Jump to content

User talk:Adamgerber80/Archives/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Ratan Tata

Mate the whole world knows Ratan Tata is a Parsi. The list of parsis page on wiki says that too.

Refer to below links for your clearing your ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parsis https://business.mapsofindia.com/business-leaders/ratan-naval-tata.html https://www.firstpost.com/business/ratan-tata-cyrus-mistry-fallout-closed-parsi-community-miffed-at-star-members-public-spat-3082288.html https://www.vccircle.com/who-ratan-tata-and-how-real-tata-he/

Below link is more clear than anything. Chaandra is the FIRST NON-PARSI chairman hence RATAN TATA the EX Chairman is a parsi. https://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/tata-sons-appoints-natarajan-chandrasekaran-as-new-chairman-succeeds-ratan-tata/story-P8GPdnxqPuCqgwLWzGhFIJ.html

Hope this helps. Now I want you to go and update that on his wiki page.

PukkaParsi Wikipedia is based in guidelines and certain rules. One of them is that we need a WP:RS to include any information here. Here we cannot use Wikipedia as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR. So when you point to List_of_Parsis this is not valid. Second, we need a direct source which claims he was born in a Parsi family which one this source ([1]) does. All other sources are either WP:SPS or WP:SYNTH on your part. Third and most important, is WP:CASTE which is applicable to all India-Pakistan articles which states that one should not mention such social groups on pages. This makes your edit on Ratan Tata and many other pages a big issue. I would recommend you to not add this across all pages. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will not update them. But I would like to point out Parsis are a unique identity in the world and they have always been identified separately regardless of where they are born raised etc. Parsis are a race not just a community and their lineage is the most ancient in the world. So indeed this must be updated for parsis to be identified. Everyone has an identity and rata tata has one too and hes a parsi. Kindly let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks

PukkaParsi We have gone over this. Do not add Parsi word everywhere. I understand that you have a certain view about this subject but for all purposes per Wikipedia policy this is not allowed. Second, you cannot add content and then add a citation required template hoping someone will add a reference. You have to provide a WP:RS or do not add the content. Please be careful with your future edits otherwise I will have to involve an administrator. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok... yeah the citation thing was a first n the last... hopefully when there are no more parsis in this world, wiki tells the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PukkaParsi (talk • contribs) 06:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Cyrus Todiwala hi, could you tell me whats wrong with Cyrus Todiwalas update. He has appeared on a TV show royal recipes. I have seen the show myself. I had also added the link to the show. Kindly advice why have u undone that. Please explain in non technical language. Thanks

PukkaParsi Two points, do NOT remove somebody else's comment from any talk page. If this involves your own comments in a discussion then also do not remove your own comments. This is a big NO and will likely get you blocked if repeated in the future. Now to your question on Cyrus Todiwala is the content you added seems to be daily news coverage not something which is notable to be on Wikipedia. Have a look at WP:NOTNEWS and what this constitutes. Another simple example here would be assume Ratan Tata came on TV and said something or gave a generic interview. This cannot be included here since these are daily news articles. I would highly recommend you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines. And yes this does take time, and until then I would stick to small non-controversial edits. If you are unsure then ask on the article talk page. Thanks.

Adamgerber80, You say above "Third and most important, is WP:CASTE which is applicable to all India-Pakistan articles which states that one should not mention such social groups on pages.". Please can you point out the quote on this page that says this? Acharya63 (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, thanks for the same. Could you pls respond to Acharya who makes a valid point. Also unlike communities in India-Pakistan parsis are not native to India but have been living in India for 1200 years. Even gov of India identifies them separately. They are only Indians by nationality. That goes for other identities who live say in america they are americans but by decent they may be iranians parsis germans. You must consider these facts. Let me know if this changes your view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PukkaParsi (talk • contribs) 05:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles which you are editing are WP:INDIA articles and thus come under the guidelines for that project. Again, please have a look at Wikipedia guidelines and how articles are classified into projects before making that argument. Second, all most all of your edits were without a source which is still the primary problem. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, Thanks for clarifying. Just one last doubt. For Ratan Tata you said below source is valid but yet you say I cannot update the true facts of his identity. Its a bit contradicting your first and second statement. Could you confirm one last time if I can update Ratan Tatas Ethnicity based on below article. Many thanks for your contribution and keep up the good work. https://www.vccircle.com/who-ratan-tata-and-how-real-tata-he — Preceding unsigned comment added by PukkaParsi (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

PukkaParsi I have a clarification query going on with another senior editor who has involved in the community discussion behind this policy. Once I have a clear answer, I will update that article myself with the reference you have provided (if it is permitted). I have watched over Ratan Tata article for quite some time and will definitely help in improving it. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PukkaParsi (talk • contribs) 03:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"Surgical strike" article

Yeah, sorry about that, I was planning to break the articles into two, but got caught up in the organisation of a medical conference and didn't get the chance. I will see to it in the next few days. Basically what needs to be done is to move the following sections into a new article: Background; Surgical strikes; Timeline (28–29 September - Indian version, Pakistani Version); and reword the section From 30 September as a summarized aftermath section (in that new article). As for the India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present) article, all of the sections I mentioned should me simply summarized into a paragraph or two as a background section and then the main section would be From 30 September, reworded as possibly Cross-border clashes. I would also suggest the name of the new article be something like 2016 Indian Line of Control strike or something like that. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur and was my thought process as well. This way the new article can be a transition article between 2016 Uri attack and India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present). IMO, the name of the article will have to be carefully thought since multiple editors might take issue to it one way or the other. We do have another article to go by as reference 2015 Indian counter-insurgency operation in Myanmar but that is not very useful here. Apparently, the operation does not have a code name either which could be used. I think 2016 Indian Line of Control strike is a good name to start with, although this is not the WP:COMMONNAME, but I am also open to ideas from other editors. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Its done, check it out. EkoGraf (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
EkoGraf Looks pretty good. I think you have done a pretty decent job which includes updating the infobox with the correct people at the time of the strike. I think one thing missing is the Indian claim of the Pakistani soldiers killed in the Pakistani section. Here the numbers vary from 2-9 based on different sources ([2],[3],[4]). I will go ahead and add them. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder Revert

What is the reason for this revert [5]. --Spasage (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS (mentioned but not linked in the edit summary). This is the issue I have pointed with you across multiple pages. Please try to differentiate between what is relevant on Wikipedia and what is just News. If you disagree with that edit, open a discussion on the talk page and I will happily discuss it. Also, other editors who watch over the page can chime in. My page is not for content discussions. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes we can move discussion there. CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder#Potential_operators section deals with potential buyers. What your reverted also talks about a buyer. So, it is relevant. May be it requires a re-write but whole point of this section is to list down potential buyers. --Spasage (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Spasage Before you comment on the article page, do read WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. Because I think you as an editor who has been around for 12 years should know about them and really we should not be having this argument. But I am happy to have one if you so wish. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Simply following the format of the section.--Spasage (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

List of states with nuclear weapons

Hi,

I added information about Pakistan's nuclear triad, which was reverted for not having a reliable source. I provided a news article as a source. Since I am new to editing here, I am not sure what is considered a reliable source and what is not. I will need your advice on it.

The testing of a nuclear capable sea based missile is a well-known incident. Pakistan Army's media wing also broadcasted it: https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/818427713627295745

It was reported by reputed news sources: https://www.dawn.com/news/1307384 https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/pakistan-tests-nuclear-capable-submarine-missile/story-DtqmqA4KQpR5kJmbKPb9lJ.html

Since the article already had information about the land and air based delivery mechanisms, testing of a sea based mechanism completes the triad. Is that not so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umairalizafar (talk • contribs) 05:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Umairalizafar The short answer is no. The long answer is it takes more then just testing a missile to complete a triad. The missile needs to be deployed and submarines sent out on deterrent patrol. The references you link just mention the test and nothing more making it WP:OR on your part to derive something from that. There is a long discussion on my talk page here User_talk:Adamgerber80/Archives/Archive_2#Rollback_of_valid_edits_in_List_of_states_with_nuclear_Weapons. You can also refer to the discussion on the respective talk pages of these articles for better understanding. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

How am I disrupting articles?

I haven’t ever intentionally added anything to any article that I knew to be false, honesty is extremely important to me.

The Punjabi language was created by Sikhs, so putting Sikhs in a list first makes sense. Adding clarifications like ‘present-day’ makes things clearer. I’ve made changes to implicitly emphasize things that I want conveyed, I did do some changes however long ago that I shouldn’t have, but I’ve been careful recently. HardeepSaluja (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@HardeepSaluja: The ordering does not work that way which is purely POV based per Wikipedia guidelines. One can order them based on the number of speakers first or in alphabetical order. So you choose one and declare it when editing (Either of the ones I mentioned are fine not something random like who "created" it first). Also, "present-day" is not required, both India and Pakistan are recent countries and there was no Pakistan or India 100 years ago. So it is redundant. For the future, of your edits are reverted, please discuss them on the talk page of the corresponding article and not repeatedly adding it. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

About removing my edits

Don't remove my edit I gather that imformation.it's for to put some fact between both coutries.thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinyS (talk • contribs) 06:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

VinyS That is content inflation without any sources. Also, it is not required on those pages. If you wish to add them gain consensus first and do not re-add them until you have one. It will be considered disruptive. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Good work Bandhu. From what I have seen so far, you are doing a great work here with a cool head too. Thanks and keep it up. DBigXray 13:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: I earnestly think the current system is broken and needs a new solution. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I am referring to the current Wikipedia system. For example, some of pages were content locked in the past 24 hours because everyone is claiming that their version is the correct WP:STATUSQUO. A page came out of a full lock to only go back into it. (I am not mentioning page names). And this is not the first time in the last 6 months where there have have been multiple WP:SPI, WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:XFD and other forums. This has always been around but has intensified in the last year or so. An admin had suggested to only nominate a editor from either side to edit which sounds more reasonable now (did not at that time). Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ok, I Think both the Wiki and current BJP system (the latter more so ) needs improvements. Both are under attack. talking about the wiki system. Just today i came accross this warning on a user page Special:Diff/717600416. And I felt like wow! This is really a minefield now. Things were never good but this particular development is very troublesome. Shows that basically the things are not administrated the best way or the admins are just too stressed out or overloaded. anyway thats my assumption or opinion. I just recently returned to editing frequently after a long gap. Busy real life. Back in those days too problems happened but were still actively managed. I am still not uptodate with the latest happenings on ANI and recent important debates. Things are never perfect and there is constant improvement. If you do have specific suggestions it would be a good idea to list them somewhere on your userpage or subpage and other relevant noticeboards whenever a related discussion takes place. Seeing your efforts I really hope that you dont loose hope or stop contributing and remain optimistic and continue with the excellent cool head that you have been gifted with. Nothing is perfect, we work on whatever we have. --DBigXray 16:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, that minefield is what makes progress possible. When I first came on, the Kashmir conflict article said stuff like this:

Hari Singh, the maharaja of Kashmir, initially believed that by delaying his decision he could maintain the independence of Kashmir, but, caught up in a train of events that included a revolution among his Muslim subjects along the western borders of the state and the intervention of Pashtun tribesmen, he signed an instrument of accession on 25 October 1947[21] to the Indian union. This was the signal for intervention both by Pakistan, which considered the state to be a natural extension of Pakistan, and by India, which intended to confirm the act of accession.[22]

On the one hand, the scholars say there was no coherent "Pakistan" in 1947. So we can't say "Pakistan" invaded Kashmir. But here we are. There was a coherent Pakistan and it thought Kashmir to be a "natural extension". It has been a long-drawn struggle to bring the article into something resembling reality, and it is still ongoing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  • very funny. Thanks a lot for chiming in, I had almoste invited you here with a TB. I bet Hari Singh would have died laughing after reading the page in that condition. Thanks for your kind efforts so far. I have seen several such examples of nonsense in the name of history. A major source of the problem is the Propaganda that the students of neighbouring country are fed in the name of History. basically a form of brainwashing. and as usual students I feel are the most active lot here, at least in our subcontinent. So its expected that they get a shock of their life seeing things as it is in wiki. Yeah, may be the minefield helps in someway but its a doble edged sword. not recommended.--DBigXray 18:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: I concur with @Kautilya3: that the minefield, though not ideal, is sort of essential to ensure that progress happens given emotions run high for some people when it comes to these topics. Also, I think the Admins can do little given some of these discussions can be get very nuanced and this not from a lack of trying by editors who have indulged in WP:FORUMSHOPPING. It is almost hilariously hypocritical, when an editor went about claiming that there was WP:GAMING given a set of behavior and complained on multiple admin talk pages and then less then a week later resorted to the same behavior on the same set of pages. It is getting to the point where many editors have zero positive contributions on Wikipedia and almost spend all their time in edit wars, accusing each of other of wrong-doing and then dragging everyone to a whole list of noticeboards. Anyways, don't worry, I am not going to stop contributing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't change my editing

Watch Maj Gen Tariq Zameer in 76th FCC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.8.72 (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:RS for your edits. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Adamgerber80/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sant Jarnail Singh Page edits

