User talk:SnowyMeadows/Archive2018 1

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)

ARBIPA sanctions alert
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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  D Big X ray  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. -- D Big X ray  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. -- D Big X ray  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)
 * Ok. Be careful. check the RFC and add ur part-- D Big X ray  18:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
 D Big X ray  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. -- D Big X ray  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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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.   D Big X ray '' 19:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * whether you intend or not is immaterial now that you have crossed the 3RR, Self revrt or be blocked. -- D Big X ray  19:33, 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. -- D Big X ray  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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  D Big X ray  20:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
 D Big X ray  21:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * just remove your ludicrous claim. once you realize. -- D Big X ray  21:15, 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  D Big X ray '' 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-- D Big X ray  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. -- D Big X ray  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. -- D Big X ray   20:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  D Big X ray  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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  D Big X ray  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)


 * Hi, I am willing to WP:AGF and give you a chance to self revert, since you have already violated the WP:3RR. Kindly cooperate to improve the article. -- D Big X ray  21:42, 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)


 * Ok, Please see below notice. -- D Big X ray   22:22, 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  D Big X ray  22:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow