User talk:Adamgerber80/Archives/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Magar Class

Adamgerber80, re Magar class landing ships & the origin of the design: The design being based on the Round Table class is one of those obvious, always known things - because it's true. I remember it being widely mentioned, & not questioned when INS Gharial was new. It's already mentioned in one of the sources referenced on the Magar-class page, i.e. Bharat Rakshak, which is not known for downplaying Indian capabilities. I can refer you to paper sources, e.g. Janes Fighting Ships, but reliable online sources are harder without paying. It looks as if the original open sources have dropped from the web. I'll try, though.

What about GlobalSecurity? - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/l-magar.htm Or - http://www.deagel.com/Fighting-Ships/Magar_a002029001.aspx Or the US Naval Institute - https://news.usni.org/2014/02/03/indian-amphibious-warship-runs-aground http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA246185&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf (pp 17 & 41) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjirving (talk • contribs) 22:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC) All secondary at best, unfortunately.

BTW, IIRC it was on the page originally & was well referenced. Someone removed it with no good reason. Could it be dug out of the history?

Oh, & comparing photographs & quoted dimensions shows that the Magar class is very similar indeed to the Round Tables. Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjirving (talk • contribs) 22:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Pjriving I have added the information on Magar class as mentioned in the references but did not add it Shardul since it was not relevant there. Some points to note: First, there is a minor difference in "being a variant of" and "being derived from". Second, please do provide valid references when you add information just like to did above. This helps in verifying content. Third, when do add something to a talk page, add it to the bottom not the top. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The edit / undo of my contribution in the Territorial Army page

Hi Adamgerber80, greetings. nice to see that you are also from Mumbai (me too). I had insisted on showing the occupation of Capt. Muthukrishnan for two reasons:-

1. The occupation of other officers mentioned in the article are given too - inspite of its relevancy or otherwise. 2. Territorial Army, by its nature, is a force where people from various diverse background serve - without leaving their current work. Thus it is very much relevant to show their background - that would give an idea of diversity of Territorial Army.

Hence may I request that you allow the occupation of the officer to be shown in the article. Would be glad to hear your opinion on the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTerrier (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

TheTerrier I have re-instated the content. For future reference, please discuss such content on the talk page of the page. There other editors might have more to say as well. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Su-30 Bangladesh

Hi, Im just Imform that The Su-30 operator has been Added Content. Im was Thinking that can you Checked These Sources Su-30 Bangladesh as We Don't Have any Referrences same as J-10, Thanks.Hawkeye Ridgesaw Summer (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye Ridgesaw Summer, Sorry can you please be clear of what you want me to check? I think those edits were reverted because there were no reliable sources for J-10 and Su-30 being operated by the Bangladesh Air Force. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The Sources of Su-30 and J-10. That's I want you to checked.Hawkeye Ridgesaw Summer (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Rollback of valid edits in List of states with nuclear Weapons

Hello Adamgerber. You have rolled back a substantial edit twice now regardless to the fact that it is backed by reputable sources such as CNN, the Diplomat and Dawn. You have provided no reasoning as to why you would think that your action is appropriate. It is clearly stated in the message which granted you the rollback privilege on this very page that:

  1. Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  2. Rollback should never be used to edit war.

I can't help but feel that you have broken both of these rules here. When I rolled back your rollback, It appeared to me that yours wasn't done in good-faith because you had just removed an edit backed up by reliable sources which can be considered as vandalism by some. And since you have done it again for some reason, I am now holding off from reverting to that edit, as that would make this an edit-war which I am sure is not something either of us wants. At least until you provide your reason, which I hope is a good one.

It is my understanding that a Wiki page should reflect the latest information backed up by sources. The edit regarding Pakistan's seaborne strike capability is backed up as such. Which has left me confused that why would you consider rolling it back over and over again? I certainly do not wish to engage in an edit war which is obviously a juvenile and counter-productive thing to do. Which is why I am using this form to get your opinion on the matter regarding your actions, given that you so graciously offered that I should point it out if I believe you are mistaken. You have claimed that multiple editors have rolled back that sort of edit. I have gone through the history (Admittedly not completely) and I haven't come across that kind of an event or anyone of the supposed multiple editors providing a reason. In the unlikely scenario that what you stated is correct, would you mind sharing the links with me so that I could learn about those particular edits and the reasons provided for rolling them back? Cheers!

