass reverts by User:Shivkarandholiya12. These paragraphs that were added contain nothing more than political mudslinging. No reason has been given while adding these into the article. I had removed them since they do not add any value to the article and adding statement such as " ‘Hum to doobe hain sanam tum ko bhi le doobenge’ (I have drowned so I will take you and drown)" is not helping the articles in being encyclopaedic in any way. The response in the version I had added contained the response of Government, and the petitioners who are involved in the supreme court case which was between Govt vs petitioners. The content was only limited to the ones that are needed for a proper understanding of the topic.

Please explain the reasons why these lines below should not be removed from the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

House disruption
Please discuss your edit here. Why do you think your addition belongs in the lead and why are you adding it without any preceding context? —Gazoth (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The first part of the article should summarise the rest of the article. The article itself says about congress disruption happened on multiple instances so I added that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by School Wiki Group Leader (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. You still haven't addressed the WP:NPOV issues caused by adding that line to the lead without any context, and you have continued to add that line again and again after being asked not to do so without coming to an agreement here. You're just being disruptive now. —Gazoth (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)