After re-reading my edits I can appreciate why you felt that a personal opinion was inserted and have since edited the page primarily with referenced facts. Please understand that there is no malice intended behind this post. If you find further issues with the edits please let me know how I can modify the posts in a manner that would align with Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I would strongly recommend you to discuss your contributions on the article talk page. IMO, a huge section of your edits is either not merited on the page, WP:OR and violating WP:NPOV. Please keep these Wikipedia guidelines in mind when you dicuss your edits. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I can post on the article talk page, but on the article talk page you requested that I post on your talk page: "If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page." So I have been trying to follow your instructions, but as a new user having my edits wiped out without any explanations is very intimidating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Warning

I have attempted to correct the false statement alleging that Sant Bhindranwale started the Khalistan movement 3 times due to incorrect citations. You have reverted the page each time and did not address this error in any subsequent edit (the edit had been completed independently at least once with an appropriate description in the Edit Summary field). Please note that because the citations do not support the statement made on the page that this is a violation of Wikipedia's "WP:PROVEIT" policy which states:

  • All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article

Please refrain from reverting this edit in future and let us continue to work together in good faith.

Khalistan Separatist Movement

Hey Adamgerber80! I noticed you reverted the Khalistan movement article after I updated the material to reflect information in the citations. You should always default to an rephrasing instead of blanket removal. I want to come to an agreement, but it's your responsibility to make your concerns known. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Elephanthunter I have replied to your discussion on the talk page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Elephanthunter. Adamgerber80, you also resorted to a blanket removal of my edits to the Sant Jarnail Singh page, without providing specifics about the passages that concerned you. My understanding is that, as editors, we should be respecting the following guidelines:

  • Do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone
  • When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral.

As a new user, I find it extremely intimidating that you would resort to a blanket removal of all of my edits, which I made in segments that included explanations for the edits in the Edit Summary field. I also cited my contributions with reputable sources representing popular perspectives, not my personal perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs) 18:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Southasianresearcher there are quite a bit of issues with your edits. I will open a discussion on the talk page and point them out. Please do not constantly add a huge amount of content on the page which has a lot of problems. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi User:Adamgerber80, I have received feedback from User:SpacemanSpiff and am going to re-post my edits with his recommendations in mind. It has been more than 24 hours and I haven't seen anything from you on the talk page. I'm going to repost my edits re Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale but would ask that you provide more specific concerns with my edits than simply stating "lot of problems". As a new user I would appreciate a more guidance if you continue to police this page. In response to your comment 'constantly add a huge amount of content', I will also see if I can be a little more incremental so that you can keep up with the pace of the edits.

2016 Indian Line of Control strike

Did you see the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Indian Line of Control strike? I really find the NadirAli, Uncle Sargam and Auntie Agni accounts suspicious, not because they are voting for the merging of the content, but because of a pattern. NadirAli and Uncle Sargam voted within an hour of eachother and basically the same (against the article), while people were only voting keep for three days constantly. Not to mention Uncle Sargam's general edits seem to be sporadic. Now, there is this basically newly-created and also sporadic Auntie Agni account. Auntie Agni also relisted the discussion on the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shouldn't it be then relisted on India-related deletion discussions as well? What do you think? I have asked an admin for his opinion about listing the discussion on India-related deletion discussions as well. EkoGraf (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems two of them really did turn out to be sockpuppets. They've been blocked. EkoGraf (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi EkoGraf Sorry for the delayed response. I have been busy with travel and work. Yes, I did indeed see them and had a run in with both the socks across multiple pages. The general area of India Pakistan conflict pages is strewn with either editors who push a nationalistic POV or socks of editors who have been blocked in the past (on both sides). Every now and then we see a newly created account (potentially a sock) enter the area and disrupt the pages. There was also a pretty intense WP:ARE a week or so ago which lead to about 10 editors being indefinitely topic banned from India-Pakistan topics broadly. You can have a look at this here. If you do go through the list you will see quite a few familiar names (I guess form your earlier interaction with them on other India-Pakistan pages). This has given a much needed cool down time for this area of Wikipedia and will now allow other uninvolved editors to constructively contribute to the area in general (or so is the hope). Hope this gives you a somewhat better understanding of the current situation. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I actually saw the WP:ARE. Heated and sometime un-constructive debates filled with POV-pushing and edit wars aren't new to me, I have seen my fair share of it over the last seven years I've been editing pages related to the Syrian civil war. However, rarely have I seen this much POV-pushing where editors blatantly ignore the sourced facts and actually try to go around the rules by creating this much sockpuppets. Yes I think a cooldown period for all of them is needed, although I think for some it won't make much of a difference. Time will tell. In any case, I'm glad the issue of this article has been resolved. EkoGraf (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Or not...just saw that you reopened the deletion talk. EkoGraf (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I suggested to the editor that tried to close the discussion (and who you reverted) that it would be probably best that he cast his keep opinion (that he expressed) and leave it to an un-involved administrator to close the discussion as you said. He agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@EkoGraf: I think this area is very strongly contested by both sides and it would be ideal that an experienced admin was to look at this from a neutral point of view and make a decision. I am fine with the fact that if the community feels that this should not exist as it's own article than we can merge it back. My recommendation to you on this would be to be not worry about the article since the deletion discussion won't and should not be closed this soon. It should be given a few more weeks to see if there are other editors who do indeed wish to chime in. IMO, you need a good job with the article and you are welcome to help out with other articles in the area which need some sprucing up.
Also, thanks for fixing my mistake on the numbers in the 2016 confrontation article. I mixed the two numbers in my head since it was the end of a long day for me. I am currently busy with travel and work and so my replies will be sporadic. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems an admin closed the discussion as keep. I think that's fine, except two editors (including the nominator) and a sockpuppet virtually everyone was in agreement that it should be kept. Also, no problem. I'll help out anyway I can. Like I said, my main area of editing is Syria, but I saw that the skirmishes article and the Siachen conflict one were in serious need of changes (per sources) and clean-up, so I decided to chip in. Glad everything is settled at least for now. EkoGraf (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop disrupting