A3g0n First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. It seems you are still learning about the rules which is good. I assure that I have been editing pages for more a than 18 months and don't need a refresher on these rules. First, there exists a page called Nuclear Triad where the triad capabilities of multiple countries is mentioned. It is at this page that edits for Pakistan have been reverted multiple times. Here are some diffs for your references([1], [2]). To summarize why they were reverted is that, first you need multiple third party reliable sources which clearly state that Pakistan indeed possesses a nuclear triad. Merely stating that Babur SLCM is nuclear capable and was tested does not translate into nuclear triad capability. This is marked as Wikipedia:No_original_research and cannot be added.(This is the case with the sources you provided). Most reliable online sources as of now, state that Pakistan is attempting to construct one which is different than operating one or possessing one. If you wish to take this up further, I would highly recommend discussing this at Talk:Nuclear_triad first. Here other editors can also chime in but please wait till there is consensus. Please do not engage in disruptive editing till then. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Adamgerber80 Thank you Adam. There were multiple third party references such as CNN and the Diplomat which I assumed made it good enough to be added to Wiki. So I don't think I agree with you here that it could be marked as Wikipedia:No_original_research as the wiki defines it as "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist", because clearly, the facts were published in reliable sources. Also, thank you for finding the links. What I am taking away from this, correct me if I am wrong, that you are saying that until Pakistan doesn't formally announce inclusion of Babur SLCM into her naval fleet's arsenal and creates a dedicated submarine unit specifically for that task, we shouldn't consider Pakistan to have developed Seaborne-strike Capability regardless to the fact that they have apparently achieved the technical capacity to do so? That and Development of ICBMs which I don't think Pakistan has any plans for. Is that right? - A3g0n (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
A3g)n I still think you do not understand the meaning of OR. I have carefully read all the sources you have provided. None of them mention anything beyond the testing of nuclear capable missile. You are inferring/deriving this fact that since Pakistan already operates land based missiles and planes capable of dropping nuclear bombs, than by adding a sea launch missile gives Pakistan a nuclear triad. This constitutes OR. Just FYI, a lot goes into a country operating a nuclear triad which is beyond the technical capability of all the 3 components. For example, France is now considered a ex-nuclear triad, simply because France chose to retire all it's land based missiles. Here France's nuclear triad status is not based on the fact that does it have the capability but whether it operates it. So you are right in assuming that until Pakistan does not send out nuclear deterrence patrols or we have neutral sources clearly state that Pakistan has achieved nuclear triad status/operates a nuclear triad, we cannot add this based on assumptions. Hope this helps. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sakhira blabla Indian data

Yea discuss... of course I did wrote it in the "Talk" section, for other users to respond/discuss or what for is the talk section? But nevermind, lets keep it as it is and its fine. If I missed another page to "ask/talk" than "Talk" than please tell me... I do not read often or never the non-article related pages, sometimes I answer some questions from Wikimedia (for example why young users, new registed with low edits quit so often was one, but there are much topics as you know for sure), but okay otherwise "we" keep it and its everything fine, I just saw another questionable data for a submarine nuclear of which India use one and want have 2, first is a 10-year leasing... reactor 190 MW, propulsion 32MW + 2 Reactors and only written 2 MW (not each 2 MW even, only 2 MW).

This is extreme low energy for a larger nuclear ship, and there are the other missing over 150 MW or I do not know over 75% ?! I think alone ship system, lightning for the ship and the crews areas even with save bulbs needs a lot, and most of course the ship systems, navigations, any radio connections inside the boat, radar, screens and so on... and this even sharing at least sometimes to load the small electro low-sound engine for being not loud at 4 knots, you need I guess 10-times as much electric generation, and propulsion might be right but 190 MW than?! Alone the size and costs for such a great, its almost like one from the Nimitz Aircraft Carriers... never heard that it is possible to cover all this with this energy, but I better do no ask :D Maybe someone else detects the questionable figures or not, have a nice <wherever you live> Kilon22 (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Kilon22 talk pages are meant to have precise and clear discussions regarding the page. Your contributions on the Talk:Sagarika_(missile) were not clear. Can you please state what you is mentioned incorrectly in that article and provide references to back up your claim. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Adamgerber80 u? I only knew ping, however. Forget this please, I wrote something about some kind of mistake in the Sakhira (Missile) discussion section and was told to discuss it somewhere else or so and I only asked (not with this words afair) "wtf? If not on the discussion page to discuss errors or very strange data (I think it was about, speed, range, weight or so), than there should I ask about it? Since I already do not edit things until they are 100% + a absolute sure thing in my mind because of some older users (well I did only read and so I registered very late with 2010, when in 2005 or so the German Wiki became a serious source I should have registered for both, however this is not my main wiki language anyway and I will stop or try to stop even discussion which are very strange. I know the Problem and paradoxon (I did much work, deleted,

I said, check this article, you find 25 penalties on this article + even pictures with clearly visible producer/name etc... nothing happened, and it is here more and more the same thing. There is still the page and a guy seriously asked me if I do not have a "Accumulator (Mignon/Micro)-Magazine or so without visible AD or so, I mean magazines have AD too and well the site still exists, so it depends WHO makes the edits and not the rules, so please delete/archive this if you can. I was only frustrated because it starts to get very extreme here too and as said on the other side other pages are tolerated only because a user of the first days maybe did this... so sorry. I will not delete this, because they told me on German Wikipedia this can have a ban/warning too if I would delete my own comment on which you answered.

as I said, that is the reason why Wikipedia no longer is the number 1 on Google, 10 years ago in German Google almost every search result number 1 was wikipedia, now you have to add "wiki" to the search or you have to search it under the normal results and I really understand since a few months why this is so... I will strongly try to prevent that with only reading and no edit or the so called "talk"-page even if, like a german phrase is, even if it is itching me in my fingers to do something against a terrible error (in my opinion) ;) Nevermind and have a nice rest of your weekend Kilon22 (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

This is the notification for: [[3]]. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Scorepene Class Trials

Please check tweeter of indian defence minister arun jetly who tweets about ser trials of the second scorpion class domestic made submarine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tusharkumar bhatt (talk • contribs) 08:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Tusharkumar bhatt, you need to provide references when you add data. Please remember this when you add any data. Welcome to wikipedia. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
He is right. Second sub undergoing trials. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/second-scorpene-submarine-begins-sea-trial/articleshow/58967555.cms Livefist (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Livefist Yes but when do you add data to any page on Wikipedia you also need to provide a reliable reference for this. The user in question did not do that and thus was reverted. Consequently the information was updated with the correct sources. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Liu Xiaobo. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GiantSnowman 16:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

GiantSnowman Sorry, I was trying to revert an edit from a single user which was removing cited content. I accidentally reverted back to the version before him. Thank you for fixing my mistake. I will be careful in the future. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

INS Kalvari

All tests completed. Kalvari waiting for the PM for commissioning. Read on. https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/030433040321-linde-va-feter-son-premier-sous-marin-scorpene-2100971.php Livefist (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Livefist Yes but that does not mean that it has been comissioned. The active list page is only for ships which have been commissioned. That is why I did not revert your edit from the Kalvari-class submarine page but did revert this page. Let me know if you have any other questions. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree about commissioning but as far as the sub is concerned, its with the navy and all test completed. So a ceremony is not as important when its operational capability is concerned and that ceremony can take place any moment. Cutting a ribbon and giving a speech is all that's pending. Livefist (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Livefist, Yes I do very well understand the status of the submarine as of now. But, we do not add or remove ships from the active list without their commissioning or decommissioning ceremonies. For example, INS Viraat was only removed from the list after it's decommissioning ceremony in March even though it was technically not service capable in January after it's engines were removed. Similarly, the frigate INS Betwa was not removed from the list even though it might be "out of service" for 2 years after the tipping over incident. This is because it has not been decommissioned yet. There is a specific reason for these ceremonies which marks the induction or de-induction of these ships from the navy and these conventions must be followed here. You can add the submarine when a ceremony for it takes place, I guess sometime in August. By the way are you related with the LiveFist website run by Shiv Aroor? Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Livefist, Also to counter your point, the ship has not been exactly handed over to the Indian Navy. It is still undergoing trials for on-board systems and will only be handed over in mid-August. Let's not jump the gun here and add ships in haste. Please wait till the Indian Navy announces it's commissioning ([4]). Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Minister's Photograph Removal

I went back and checked if I offered an explanation or not. But I'll reiterate it.

Checking UK's and USA's agricultural ministry wikis , one can see that the photo of the Minister or the head of those institutions is not plastered on the top, or anywhere for that matter. A ministry's WIKI page unlike the government websites shouldn't be used to glorify any particular individual. If you are inclined to the minister/his party/political ideologies or If you feel ownership of the page and wish to set it to your standards not the wiki's standard, I'd leave it at that.

thanks.

Dog-named-Romeo (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Dog-named-Romeo First welcome to Wikipedia. Second, as far as I know there is no set or prescribed way on Wikipedia to create ministry pages. Pages are created based on consensus by various editors on how they want to. Third, I did not add the image. There has been one there for quite some time. If you have issues and want to remove it then discuss it on the talk page. Please do not take uni-lateral decisions based on what you think is right. Lastly, please stop looking at people through prisms of nationality and political affiliation. Many editors are here to contribute without a POV. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Doklam article

Hi Adamgerber80, My edits was mere more facts and reliable sources like British Library and established authors who supports Tibetan causes. The original article was too biased and contains many partisan information. However, I didn't remove them, merely added more facts. Please do not use false and partisan sources. If you do, make sure also allow sources that you don't like. Please be balanced and calm, without emotional attachment.

Zip yz (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Zip yz Welcome to Wikipedia. First, I would recommend that you please discuss changes on the Talk page of that article before adding any new information. The information you added was purely OR and you POV. Please understand and read the guidelines on Wikipedia before editing. Second, I see that other editors have already reverted your edits as well and you have been informed about the sanctions. If I were you I would be the one who would look at it calmly and from a neutral POV I do not want to be blocked for edit warring. Lastly, if you do edit my talk page please ensure that you place your dialogue at the very end and not at the top. Just common courtesy. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Dawood Ibrahim

Can you explain what is wrong with my edits? What content is unsourced?--119.160.98.177 (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Discuss the content you want to add/edit on the article talk page. My talk page is not the place for this. You are changing a lot of content without providing relevant sources. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your "no source" claim was ungrounded

I have listed good source on it but you simply turned a blind eye on it and blame others for fun. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't bite newbies

Hi Adamgerber, I was surprised with this warning to a newbie, especially because the editor provided an excellent source and your warning was at level 3 or 4. This is really an unfortunate way to treat new editors, and I hope you will refrain from doing such things in future. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3 Where did his reference state that Sikkim was a puppet state of India? You also ended up removing it. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The edits were by no means perfect. But these kinds of POV edits are dime a dozen. We shouldn't be giving level-3 warnings for such things. We need to retain editors even if they come with POVs and mentor them into becoming better editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Kautilya3 My approach is different here. I do notice for a pattern among new editors and if there is a pattern of POV edits / un-referenced additions I issue them incremental warnings based on their edit pattern. I agree with your point that we should retain editors but not ones which have a history of pushing their agenda. I issued a level 3 warning since the editor had already received a level2 warning. You have every right to disagree with my approach but I have the same right to approach this in a different way (assuming that both of us stay with the rules laid down by Wikipedia). Anyways, I think you have every right to not issue them warnings but not the right to undo issued warnings. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kautilya3: First I apologize for mismemorized a date (April 1973) as 1968: Sikkim was a puppet state of India from 1973 to 1975, not from 1968. For the reference, see Hui Wang and Theodore Huters. The Politics of Imagining Asia. Harvard University Press, 2011. p. 333 and Albin Krebs. Palden Thondup Namgyal, Deposed Sikkim King, Dies. New York Times, 1982. I messed it up because 1968 was the date of a protest in Gangtok suppressed by India. My carelessness, and I take full responsibility to it.
    • It was not a good manual of style to include reference into infoboxes according to Wikipedian policies, which was the reason why I didn't write inside the infobox. You tried to rewrite the reference of the anthem to an inline reference, which caused some issue. I corrected it but it still looks way too long to be in the infobox. I recommend you to remove it. Also the anthem would better be intra-linked (I am drafting an article on the anthem but got some issue as there's no naming convention for Sikkimese, whether to use e, é, or ä, e, whether to use ch, chh, or c, ch, whether or not to apply Roman Dzongkha, etc.)
    • It's totally understandable if someone question it: had Adamgerber80 questioned the "1968-75 puppet state" issue directly and talk with me, I would be very happy to explain the source to him and definitely wouldn't write a harsh comment in the section above. I do not consider myself a newbie but still I don't want to be bitten by anyone (I don't believe that Wikipedia encourages biting "oldbies"). --146.96.252.3 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Adamgerber80: You're being evasive my friend. Why are you so silence about those edits I didn't made wrong reverted by you? You kept focusing on a flaw I made, not telling me, and revert all my edits with alleging me for adding unsourced info. As we all know, it would be a shameless if one forges an accusation to others, vandalizes others' efforts and turns a blind eye on one's own misbehaviours. I believe you are a good guy and we can be friends. I sincerely hope that you will no longer perform similar wrongdoings, to anyone, but if you do:
    • I fully respect and endorse your rights to exercise your "different approach", while I keep my rights to protect myself within Wikipedia scheme.
    • By the way, if you don't mind telling me, did you mean I was the "ones which have a history of pushing their agenda"? --146.96.252.3 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
146.96.252.3 First, I am not being evasive. You added some content to that article which did not have references. I would strongly recommend discussing such edits on the Article talk page before you add them so that there is consensus. I refrained from entering in to an edit war when other editors seemed fine with it. Second, my argument with Kautilya3 is not about this particular case but about our different approaches. He reprimanded me on "biting a newbie" and my retort to that was the justification of my actions. This does not involve you but you were used as an example. Third, please refrain discussing the article on my talk page. If you want to discuss these edits, do so on the article talk page. Lastly, if you want to be a valuable contributor, I recommend I signing up instead of anonymously posting using an IP. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would like to reinforce that. Your edits are not unproblematic. You make a long series of small edits, which sometimes interfere. So there may be no way for a reviewing editor to revert a few of them.
  • Secondly, you are already exhibiting WP:edit warring behaviour. All edits are subject to review by fellow-editors. If an edit is contested, you are expected discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page. (See WP:BRD.) While the discussion is in progress, WP:STATUSQUO must be maintained.
  • You are claiming that you are not a 'newbie' editor. If you are an experienced editor, you need to show knowledge and understanding of these policies and procedures. Such is not the case yet. All the best! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would also note that the term "puppet state" isn't used in either of the two sources you mentioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:

  1. Concerning the edits, I rephrased it, removed terms like "mass media in India", and pointed out the name of the newspaper, quoted the source from another Wikipedia article about readership, so that does no longer need a secondary source about the vague description "mass media in India". So, do you call that an edit war?
  2. The source said Sikkim was occupied by India since 1973 and Hiltz, Jackie (2003) also claimed that administration of Sikkim had been takenover by India by 1973. If you consider from "state administrated by India" to "Indian puppet state" is original research then I have no problem lefting "state administrated by India" on the article, but I consider differentiate "state administrated by India" from "Indian puppet state" might be trolling. Eitherway, Adamgerber80 was righ: let's bring that discussion to Talk:Kingdom of Sikkim and talk about the issue of Adamgerber80 here. The only reason I mention it here is to reveal the wrongdoing of Adamgerber80 - reverting all my edits with threatening and making false accuse - and pressuring him to assure us he will try not to making false accusations to anyone in the future. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Adamgerber80, you are right on not to limit on this particular case, and I was talking about "I sincerely hope that you will no longer perform similar wrongdoings, to anyone". Your "approach" has nothing to do with biting a newbie, but is engaged with making false accusations, undoing unproblematic edits with Twinkle and threatening (to anyone, espcially newbies; if I were a newbie and I saw your threatening message I would thought you were a Wikipedia administrator and quit Wikipedia). Hope you can assure us that you will try not to make the same mistake. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
146.96.252.3 First your edits were unsourced and had issues. The standard which most people do in this case is undo and ask people to discuss it on the talk page. Second, I gave you a third level warning because you already had a second level warning from someone else. Somebody else also noticed issues with your edits and warned you. (Somehow both of us were wrong but you were right). Third, this is the standard message by Wikipedia for repeat offenders which was clearly the case. Lastly, I did not make a mistake. Please do not try to veil your mistakes and put it on others. You were clearly in the wrong and warranted the warning. If you continue to add uncited material, you will be warned again. And if you persist even after the 4th warning you will be blocked. Assuming, you are an "experienced" editor you know what are you doing and if you add unsourced content then you are doing it on purpose. Please be careful. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
IP, we need to bring this discussion to a close. I suppose you see that your use of "puppet state" was inappropriate. Given that it is a POV label, any editor would have reverted and given you a warning. Making counter-accusations in this situation will not get you anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: So, if I didn't misunderstand you, you do not want to and are not going to change your approach, right? --146.96.252.3 (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

146.96.252.3, Is this a threat? Frankly, you seem nothing more than a "troll" to me right now who is clearly here not to contribute to Wikipedia. This is the last time I will re-iterate this, if you continue to add uncited information and edit with a POV you will be warned and potentially blocked. We have better work to do then reply to your meaningless edits here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Not a threat, just curious. I did threat anything like "I'll ban you", did I? You gave me one. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hi, I have opened a thread on ANI on behalf of 146.96.252.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per their request. I will now have a look into the situation and respond at the thread -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Christopher S. Raj biography

Adamgerber80 I had given correct reference to Professor Christopher S. Raj article except in his education which I wrote from profile from site jnu.ac.in. However, he was retired on April 8, 2017 and the university has deleted profile of Christopher S. Raj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewmg1 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mathewmg1 Welcome to Wikipedia. I updated the page based on the references which were active at that time. I also removed unnecessary content which is not required on Wikipedia. I understand that the link for JNU is no longer active, did you happen to archive it? Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Adamgerber80 I had added articles from journals section with many of his articles with reference. Why you deleted that section: 'Articles from journals. There are more JNU professors articles in Wikipedia with books without any references,but nobody is deleting because of not giving any references. Please check Notable faculty in Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi in Wikipedia for your refernce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewmg1 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Mathewmg1 I have checked those pages and those are "notable" publications not an entire list. My question to you is what is the notable about these publications. Second, what is notable about the person in the page (apart from being a JNU faculty). Please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability. Multiple articles you have created in the past few months have been deleted or nominated for deletion based on this factor. Please understand how Wikipedia works and not every person/topic warrants a separate article/page. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You have edited mg3 page

you have been edited page without any trusted source  AtaurRehman2002 (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Type 56

Why you disturb me every time i know about Type 56 more then you AtaurRehman2002 (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mrs kindly do your work on your indian pages Type 56 is not designed in 1947 it's design date is 1950-55 AtaurRehman2002 (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

AtaurRehman2002 Welcome to Wikipedia. I do not argue that fact that you might know more than me about Type 56 weapons. But the way Wikipedia works is that you have to provide reliable references when you add new content. Please read WP:RS for more details. You have added uncited information on all your edits so far and thus have received multiple warnings from many editors. Please be careful. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice very soon i will provide you all the reliable sources about type 56 Thanks.

Discuss changes on article talk page

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  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; 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. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Worldbruce Can you please explain to me what warrants this level 3 warning? The user is adding new information and replacing existing cited information. I reverted asking them to discuss or add in addition to the current information not replace it. I have not violated 3RR on the contrary I tried to maintain STATUS:QUO. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The user replaced four inline citations, one of which was to a source that failed WP:HISTRS and had been tagged as an {{unreliable source?}}. Their new sources are plausible reliable sources - books published by academic presses. Their explanation for replacing the sources was "Improving references". Their explanation could have been more fulsome, but the change was not unexplained. Whether their changes improved the article is open to debate, but that debate isn't happening in 255-character edit summaries.
The other editor keeps making more or less the same changes despite your reverts, so I gave them a {{uw-ew}} and told them to take it to talk. They appear inexperienced on-wiki and may not be familiar with the bold-revert-discuss cycle. I'll self-trout for using the same warning with you rather than taking the time to craft a more collegial custom message. Please accept my apologies. I have no plan to block you. I wanted to get the attention of both parties, head off a bold-revert-bold-revert-bold-revert-ad infinitum cycle, and get a discussion started. You're the more experienced editor, you know it's edit warring whether you violate 3RR or not, so I ask you to get things started on Talk:Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. Explain why you're concerned about the changes. If the other party doesn't engage with there in a reasonable amount of time, by all means return to status quo ante. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
seems that this user have problems with warring edits.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank for your contribution , But

