User talk:SnowyMeadows/Archive2021 1

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the message in regards to the Elon Musk talk

Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I have edited my reply:) Is this the correct way to write to you by the way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoMadsen88 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@BoMadsen88: Depends on the situation, but it would be generally more appropriate to just reply to me on your talk page in the same thread (just to keep the conversation thread easy to follow and in one place), and additionally use the reply template so that I get notified. Don't forget to sign your comments. Your full comment would be something like this:

:{{reply to|Username}} Message text. --~~~~

Hopefully that helps --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a Thank you is in order

Hello,

I have just seen your message at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020.

This was posted after I posted my concern and criticism of Qrep2020. I state basically exactly what you are saying. So I assume this is all thanks to me pointing all his biased edits out to you. If so it would be really nice to get credit somewhere. I have made a ton of work to try to point out what was wrong with the Elon Musk article in the talk page, but was never backed up. it seems the Elon Musk article is waaaaaay more unbiased AND Qrep2020 has been noticed thanks to me - So credit for my help would be really nice.. BoMadsen88 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@BoMadsen88: The Elon Musk page has users accusing other users of bias daily. What made me report QRep2020 for COI is my discovery of a lawsuit with details that appeared to match up to QRep2020's account. Considering the ANI case against you, you should focus on strictly adhering to Wikipedia policies. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Elon Musk

Hi, could you please clarify what you feel are the egregious claims and "unsourced allegations" I've made regarding Elon Musk? And could you point me to the discussion where you brought this up with the Oversight committee? I stand by my research and conclusions, so I would like a chance to defend and/or clarify my views. Thanks. Stonkaments (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: I privately emailed Oversight committee with the information. Honestly I'm not sure it's appropriate to discuss. You were reading in between the lines of sources to promote a conspiracy involving a living person, news organizations, and a scientific journal... all using an interpretation not directly reflected in any source. It seemed like a pretty blatant BLP vio. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)