You have been disrupting here by subjectively reverting without a valid justification making an attempt to collaborate. Previously, I have created various sections of this article, including Maritime borders of India, Border bazaars and haats, Designated crossings with ICP & LCS, etc. These sections have stood the test of time in this article by remaining here for long enough and these sections similar to the "border ceremonies section" I had added recently and you keep reverting disruptively. BRD, etc are for vandalism and true wiki spirit is you must exercise goodfaith, mutual respect and collaborate (instead of disrupt by revert ). 90% of $this article is basically my work. What is your contribution, except disrupting by repeated reverts? Stop wasting time of the productive and useful editors in such subjective manner while you have made zero or none contribution. Do not take IP for granted, treat all editors with same respect and goodfaith. I am goign to put back all the "vandalism through revert". 202.156.182.84 (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@202.156.182.84: Please see WP:OWN. Moreover, I have opened a discussion on the article talk page. Please provide your rationale there. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand no one owns it. But you can not disrupt. Sepcially when you have made little contribution. I note that multiple other editors have left warnings on your talkpage above. Stop disrupting things, specially where you have made little or no contribution. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I have left a discussion on the article talk page for you to reply to. As for the above discussions, you can see the respective talk pages of those articles and I have raised my concerns. If you feel that my concerns on those pages are incorrect, then please feel free to chime in. This very rationale of "Sepcially when you have made little contribution" is what WP:OWN is about. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
issue here is not about who owns it, No one owns it. it is about the who is a contributing editor 9me) versus who is a disruptive editor without contributing (you). I have replied to you on my talkpage too. For this topic you must reply here and not there on my talkpage because I have created the thread here. I noticed multiple other antagonised editors have warned you recently on your talkpage above. Please do not make it a habit. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
(tps) IP, I am not sure which edits are being discussed, but you cannot call reverts of new edits "disruption". Please see WP:BRD. You need to discuss the issues on the article talk page and arrive it WP:CONSENSUS. If CONSENSUS does not seem possible, you can invite other editors by WP:3O or by other means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, depends on the context. WP:BRD etc are for protecting wikipedia from vandalism, etc. It should not be used as a first option. Core principal of wikipedia is to "collaborate", which should be embodied by editors, such as through incremental edits, e.g. reorganise/rephrase/enhance and not by using reverts as default option. Re: WP:3O, yes, it is a good option is no resolution is reached by the two individuals involved. What does the acronym (tps) stand for, tips? 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Please do read the WP:BRD page thoroughly. Your understanding is wrong. The term "vandalism" is nowhere mentioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Gist of all wikipedia guidelines is this - "collaborate". Wiki lawyering that goes against "collaboration" is prohibited. It becomes an issue when reverts are used repeatedly (instead of collaboration) and specially if it is a concern raised by the multiple unrealted editors across several articles (pattern). 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@202.156.182.8: I have opened a talk page discussion, reply there. Also, currently your understanding of Wikipedia guidelines seems to be incorrect. Please familiarize yourself with them. My reply on your talk page was about a whole different issue aka you adding unnecessary content in the See Also section. It seems you have an issue with WP:IDHT because you keep repeating it. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


PAKISTAN NAVY

I have been a wikipedian for over 14 years. I know how wiki works all mentioned detials are properly sourced and cited.

