User talk:Adamgerber80/Archives/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Revision

Why was my edit overturned? I have quoted multiple verifiable web / media sources on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chhota_Shakeel&diff=819048718&oldid=819048009 The speculation lies in the manner in which the subject possibly died-Not the death in itself-Please revise your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandfrontier (talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandfrontier, The information you have added is speculation since the news reports themselves claim that this is per sources and not yet officially confirmed. There have also been other media reports that Mumbai police is trying to confirm this. Wikipedia has strict guidelines for in WP:BLP for articles which are biographies of living persons. We have to be careful when adding content to these pages. Please open a discussion on the article talk page if you disagree. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Do U love your family?

I love you too my friend, thanks for all your help! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.161.219.114 (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Love me so much?

I see you been following my uploads on Commons. I don't know if you have set some kind of alert/notification on my ID or whatever . It would be better if you restrict yourself to your field of work and not indulge in a personal rivalry with me , that too on a topic you know nothing about (locomotives in indian Railways). And please spare me of those blocking warnings. I can still upload anything, do any edit even already being blocked (your IP address changes every time you reconnect to internet 😊)

Last but not the least, my latest upload is also a copy. Let's see if you can get it deleted or not. Game's on! Diligentemu (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Diligentemu I think you give yourself too much importance and I have no rivalry with anyone. I only follow the guidelines laid down by Wikipedia. You should be good as long as you follow them. Please careful of what you edit or upload since you have already been warned multiple times and your current statements are insinuating that you might evade blocks in the future. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Just for information I have now blocked User:Diligentemu as he clearly doesnt understand our copyright policy and the statement above shows intent to avoid and continue to upload copyright material, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
MilborneOne Thanks for the update. I have also initiated a SPI here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Diligentemu for the user because I suspect they have a sockpuppet. Spectacular99 also uploaded the same image on Wikimedia commons after the image uploaded by Diligentemu was deleted for CR violations. And Diligentemu immediately added the image to the article which leads me to believe that they might be the same person. They also seem to have a huge overlap in editing articles given that they have a limited number of edits. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
MilborneOne My suspicions were correct. The user has now been blocked for Sockpuppetery. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)

Could you please stop with the constant reverts on this article under weak pretenses, my edits are well-explained and are always there for a reason. The text you added removed source attribution, even though the report clearly mentioned "unnamed" sources; yet you changed it to "M. Ilyas Khan states", inexplicably as if they're facts coming from him. The same article also quoted detection of movements and the subsequent retreat, which you altered without reason. And even more misleading is the text "to help the Pakistani Army in case the border clashes got worse" [1], which has been added as a matter of fact whereas here is the text of the source where it is a rhetorical question: ...there had been an increased influx of militants in the valley. Are they in the area to help the army in case border skirmishes with the Indians get worse? No one is sure. I'm going to review any further changes made to this article, in the meantime please ensure that your edits do not stray from or misrepresent the sources. Thank you, Mar4d (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mar4d My edits have not been reverts but copy-edits of the content on the page so please do not mislabel them. I have not removed any sourced attribution. The article clearly does not attribute that fact to the locals but mentions it independently. I have mentioned facts about the retreat stating that were beaten back. It is you who added puffery which is not required. I apologize for the question mark text and I have reverted that aspect of the content. I would strongly suggest you 2 things. First, discuss these issues on the article talk page. Second, your edits themselves have been not been ideal. You removed a lot of text on the pre-text of Copy-right violation when you could have been easily copy-edited. So please do not consider yourself to be the ultimate authority on the subject. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually no, WP:COPYVIO text is not okay and not acceptable. So please don't tell me it's okay. You clearly do not seem to be able to distinguish between "puffery" and source attribution. My edits reflect what is in the source, which is verbatim quoted thrice in the BBC article as follows: A similar advance by the Indians in the Dudhnial area of Neelum valley further north was beaten back by the Pakistanis..; The Pakistani fire sent them scurrying back to their bunkers...; The Pakistanis did not take long to get their act together and fired back from the remaining bunkers, pushing the Indian guns back from the ridges overlooking the valley. So unless you are calling out the actual source as a piece of puffery, this obviously does not make sense and is not true. Mar4d (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Mar4d I somehow find it very convenient that you exactly found the text which mentioned places where Indians had advanced to be WP:COPYVIO and removed them. From NPOV point of view you should have re-added the text albeit after modifications. You clearly failed to do this. Secondly, "beaten back" which I have mentioned and so as the article means retreat. There have been mention of 3 incidents mentioned in the BBC article. I have given equal weight all 3 incidents. First, you removed information on the first 2 incidents on WP:COPYVIO and did not re-add it back after a copy-edit. Next, you seem to give weight to another incident in which the Indians were beaten back by attaching it more weight. The additional text of "to their bunkers" does not add any more information to the reader and is thus unnecessary word inflation on your part without adding anything new. Also it was in this incident that a Pakistani soldier was injured which you also removed and had to be added back. Again, if you wish to discuss the content of the edits, take it to the article talk page. I would recommend you to give equal weight to all aspects of that report not just some parts. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a baseless excuse. The text I restored was, as you will find, longstanding in the article before it was modified in this poor edit, which basically broke the prose and plagiarised the BBC article. This was then followed by your edit which basically altered the existing text without explanation, whilst rewording the copyright violation. I have added no word inflation, beaten back "to their bunkers" was already there and it is how the source narrates the details. Again, you are making up your own assumptions whilst trying to justify a poor edit. Mar4d (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Long standing does not mean that it was necessarily NPOV. You are falsely equating the two. The earlier (long-standing per your claims) text did not cover the reference completely and only made mention of a single from 3 incidents in the reference. All that I have done is added information about the 2 other incidents and given equal weight to all of them. The earlier text "beating back to the bunkers" is word inflation of one of the incidents where other incidents had absolutely no mention. Your earlier edit of removing the text (added by another user) which described the other 2 incidents on pre-text of Copy-right violation was in poor light (in my opinion). If it was a truly NPOV, you would be edited the text out and given equal weights to all 3 incidents. Instead, you chose to argue here on the fact that text was already there and thus was not word-inflation. I have not altered the existing text beyond what is mentioned in the reference. My edit was meant to give equal weight to all incidents in the reference not just one as was the case earlier. About the text with the question mark, I have already self reverted that aspect since I agree with you that it should not have been included. Again, discuss the content on the article talk page as other editors are also involved in the page, not just you or me. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The fact that you're unhappy over plagiarised text being removed, and ludicrously(!) calling it in "poor light" says a lot about you as an editor and shows you have a serious lack of understanding of Wikipedia's basic rules. There is no excuse, ifs or buts that will be accepted for this case. This is the type of stuff that gets people blocked. And if I see another copyright violation being added to the article, I will definitely remove it again. In the future, do not spin it any other way. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Mar4d You are misunderstanding my statements. I agree with you that the copy-vio text had to be removed. My concern was the fact that you chose to remove the text (correctly) for COPYVIO but did not re-add some aspects of it (which was in poor light). Please free to remove COPYVIO text again on this or any other article but if it adds new information which was not present then it is our responsibility as editors to ensure that it is included after due process. To reiterate, I am unhappy over the aspect that you did not re-add parts of it which were missing after a copy-edit. But nonetheless, I re-added them myself which should have been the case with the editor who removed them. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Again, I am under no compulsion to do that. Wikipedia is a WP:VOLUNTEER service. If you want to reword it, feel free to do it yourself. Don't expect others to do it if they find and remove plagiarized material. There is no such requirement. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Mar4d I understand that and is the reason why I termed it our "responsibility" but one is expected to the right thing especially in cases when these edits might be on controversial topics. Some other editors have already been blocked in the recent past for removing sourced content under the garbs of COPYVIO. This was a case where it was warranted but in my opinion in poor light. Anyways, for the last time, if you have issue with the content as was the case this time, take it to the respective talk page. You are a senior enough editor to know this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

HAL Tejas ferry range

I have posed legitimate questions in the talk page and have given reasons why the ferry range of 1750km with drop tanks is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. But, despite all this, without gving proper reasoning and based on the source you like, you are repeatedly editing out which has become unacceptable. Also, not specifying the number of drop tanks is even more foolish. Either be specific in your numbers or don't edit out others. I am also basing my numbers on source as well as on comparison with similar aircrafts.

Your acts are considered as vandalism at best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshithijsharma (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Actually no, it's not vandalism in any sense of how Wikipedia uses the word, per WP:NOT VANDALISM. Please Assume Good Faith. - BilCat (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Kshithijsharma The discussion is currently ongoing on the article talk page. Please respond to the points raised by Gazoth there. If you feel that a consensus cannot be reached then please feel free to involve an administrator. Please do not edit the page disruptively as you did recently including removing a chunk of information and reverting existing edits. Such behavior is frowned upon and can lead to potential sanctions and even blocks. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Kshithijsharma I have commented to the ongoing discussion and presented my views. Please respond with your views and try to gain a census. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:WDG 4G

Hello Adamgerber80. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:WDG 4G, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The user did not create this ban in violation of the block (they weren't blocked yet). Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Callanecc Thanks for the update. Sorry I did not understand this caveat in that CSD category. Adamgerber80 (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India)

Greetings,

It is being planned to organize Wikigraphists Bootcamp in India, please fill out the survey form to help the organizers. Your responses will help organizers understand what level of demand there is for the event (how many people in your community think it is important that the event happens). At the end of the day, the participants will turn out to have knowledge to create drawings, illustrations, diagrams, maps, graphs, bar charts etc. and get to know to how to tune the images to meet the QI and FP criteria. For more information and link to survey form, please visit Talk:Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Dewan Rabindranath Soni

On 16 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dewan Rabindranath Soni, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lt. Gen. D. R. Soni, chief of the Southern Command of the Indian Army, was a military observer in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dewan Rabindranath Soni. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dewan Rabindranath Soni), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit

Please see explanations at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trans-Karakoram_Tract&action=history. This territory isn’t in India. You deleted Chinese and also Urdu name in December with only justification of “DENY”??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1013:B006:3F9E:E1EE:DD16:1EEA:5B75 (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please have a look at the discussion on the talk page. You are more then welcome to add Chinese and Urdu scripts but stop removing Hindi scripts. Adamgerber80 (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Re added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1013:B006:3F9E:E1EE:DD16:1EEA:5B75 (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

PIB and Copyright

Hi Adamgerber80, I noticed that you reverted my edit on Birender Singh Dhanoa saying that the content on PIB's website is copyrighted. However, this states that "Material featured on this website may be reproduced free of charge and there is no need for any prior approval for using the content.". So, are you sure about it?
Again, I am no expert, and may be wrong.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 16:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi SshibumXZ First thank you for your contributions to all Indian government and civil services related pages. Much of these pages were in a stage of neglect and contained outdated information. Your work on these pages is much appreciated. Now to the topic of PIB images. Yes the copyright policy states it may be reproduced free of charge but Wikimedia Commons does not like another line which states this "The material must be reproduced accurately and not used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context". There has been an intense debate over this in the past. You can find this here ([2]). In short, we cannot upload any images from Indian Army, Indian Air Force or PIB sites even though the license states so because of this line per Wikimedia Commons and on the English Wikipedia. You can however upload images from the Indian Navy since we have an OTRS from them (essentially an email stating they are okay). Only specific images from PIB/Indian Army/other sources can uploaded on English Wikipedia under very restrictive conditions when there is no realistic way to obtain them freely and only used on specific pages. Some examples here could be the person is dead, missile launches, organization logos and so on. Birender Singh Dhanoa is living person and thus his images from PIB are not acceptable. I have gone down this route, to convince other editors on Wikimedia Commons and on the English Wikipedia (and so have others), before and after me but to no avail. I have tried multiple things, contacted the person who was instrumental in obtaining the OTRS from the Indian Navy here User_talk:Krishna_Chaitanya_Velaga/Archive_5#Indian_Navy_and_OTRS, talked with journalists off Wikipedia but there has been no updates on this front. I had recently re-checked with the editors who were involved in the original discussion (these editors are considered an authority of sorts on Copy-right regulations) and the answer was still negative here ([3]). I have also noticed that you have uploaded quite a bit of images from PIB on Wikimedia Commons. My recommendation would be to self nominate them for copy-right violation and avoid a first strike. If you prefer, you can have a chat with some of the editors like Magog_the_Ogre but you will get the same answer. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying! And I may self-nominate the PIB files I have uploaded on Commons, but after a day or seven, as I am also trying to get PIB to license it content.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 03:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@SshibumXZ: Great. Let me know if we get okay from PIB and Wikimedia commons. This will be very helpful. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Point of view pushing on Pakistan Army

