User talk:FoxtAl

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, FoxtAl! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to my talk page

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Xtreme o7 and Indian hate speech. Thank you. Bsoyka (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FoxtAl! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Seeking advice on personal attack, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FoxtAl! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Seeking advice on article's title change, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source "2021 World Air Forces" is an unreliable source and has a lot of incorrect information on the number of aircraft that PAF operates. For example PAF has retired almost all F-7Ps and operates 54 F-7PGs but the source "2021 World Air Forces" lists 135 active F-7s which is clearly wrong. So I would advise not to use unreliable sources. There's plenty of evidence on the Internet on how many aircraft PAF operates. An Asphalt (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you can't make edit based on your assumption on wikipedia, it would be contributed as WP:OR. I hope you understand. I'm restoring the edit based on the cited source hoping that you won't revert it, let me warn you, if you do, then that would considered as edit warring. FoxtAl (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have added citation this time. Also I checked the "2021 World Air Forces" source and it has correct number of F-16s i.e 75. The 44 that it says is only for single seat F-16A/C. If you scroll down to "Trainers" it list 31 additional F-16 B/D aircraft. So a total of 75. But unfortuanley that soucre does not include JF-17Bs, it only includes JF-17A. So, I have added citations this time. An Asphalt (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, as you did here . Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans. Further the sourced content in the table from 2021 does not mention the numbers you claim- please provide a reliable source before reinserting. - FOX 52 ^talk! 15:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: What to do if the contributor doesn't get it even if explained well in edit summary [1] and talk section here, and about my edit summary [2], what should I assume if you try to tally 24+8+73 to total 123 in your edits here -[3] [4] [5] even after letting you know that what you're doing is wrong in my edit summaries and the said talk section? —FoxtAl (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2019 Balakot airstrike 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.
Please establish consensus for the changes you wish to make using the ongoing discussion or dispute resolution instead of restoring those changes repeatedly. Abecedare (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: If those WP:GF edits are considered blatant edit warring then other editor should also be warned. It should also be noted that WP:BRD was actually initiated by me, can be found here Talk:2019 Balakot airstrike/Archive 1#FoxtAl's "unconstructive edits". Thank you —FoxtAl (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initiating discussion is not a license to repeat the disputed edits. The point of BRD is to reach a consensus to decide whether those edits should be restored or not. As I said above: "Please establish consensus for the changes you wish to make using the ongoing discussion or dispute resolution instead of restoring those changes repeatedly." Abecedare (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus reached is to restore a factually incorrect statement as those mentioned one by one in the discussion with citation, what would you do? Would you respect the consensus or put your faith on WP:GF and remove it? I would go with second option if I have WP:RS, In this case I had, and fortunately no such consensus (to restore error) is reached. —FoxtAl (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DR that I have linked to twice previously. Abecedare (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will! but before that please go through the discussion, consider my edits and my edit summaries, cross check them with the sources provided. I may sound rude but I'm not a violator of wiki policies. Thank you —FoxtAl (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. If you have questions, please contact me. FDW777 (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]