I do not want to take your account to arbitration committee so don't force me. I don't get it why are you so obsessed with Pakistan and its armed forces? Regardles of how many edits you do. ALL OF WHICH I HAVE POSTED IS AS PER ll articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. Faraz (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Faraz: First, please stop with your threats. I did not want to bring this up (and don't like to bring this up since it does not matter) but you bought it up. Yes you have been on Wikipedia for 14 years but you have 668 contributions across all projects. I have been on Wikipedia for 2.5 years have about 18,131 contributions. So please do not go there. Second, if you are not aware just stating this for your information, Wikipedia is a community project so please do not view it through the prism of nationality. I have interest in Pakistan Armed Forces, as I have interest in all South Asian Armed Forces and have had contributions on Bangladesh Armed Forces pages as well. Moreover, I have multiple contributions across many military related pages which are not primarily on either of these armed forces. If you see a policy issue with this, please state so. My nationality does not stop me from contributing to any page.
Now that we have that out of the way, please state specific concerns with my edits and try to be precise. What I see currently is a bunch of text which I cannot make sense of. Now, I re-hauled that ships section on the Pakistan Navy page since it needed quite a bit a copy-editing and updating. You shall see that I have some content which related to deals as back as 2006 but never materialized and also updated it with latest additions. On your persistent, addition of Type54A frigate to the page. Please have a look at other Navy pages. There are multiple issues with that image, (a) That exact ship is not in service with the Pakistan Navy, (b) Even a single type of those ships are yet to be commissioned (c) There is no dearth of images on that page and what you keep adding is unnecessary UNTIL it happens and you have a image of a ship IN SERVICE with the Pakistani Navy.
Finally, Please discuss these content issues on the respective talk pages. My talk page is not the place for this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
The Addition of the image of a Type 054A is as per wiki policy. The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_content I do not understand as to why you want to remove it when (a) it is the variant that will be commissioned by Pakistan (b) it depicts a visual of Type 054A Faraz (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Faraz: I am replying to your issue on the article talk page since you my talk page is not the place for it. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

File:General Kotikalapudi Venkata Krishna Rao.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:General Kotikalapudi Venkata Krishna Rao.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

File:General Om Prakash Malhotra.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:General Om Prakash Malhotra.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Punjabi language

I notice some back-and-forth at Punjabi language but am not sure if there is an edit war. Do you have an opinion? I see that you have warned HardeepSaluja a couple of times, most recently on June 2. It is unclear whether Hardeep's June 9 edit is a revert. Just now I fixed up a talk page comment by Hardeep at Talk:Punjabi language (bottom of page). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops, forget this. The editor is now blocked as a sock by checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:General Krishnaswamy Sundarji.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:General Krishnaswamy Sundarji.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Adamgerber80. You have new messages at Talk:Khalistan movement.
Message added 11:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

added more sources in support DBigXray 11:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Adamgerber80. You have new messages at Talk:List of wars involving Pakistan.
Message added 18:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBigXray 18:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikiexplorer13

Hello. Just so you know, I've created an LTA case page for Wikiexplorer13, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikiexplorer13. MBlaze Lightning talk 07:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: Thanks. I did have a brief look at the LTA page and have one question. How did we get to the precise location of Chandigarh? Maybe posting something as North India might be more helpful? I have not seen the LTA page in great detail yet, or studied the editor's IP footprint. Will provide more feedback or contribute to the page directly when I get some time. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Adamgerber80, re your question: geographic locations are public information that can be checked by anyone, on websites like whatismyipaddress.com, and as you can see, all the IP addresses used by Wikiexplorer13 geolocate to Chandigarh. MBlaze Lightning talk 15:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Elephanthunter (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: Why are you posting this on my page? You do realize that I have been editing in this area for over 2 years now right? It was posted on your page by an editor to inform you about the sanctions in the area (this is standard practice for every editor who edits the general area of India-Pakistan-Afghanistan) Also, just FYI, it was me who asked for the FP, an admin just did not show up. The purpose was to ensure we discussed before more disruption happened on the page. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Glad to answer. So, while you may have been editing in this topic area for a long period of time, you are only officially informed of discretionary sanctions under specific circumstances, one of them being a direct notification on your user talk page. An admittedly quick search through your talk page history indicated you hadn't yet received this notification. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Adamgerber80/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for keeping a constant watch on Indian military related articles, and making sure that they're free vandal free. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Khalistan Movement Dispute