Your logic was that this article was about the Pakistani army yet the Indian page contains Pakistani tank losses stop your double standard editing. Hranday8 (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hranday8 This has now been resolved. In the future if you edits are reverted, please discuss them on the relevant talk pages. Please do not engage in disruptive editing, canvassing or personal attacks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Mz7 (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User:N0n3up

Hello, please help me. User:N0n3up is reverting all my edits without a reason. (2600:1017:B01B:26EE:49D4:9D46:B2AE:3A4F (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC))

I only reverted some edits of yours which did not seem constructive. Your edits have also been reverted by other users in here and here. You continue to edit-war without sources nor consensus. Keep this up and it may result in a WP:RPP. (N0n3up (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC))
Your edits seem to be biased and you refusing from using the talk page and your constant violation of the WP:3RR shows your're unwilling to cooperate to consensus. Not to mention that your edits here in Sur Empire is similar to this edit in Naan showing hints of biased nonconstructive editing. I've placed a request for page protection until you decide to take it to talk rather that constantly edit war and making biased edits. (N0n3up (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC))

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Adamgerber80, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Alex Shih (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you consider the following pages for review please

If these pages are suitable could you consider the following pages for review please as you are an autopatroller. I do plan to expand these pages more in the future but it would be encouraging to know that they are at least reviewed. There is even one related to the Indian Army which needs reviewing.

Military Farms Service (India) - review pending - date created - 16:35, 2 February 2018

Lost Kashmiri History - review pending - date created - 14:04, 2 February 2018

Sports in Jammu and Kashmir - review pending - date created - 12:04, 4 February 2018

Shabir Choudhry - review pending - date created - 12:44, 5 February 2018

I have started ten other pages and they have all been reviewed and are slowly expanding in size and improving in quality of content. I also am trying to actively make edits to other articles and improve quality and add my photographs also to articles. This can be easily seen from my user page. Still have a long way to go on Wikipedia i dont even have the criteria for patroller stats as yet. Cheers. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I doubled checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPagesFeed to make sure they aren't reviewed.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I misunderstood who is an autopatroller after being told by another user and reading the Wikipedia help pages better. Sorry for the inconvenience. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

This is Zev Buccaneer, I just copy edited the article. Line 32: I removed the pronoun "it" because there is a conjunction which joins two parts of the sentence. Line 69: What is Mumbai's budget? I don;t think it makes sense, does it? Do we say Maharashtra's budget or the Budget of the Govt. of Maharashtra? so it should be BMC's budget and not Mumbai's! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zev Buccaneer (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zev Buccaneer I have removed the entirety of that sentence and some other sentences since they were unsourced. Please let me know if you have further questions. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

attention

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.--樂號 (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I have asked you multiple times to discuss your changes on the talk page. You are continuing to edit disruptively and what seems to be bordering Personal attacks by stating that Indian editors are editing pages with Indian maps. Take your issue to the article talk page. I think you need to assume Good faith. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I have explained multiple times that it is controlled by china, not india. only using indian is unproper and biased.--樂號 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--樂號 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@樂號: Why did you copy warning messages posted on your talk page to Adamgerber80's? That's very misleading and disruptive. I've deleted them. Please do not do it again. -Zanhe (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Lipulekh Pass

Could you please take a look at Lipulekh Pass page? Thanks. Jakichandan (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jakichandan, Now the page appears fine. Since it is closer to the junction point with China, the Chinese map can be added after the Indian map. You can initiate discussion on the article talk page if you think other wise. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Adamgerber80/Archives, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Supporting Indian Wikipedia Program resource distribution

In 2017 - 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India chapter (WMIN) and user groups will pilot a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program (Code name: Project Tiger) will:

(a) Support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and
(b) Sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

The objective of the program is to provide laptops and internet stipends for existing editors who need support to contribute more actively. 50 basic model Acer Chromebooks and Internet stipends for 100 contributors are available for distribution. Provided resources are the sole property of the beneficiaries and should be used for the betterment of the movement.

If you're an active Wikimedian, and interested to receive support from this project, please apply. It will take around 10 minutes of your time, and will ask descriptive questions about your contribution to Indic Wikimedia projects.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

indian ARMY FOUGHT "WITH" OR "FOR"

HI,

i had made a minor edit in grammar which suggested that the British Indian Army, in 1939(prior to independence) fought the Allies.

the Word "with " would seemingly indicage that they fought AGAINST the allies, i had therefore modified it to "for" , SO AS TO CONVEY the correct meaning.