Hello dear, I saw that you are deleting and adding in the Page Italian nuclear weapons program I thank you for your attention on Italian Page, but please can you explain me why you are deleting " without a good motivation", and why i should talk on talk Page, you are the only one that have problems with this article..LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 Replied to you on the article talk page. My talk page is not the place to discuss issues with that article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You are vandalizing article.Italy can deliber b61 in case of war as US claim.In Ghedi only italian jets in fact.

Discuss this on the article talk page. I am not vandalizing the article. Only mentioning what is in the sources. Adamgerber80 (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You are widely anti italian.b61 in. Ghedi can be delibered only by AMI as all referenced rerport.You are an enbious third world guy for propaganda.

For the last time, discuss this on the article talk page. Lastly, You have already been reported for block evasion. Do not make this any harder on yourself. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
benniejets Stop it!! please you are currently blocked!, Adam please , tell me Why you have delete the examples of vega rocket? there similar examples of this like in the Japanese Page, Why you need to delete things that you dont like?.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Suzuki mehran

You have revised the suzuki merhan information Wikipedia is not your property you are not allowing anyone to add any info you can check on internet about suzuki mehran AtaurRehman2002 (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

AtaurRehman2002 See reply below. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed the previously added category. Please consider reconciliation

Removed the previously added category. Please consider reconciliation Jsncol (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Jsncol I replied to you on the article talk page. Please be clear with what you want to reconcile with. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Refertence is made to Suman Kumar Kasturi page. Removed the category. Please reconcile your nomination Jsncol (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Personal webpages cannot be used as references on Wikipedia. You have to prove that the person is notable. Currently I see no reference of that fact. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
By reconciliation, I mean checking whether approriate changes have been made as you desired and removal of nomination. I am new to wiki so sorry for the previous attempt to delete the tage myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsncol (talk • contribs) 05:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Jsncol Welcome to Wikipedia. I have explained you before that every page on Wikipedia needs to meet certain guidelines in this case Wikipedia:Notability. The person in this case is not notable as thus does not warrant a page. It has nothing to do with you removing content and us reaching an understanding. You should provide reliable independent sources (not personal website) to show enough reason to keep that page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your empty threats

Your warnings on my talk page will not get you anywhere go read WP Terrorist than try and challenge my edit 2 years editing and still ignorant about Wikipedia policies. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

ShaniAli1lo I have added more references. Please discuss this on the Article talk page in a civil manner and do not engage in personal attacks or edit war. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Last time I will tell you go read policy regarding the word terrorist even Osama Bin Laden is not called one on Wiki introduction stop bending rules to suit your agenda. ShaniAli1lo (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
ShaniAli1lo The policy clearly states that if they are neutral sources then the label can be added. I have added a source from the UN which is assumed to be neutral here. How is this suiting my agenda? Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Suzuki khyber

Dear you arw not allowing anyone to add anything even with reliable sources as you edited suzuki khyber page it's production date is 1990-2000 also you have edited suzuki merhan and Type 56 page i think you have a personal Hostility with me? Please do not edit any information without reliable sources you want to rule Wikipedia i think. AtaurRehman2002 (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

AtaurRehman2002 I have explained to you in an earlier comment that we only add content to Wikipedia based on reliable sources. The last time we talked, you did state you would provide references which clearly specify the range of Type 56 gun. But you went ahead and edited the page again without doing so. Have you provided reliable sources for the pages of Suzuki Kyhber and Suzuki Merhan? If you think I have not edited correctly, feel free to discuss on the corresponding Article Talk pages where we can discuss in more detail and other interested editors can also comment. I am going to revert your recent edits since I do not find a reference for them. Please be careful of these Wikipedia rules and follow them. Lastly, I do not have a personal grudge against you, on the contrary I would like you to encourage you to edit Wikipedia but only add content which can be verified by other editors. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see the pak suzuki official website then argue Ataurrehman942 (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
AtaurRehman2002 You have to add the website as a reference then. Please have a look at other pages and check how content is references. Let me know if you have any questions. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You arw foreign you don't know much about our things ok
If you want to know that the type 56 assault rifle range that is 500meters i have tested that i have personal experience with Type 56 and then come to suzuki mehran and suzuki khyber you can check it on pakwheels Ataurrehman942 (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Ataurrehman942 Unfortunately, Wikipedia works based on content which can be independently verified. For this to happen you can only add content which is referenced from reliable sources (pakwheels is not considered a reliable source here). An argument like I have fired the gun and thus know the range is not valid. Alternately, the argument that you are "foreign" and thus cannot contribute or edit a particular set of pages is also not acceptable. Since Wikipedia is a community resource one has to shard it with everyone and edit it with the established rules. Please let e know if you have any questions. I would highly encourage you to continue editing but keeping in mind the rule to add references. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Albert Dawkins (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Albert Dawkins Hi, Can I ask the reason for this severed warning? I did notice that I made a genuine mistake on that page only during this edit(when a reference was added). All previous edits to that page have no references and thus were reverted. I have also been discussing with the editor on my talk page and explaining my rationale behind those edits. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding speedy deletion tags without reason

