User talk:Erik-the-red

Welcome

Hello Erik-the-red, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! alphaChimp laudare 23:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Erik-the-red. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Erik-the-red. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dhola Post; 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Where was the "consensus" when you unilaterally made the significant changes to the article on 22 February 2020? You didn't open any section on the article talk page. You simply took it upon yourself to claim that Dhola isn't in Tibet and that "Dhola Post" is still under Indian Army control.Erik-the-red (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There was no substance in the stub that I found there, nor any evidence that Dhola is in Tibet now. Is it in Tibet now? If so, can you provide sources for it?

Even assuming it is in Tibet now, there is no content for it that warrants a Wikipedia article. So, I still don't see how you can maintain that reams of well-sourced and informative content should be deleted and the useless stub should be reinstated just to appease certain nationalistic posturings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks for admitting that you unilaterally decided by yourself to make extensive changes to the article without appealing to "consensus" first. So it is quite hypocritical for you to posture about consensus when I reverted the article to the last version prior to your changes that you unilaterally made without consensus. As to your (rhetorical) questions, I already provided you a source that Dhola not only is in Tibet now, but was in Tibet in 1962.

That source is Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report. You dismissed it on account of it being a primary source (which is yet another false statement from you: Part I is a secondary source because it "relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" in Part II.)

I would also like to point out how hilarious and ironic it is that you offhandedly mention "certain nationalistic posturings" when Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Government of India. I advise that you look in the mirror more often.

Lastly, as I wrote to you elsewhere, if you would like to claim that Dhola Post is an active Indian Army base, then by all means, I'm happy to read your sources for that claim. I ask only that they're in English and readily accessible online.Erik-the-red (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing nationalistic about the title or content I wrote for that page. So please refrain from making cheap shots.

If there was genuinely a place called Dhola in Tibet that was notable I would have left it alone, and started a new page. But the stub that you or whoever else created was only talking about the Indian post, despite claiming it to be in Tibet.

I stand by what I said about the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report. Please feel free to take it to WP:RSN if you don't believe me.

As for the McMahon Line, the content that you deleted makes it amply clear that its alignment was being actively disputed by the two sides when the conflict started. So it is certainly not clear-cut from Wikipedia point of view, as to which side it belongs. Titling a page as Dhola, Tibet would constitute WP:POV. Right now, the OpenStreetMap puts it on the Indian side of the LAC, and Google Maps puts it on the Chinese side, and the road infrastructure makes it look like OpenStreetMap is correct.

In any case, since you haven't provided any policy-based reason for deleting 12,000 bytes of well-sourced content, I am going to reinstate it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," but it's a "cheap shot" for me to flip it back at you by pointing out that the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Government of India.

Although I find your hypocrisy quite annoying, pointing it out is not productive to achieving the consensus that you purport to value. So in terms of resolutions, I am fine with a separate page called "Dhola, Tibet" and a separate page called "Dhola Post." Alternatively, I'm fine with one page called "Dhola Post" which clarifies that Dhola Post was established north of the McMahon Line and therefore was situated in Tibet, China.

Because if the best evidence you have for Dhola being in India or being in disputed territory is that OpenStreetMaps, a wiki-like crowdsourced map, places Dhola in India, that's painfully weak "evidence" and in no way contradicts the fact that in Part I of the Henderson-Brooks Bhagat report, Dhola Post was repeatedly noted to have been established north of the McMahon Line (and therefore outside of the disputed area). You might as well cite your own edits as evidence for your edits if you're going to rely on OpenStreetMaps.Erik-the-red (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dhola Post shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You might want to follow your own advice: "To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted." Or, you could keep being a hypocrite. Your choice.Erik-the-red (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)