Alternatively , you can edit it to mean "along with" , but the word "with" conveys an antagonism which was not present, nor intended in the passage IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Chimesmonster I agree with your assessment that just using "with" can indicate antagonism but using "for" also would have changed the meaning IMO. The word "along with" is a better option. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Re. Revered Changes Women in Indian Armed Forces and Para (Special Forces)

I noticed you reverted my changes ([4] and [5]) to the above-mentioned articles with the comment "reference needed". I have added the necessary references to the article on The Test Case. I intend to re-add the text to both the above article minus the Fauji TV series related text - I am not involved maintaining that article. Thought I should check if you had any objections before I did? -MayureshK 15:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Mskadu Those references look fine. I would suggest to always add references with the content you add to new pages. Ideally the one to two which cover the entire content you are adding. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Adamgerber80: I usually do. unfortunately you reverted the changes before I had the chance. I would have hoped you would have marked it with the likes of template:cn to give me a chance to fix your concern. Perhaps something to consider in the future? Anyway, thanks for your response. I will re-add the text briefly. -MayureshK 07:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
You have reverted my text which was as per discussed. Please add the relevant sources as well. My general guideline of such pages (Indian military related) is that I revert instead of adding the cn tags since they see a high degree of of unsourced additions or vandalism. Whenever you add content, please try to add the reference with it. This way it won't get reverted. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

JF-17 Thunder

Hi.

There are some links below for sources:

https://www.hsz.hu/phirek/8/katonai-tipusok/elkeszult-a-100.-jf-17-thunder-pakisztanban

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3031586.html


The fact shall remain even if you revert my edits, like it or not, Pakistan has over 100 JF-17s and not to mentioned additional JF-17Bs as well (dual seater) on test runs. Faraz (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Faraz Please be careful with your words. You first edited the page with no sources, then you added a WP:SPS and continue with this disruptive behavior. Of the 2 references you have provided the first one is WP:RS and can be used to update those numbers. I wonder when you had this source why did not update the page with it rather than adding no citation. The second one is again a WP:SPS. lastly, in the future, when you edit numbers or figures please provide a WP:RS if you don't want your edits to be reverted. Also, Quwa is not comparable to Janes group by any means of imagination. It does not become reliable just because you say so. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits removed

You removed my edit from a page I created. Please don’t.-Frji Tyyrghfdewgh (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Frji Tyyrghfdewgh I reverted two edits, one was unsourced and other was violating NPOV. Wikipedia is a community resource and we edit it together under the guidelines laid out. If some other editor feels that your edits are violating these guidelines or does not think they are appropriate than they can undo/revert your edits. You can discuss your edits with them on the talk pages of respective pages to put forth your views and why they should be included per Wikipedia guidelines. Making a random statement not to undo your edits (without providing due reason) which are in my view in violation of Wikipedia guidelines is not correct. Please edit responsibly. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Mirpur

I'm not sure you did what you thought you did there [6]. I know it can be annoying when several editors have edited in succession, but in such situations it's usually a good idea to check the diffs before reverting (if you enable the navigation popups previewing the diffs is much quicker). – Uanfala (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala Sorry about that. I was reverting edits by a LTA and undid your edit as well. I tried to reinstate your edit but I guess did not link UK. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

39.57

This IP is a sock of Mfarazbaig. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital. Don't expect him to discuss.[7] D4iNa4 (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

D4iNa4 I suspected so. It is easier to protect the page and avoid further disruption in the short term then to wait for the SPI to bear fruition. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Investigations involving IPs are always too slow. If we go by the fundamental that we should not revert until the sock is blocked then I can imagine how bad these articles will become. Since no one can really claim that these IPs are not Mfarazbaig who is on verge of getting sitebanned, requesting page protection and referring to this SPI will definitely work. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I understand your point. The IP was being disruptive since they have been reverting edits on that page for quite some time without initiating a discussion on the talk page. That was enough grounds for page protection. The SPI will help as well. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Undoing changes in Bangladesh Army , Bangladesh Air Force and Bangladesh Navy

I noticed you reverted my changes ([8], [9] [10]) by citing "sourced version".

You can see the source clearly states total size of forces (civilian + military) which I put there. Unless of course civilians who work in the armed forces aren't count as such even though the law minister clearly says they are included. Do you mind clarifying it a bit for me?