In my opinion, you are adding speedy deletion tags without much substantial reason. Please let us know why you put speedy deletion tags on 2 of the articles? I do not know if you have created any new articles but it is an extremely difficult process for your information. Maybe you would enjoy creating new articles when you are new on WP (you seem quite new and inexperienced and hence your immature behavior is partially justified in my opinion). I do follow the guidelines like - please do not bite the newbies. As you will become experienced, I would suggest you to then take the job of fighting vandalism etc. Because then your understanding of vandalism or promotion / advertisement would have been increased. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I can see that your account was blocked once here! I would suggest to tone down your edits to not to face similar situations again. Think before you edit. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Abhijeet Safai Please be calm and do not engage in this behavior. I have created some new articles (maybe not as many as you) so do understand the process. In my humble opinion, there is sufficient reason to say that the 2 persons in those articles do not have enough notability to qualify for a Wikipedia page. Both of them have passing mentions in newspaper articles which takes their opinion and does not state anything about their expertise. Just someone commenting in a newspaper article does not warrant a Wikipedia article. Ravindra_Ghooi has actually been already deleted once and there was a XFD for it. In fact, about 25% (17/69) of the main pages created by you have been deleted. If you indeed feel that these speedy deletion tags are without a substantial reason than please be patient and the tags will removed by someone patrolling speedy deletion pages. I assume you are an experienced editor (as you claim yourself) then you very well know that you should not be the one removing these tags. Please refrain from this behavior. Secondly, I am treating you with respect and expect the same in return. Yes I have been blocked once, because of a misunderstanding of what constitutes a copy-right violation on Wikipedia and have not repeated that mistake again. I see that you have also been warned of the same in the past. You are free to hold my past against me when you form an opinion of me but I would highly recommend refraining from name calling and making threats. Wikipedia is a community resource and we should all try to constructively work together. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Noted. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Request to administrators to look at this account

It is my request to administrators to look at the edits happening from this account and take appropriate actions. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I am compelled to do so specially after seeing this edit where an organization has received a BLP tag. This person is not ready to read that the article itself says that it is an organization. I do not know much about roll-baking but I would even request to rollback all the edits done by this user if found needed by administrators. Thanks in advance. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice things about you

I have just noticed man that you are a computer scientist and also can code in Python. Why are you behaving like this if you have such a nice profile? Just spend more time reading things and you will understand things better. Just remember a very important saying in digital age "Think before you type". I hope you will not misunderstand my friendly advice. I am sorry if you feel that you do not need this advice. I will not communicate with you henceforth if you do not like me, or my editing. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologize

Dear Adamgerber80, I am really sorry for my misunderstanding. There is really a vada pav vendor named Ashok Vaidya for which references can be found here. I am so much grateful to Dr. Ashok D B Vaidya for his contributions in the filed of research that I got furious when I thought by mistake that you are making fun of him by comparing him with a vada pav vendor. Dr. Ashok D B Vaidya is father of Dr. Vidita Vaidya, who is also a scientist. I am so much grateful to this man known as Vaidya sir in my life that I easily got carried away by emotions and did not pay attention to what you are saying. I am really sorry from the bottom of my heart for the inconvenience caused to you. Kindly forgive me for my rude behavior. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adam

I see you have been changing my edits, I have added to the talk page but apparently this has been getting ignored. I was hoping we could resolve any disagreements here that's why I'm opening this new section on your talk page.