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Dispute over whether to include Trudeau's statements and how to best portray the recent interest in the Khalistan movement in the lead. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Khalistan_movement#Canada_PM_in_lead".The discussion is about the topic Khalistan Movement. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elephanthunter (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter and DBigXray: I had a brief look at the the DRN and the Talk page discussion on Khalistan_movement. Unfortunately, I am running short of my time (daily quota of allotment to Wikipedia). I will reply to these shortly (in a day or two). Sorry for the delay. This is just an acknowledgment that I have indeed seen this and wish to be an involved party to the discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: Thanks. Sorry I have dropped the ball on that one. It does seem that much of July through September would be a very busy time for me and I will try to stay away from long discussions. I have quite a few pages on my watchlist and just iterating through them is a giant time-sink. I will chime into the discussion when I get a chance. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

helmand province

your input to the talk page on the helmand province is still pending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to your query there. Please be patient. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

CopyVio on Manzoor Pashteen

Would you like to explain this revert? Especially when you said "reverse copyright" and "that content was already on this page before April 9"? How does a date affects a copyvio? Thanks.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 06:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised that you seem to have little understanding of WP:COPYVIO yet have used it to remove quite a bit of information. Please read through WP:COPYVIO carefully, and have a look at reverse copying. Moreover, look at Template:Backwards copy and the article talk page where I have added this template for other editors. In short, copyright-violations are not necessarily a one way street. Multiple times numerous sources (especially local media outlets) copy content from Wikipedia pages and the incident you pointed out is a clear example of that. That content was on the Wikipedia page quite some time before the source you provided was published. It is this very reason that the date matters. In the future, please be very careful before you remove any content for WP:COPYVIO. Check the page history and the talk page (this is your due diligence), before you term any content as a copyright violation. Just my 2 cents, I would steer away from enforcing policies which I have little understanding of or don't remember the nuances. Lastly, your warning on @Khestwol: was unwarranted and the ideal thing to do here would be to retract it. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Yep, should have tagged it as OR (as the given sources doesn't fully support the content and it seem that lot of WP:SYNTHESIS is at work - no wonder the (poor) news source copied the content from here), and I did miss the date on the source I provided. But when you yourself agree that the other content needed rewording/paraphrasing, how the warning was undue?—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 15:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@TripWire: First please make up your mind why you wanted to remove the content and don't shift goal posts. The content was definitely not WP:COPYVIO and is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH either but based on WP:RS. The news source was being plain lazy and nothing else. The other content was also not WP:COPYVIO and I reworded to to include more content. As I have said, please be careful with your edits. In the past, editors have used the garb of WP:COPYVIO to push a WP:POV and have been banned. As I have said before, if you are unsure about something, ask an admin. Incorrectly implementing a policy (multiple times) is considered disruptive as well. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
What exactly did you add in this edit?. You just reworded the content to remove the CopyVio problem and now doing the same thing (shifting goal posts).—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 08:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract

Hi Adamgerber, you wrote "unrelated" here. They are related in that both of them had to with the border between China and the former princely state Jammu and Kashmir. The Aksai Chin article has a section on the latter actually.

But, of course, we don't need a see also link here because it is already covered in the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: What I meant was the editor was replacing links in the See Also section Kanjut with Aksai Chin which are not the same (unrelated). Sorry, it was not super clear. You are correct in stating that Aksai Chin is already mentioned in the page and thus should not be included in the See Also section. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Nuclear Traid

Hello! you happen to be removing Pakistan from the nuclear triad list even though its properly cited and Pakistan is considered a nuclear triad with capabilities similar to that of Israel. Actually the entire definition of a nuclear triad is a bit broke. These days you don't necessarily need to have an ICBM or a heavy bomber to be considered a nuclear triad. This definition is from the cold-war era. You must have the capability to deliver nuclear weapons from all three forces ie. land, air, sea to have a complete nuclear triad. A common example of this is Israel. They are suspected nuclear triad even though they have ICBM's for their land forces only. Their navy uses SLCM to deliver nukes similar to that of Pakistan's capability. Pakistan has Shaheen and Ghauri series for land based attacks, Raad and Babur cruise missiles for air based attacks and Babur-3 SLCM's for sea based nuclear deterrence. This is essentially what a nuclear triad is. For further clarifications please read

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/pakistan-enters-nuke-triad-club

http://zeenews.india.com/asia/pakistan-completes-nuclear-triad-launches-missile-babur-3-from-submarine_1965794.html (Ironic)

http://foreignpolicynews.org/2017/01/16/pakistan-completes-nuclear-triad/

https://armscontrolcenter.org/factsheet-the-nuclear-triad/

A complete history of nuclear triad with modern triad definition.