Hi, there is a discussion which is going on here Talk:Al-Khalid_tank#Un-merge_Al-Khalid_and_MBT-2000.3F. I have also presented you sources there which state that this is of Chinese origin. If you have anything to add or discuss please do so there. You can also read through the earlier discussions as to why this tank is states as China/Pakistan origin. Do not open an alternate discussion which is the same on a different talk page. Maintain status quo until there is consensus. Lastly, I have warned you multiple times earlier in other instances that Wikipedia is not a resource owned by a separate country so please stop stating that Indians should stay away from Pakistani pages. We are all editors here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes but Those 3rd party sources are opinion articles, written by writers on the internet. The article you provided also say the J-10, JL-8 and type054 stealth frigate are defence deals/jont ventures between china and pakistan, but that is not even true, neither of those are even service with Pakistan. So as you can see this is unreliable information.
I have provided the link from the manufacturers website which does not have it listed as a joint-venture product. But has it listed with its own developed projects.
Discuss this on the talk page and gain consensus first. My talk page is not the place for this. There is atleast more than 1 person who does not agree with your POV. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Nobody responded bro, consensus reached. I have posted where AK tank is listed Pakistan is the country and where MBT-2000 is listed China is the country. This was the last and final message.
Please be patient and wait for the response. This does not happen instantly. On the contrary Pakistan was removed from the origin on the article page by other editors. Would you consider that a consensus then we should remove Pakistan from the origin. Lastly do not engage in an edit war or you will reported for 3RR. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thats vandalism, every site on the internet on Al-Khalid has pakistan as the country of origin. No consensus was reached to have pakistan removed.
I don't think you understand the discussion correctly. If you feel this is incorrect then try to engage the editors on the Talk page. Enough editors felt that since the design originated from China it should be only China. Please maintain status quo until the other editors reply. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Where has the consensus been reached on the talk page? Where does it say evryone has agreed that china is the sole country?
Why are you reverting the edits?
Please read Wikipedia policies on maintaining Status Quo and not engaging in disruptive editing. Hence the reverts. Also, three editors think the design is from China (not one). You are yet to provide independent references(independent of the manufacturer's website) which claim otherwise on the discussion page. Please discuss any changes there and take this issue up there. Until then please be patient and not engage in uni-lateral edits. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
But where does it say to remove pakistan as the country of origin? Everyone wrote something different without even reaching a conclusion. You are the only guy changing the edit.
Just because of the design(which is only partly true), China has many equipment based on foreign designs directly but china is listed as the sole country.
Where does it go from the og design seems to be chinese so the entire project is from China?
I provided quotes from Army recognition and Quwa along with the manufacturers website. Ontop of every other source (That YOU also provided) which has pakistan listed as the country of origin.
Discuss this on the talk page. The sources I provided and I what is state is that MBT 2000 and Al-Khalid are the same tank and the design has Chinese sources. I don't understand how you interpret this the way you do. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Dude, whats with the double standard? I thought we where now going by design origin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_weapon Origin if for where the weapons was designed or first manufactured. In both cases this is russia for su-30.


Su30 and Su30MKI are different and thus have different pages. Please understand the difference. the questions you raise are not new and have been answered before. Please use the article talk page before engaging in an edit war. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Its just a variant of, the design and country of first manufacture is still russia.
Discuss this on the talk page there. Wait till other editors also chime in. Do not jump the gun and stop canvassing for support. You will get blocked as you have been in the past. Please be careful. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Dude you can't threaten me with a block man this is the internet, so get this out of your head. You already have been avoiding talk pages, jumping the gun is what you and that other guy did so stop with the hypocrisy.
I am not threatening you but warning you. Wikipedia has certain policies that you as an editor (registered or IP) have to follow. Currently you are in gross violation of some of these policies. Also, I am not avoiding talk pages. All queries you raise have been answered by me or other involved editors. It was another editor which changed the country of origin. Please engage them on the Talk page. My Talk page is not a place where anything can get resolved. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

But Adam do you see why I have a problem with you. You where providing sources saying the tank is a JV and should have both countries listed. One guy comes along says the tank is licence produced and removes information, Your stance changes all of a sudden and you begin protecting his edits. So when the same is applied to on of your pages, you have this double standard which has just been blatantly exposed, do you see why that's not fair?

Edit review

Could you take a look at and preceding edits? As far as I can tell, the user is adding content on a missile that we already have an article for, Sayyad-2, and is copying it almost word for word. I'm at 3RR now, but they're not getting the message. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

BilCat Just came online and saw this. I think this has been take care of. I have also added it to my Watchlist for future reference. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Section

Hi Adamgerber80, I have proposed the removal of a section from the article Equipment of the Pakistan Army (see it's talk page). Thanks! --Maxx786 (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Adamgerber80. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex ShihTalk 17:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree

Egypt and Nigeria can be deleted from map of Regional power.Kingofwoods (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Konsam Himalay Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page YSM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
On behalf Military history project coordinators, for your contributions to the Indian military related topics. It's great to see someone on my tracks. For any help related to Indian military related issues, please ping me, I'll be glad to help you. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Adamgerber80/Archives, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits on Lt. Gen. A.K. Singh's Page

Hi Adamgerber80, I see that you reverted my edits on Lt. Gen. AK Singh's page. You asked for an explanation of the edits I made. I'm happy to provide the same.

1. The link to the page of Prof. Jagdish Mukhi in the 'Government Offices' section was broken. I fixed that. I linked to the correct page.

2. The ribbons used in the awards and decorations page are not of the highest quality, visually. I used the ribbons found on this page and in my opinion, the visual quality of ribbons improved considerably. This is most obvious when you look at the depiction of the 'Sena Medal.'

These are all the changes I made. There was no malicious intent in making these changes. FlyingBlueDream (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi FlyingBlueDream Sorry about that. I self reverted and it should be back to the version it was before my edit. Thanks for helping me correct my mistake. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamgerber80/Archives/Archive_2&oldid=809286975"