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/07/15/brief-history-nuclear-triad/

Usman47 (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Usman47:, I will reply to your discussion on the article talk page since this seems to be a content issue. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Information icon Hello, I'm KNHaw. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Dawood Ibrahim, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Can you provide a source for your claim about Dawood Ibrahim's residence? If so, please be sure to insert it when you redo your edit. Thanks! KNHaw (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @KNHaw: Please have a look at the article again. I am reverting removal of sourced content. There are enough sources on that page which point to his residence in Karachi. Happy to discuss if you feel that edit is incorrect. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reaching out to me. I skimmed at the article and revision log and agree. In fact, you were actually restoring an edit I had restored earlier!
I have reverted back to your edit. My apologies. I'm just glad we worked this out. Thanks!
--KNHaw (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries. We all make mistakes and need to assume WP:AGF. Atleast, you reached out to me and did not report me to WP:ARE like an editor did. :) Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Glad you understand. I honestly thought (in error) that it was an unsupported change. Given that, contacting you but assuming good faith was the only honest option. --KNHaw (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have filled a request regarding your editing and behavior

[6] - Kind regards

--Nauriya (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you a Pakistan hater?

@Adam Jee, I know that you're an Indian, but please don't hate Pakistan, We're going to have a free and fair election in 25th July (See: Pakistani general election, 2018), and I have added references to those pages where you've done reverting. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber, I have added references to all the pages you reverted, Pakistan Zindabad. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Fayaz Rahman: Telling you that you need to follow our verifiability policy does not mean Adamgerber80 hates Pakistan. It just means you need to provide reliable sources. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." --NeilN talk to me 05:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Adam, If you revert my edits again, I am not going to edit those again. CHEERS. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
another thing that if you search in google.com 'Rawalpindi Corps', 'Lahore Corps', 'Multan Corps', you'll find so many reliable newspapers like [geo.tv], [dawn.com] etc, and another thing is in Pakistan we use the corps name associated with the place, the Rawalpindi Corps is very popular because in 1999 General Pervez Musharraf made coup from here. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Khwaja Wasiuddin was a Bengali, no there is not any direct reference but you will have to read some books like 'A Stranger in My Own Country: East Pakistan 1969-1971' written by Maj. Gen. Khadim Hussain Raja. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
raising divisions in Pakistan Army in 1947/48? it is also found in so many military books about Pakistan and also about the C-in-C of the army. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
another thing that being a Pakistani I like watching Indian films (including Tamil). Fayaz Rahman (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Fayaz Rahman: I do not hate any country just want to ensure that when content is added on any Wikipedia page, it is well sourced. My nationality has nothing to do with this. On the contrary, I revert unsourced additions on Indian Armed Forces pages as well. I would recommend you to treat Wikipedia as a community resource and don't see everything through the prism of nationality. I have some concerns with the edits you have done and have raised them at the respective talk pages. Happy editing.
@NeilN: Can you please look at Talk:Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Pakistan_Army. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I edit-conflicted with you when saying the same thing. "Pakistan Army degrades women". Please read WP:NOTFORUM. Please make your observations elsewhere on the Internet and please provide proper sources when asked (e.g., name of newspaper, date, and page number). --NeilN talk to me 16:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you removing Pakistan from many pages.

You are frequently removing Pakistan related information from many Wikipedia articles and now that I have read others comment on your talk page, it looks more like your personal issues towards Pakistan rather than a neutral interest of providing unbiased information to the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asimzb (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Asimzb: Your edits on that page have been reverted by multiple other editors. First, can you please explain to me how does the second highest point matter when clearly only the highest point is mention in the infobox. Please edit based on what is required, no one here wishes to push or remove a name. If you believe, I have violated any policies please state so. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Note to the administrator about your acting

You seem disruptive not accepting what you like without a rational minding.Very good source.Outliner73 (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamgerber80/Archives/Archive_5&oldid=1136404919"