Karib6262 (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Karib6262 The armed forces sizes are typically officers plus enlisted personnel only. We usually don't count civilians in that number. The source you have provided is the reply by the law minister is a reply to a question in the Bangladesh parliament and this requires him by procedure to state all the employees of the armed forces. The emphasis is on the word employees and not armed forces strength. It is WP:SYNTHESIS on your part to assume that the law minister "clearly" says that they are included as the strength of the armed forces. If this was the case he would have provided a combined number not a clear distinction between civilians and military personnel. In my view, you can include the number of civilians in the infobox but clearly state them as civilians and not combine them as military personnel. Hope this helps. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Adamgerber80 Thanks for the clarification. Can you check now & confirm if it's correct this time or not. ([11]) Karib6262 (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Karib6262 That looks fine and is also similar to other articles like United States Army. Thanks. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 07:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC) (FYI)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

For restoring obvious copyright violations on Raheel Sharif and warning the IP user who tried to remove them.

--NeilN talk to me 13:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I am confused. Can you please clarify which source that content was COPYVIO from. I double checked the source and the content before reverting the edits and even asked the editor to take it to the talk page since I did not see where it was. I have been careful about this and even left a message recently on another editor's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Harsh7422#Edits_on_DRDO_Rustom) regarding a completely distinct incident. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It was right in the source given. Searching on "Rights activists" on that page would have immediately brought it up. --NeilN talk to me 14:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
NeilN Yes this was the source I checked in. I copied pasted parts of the sentence and my find (in the browser) did not show up any result. Clearly my bad and sorry about that. There have been other instances of users having removed content which was not to their liking by calling in WP:COPYVIO and I assumed the IP (who seems well versed in wikipedia jargon) was pulling the same thing. I will be more careful in the future. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 14:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverts

What is your problem man? You reverted articles which have a reference. And why don't you warn other users, the other paragraphs don't have a source/sources.

Your first addition did not have a reference. You later added it after it was reverted. Per Wikipedia policy, we do not allow unsourced content to be added. Feel free to remove content from others without references. But just because the article has unsourced content does not give anyone a free pass. Also, please stop adding irrelevant pictures or unnecessary pictures on articles. Multiple editors have reverted these edits. If you feel they still need to be included initiate a discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, I have seen you have been proposing changes on or deleting content I have added. Now these changes you have suggested are actually quite good :) , but also, like the simple case where I just forgot to put the sources on the Para SF page, you could have added them from the links I had added. But yes, I personally should not make bad quality edits and let it slip too often. I just hoped that some other editors would contribute more rather than criticize, (shouldn't have hope this in a way now I guess). So I will keep a check and stay positive with your changes to my edits that may happen again. Cheers and you're a great editor in your own way. Seeya around :) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan. First, I am not being critical of anybody's work. You seem to be taking this personally. This is a community contributed platform and once you add content to, it belongs to the community and anyone can feel free to edit it. I tag content per what I think is appropriate for it. I am not singling out your contributions for merge or removing them. Second, some of the pages I have on my watchlist see quite a few additions of unsourced content. Some vandalizing it and some being jingoistic. My attempt is to ensure that we only add source content and the WP:BURDEN is on you as an editor to add references for your content. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I understand. Thanks for the explanation @Adamgerber80:. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

cruise missile

Can you not see ive added reference in the China section? Chickenhero (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)chickenhero

Chickenhero I have updated the content to represent what is in the reference. Please add only relevant content to the reference. You cannot generalize it. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hiya

Elshoaibo99 (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request in Pakistan Air Force

The source of Aircraft quantities in Aircraft Current Inventory Section are of 2017 article, now it should be revised by new updated 2018 article. Here is source https://www.flightglobal.com/asset/21905/waf/Mtkhan1989 (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mtkhan1989 I would take this to the talk page on List of active Pakistan Air Force aircraft and discuss there. I am sure other editors and we myself can respond there. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Wars Involving Pakistan

I noticed that you removed my edit, and asked me to provide a proper explanation so I have gone ahead and done it. I believe it can be accessed at the "History" subpage or if you would prefer, I'll copy paste it here RexImperio (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

RexImperio Please discuss your edits on the respective talk pages. This is not the result on the respective war pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, I am curious to know, once I make my argument on the Talk Page, who will it be that decides what course of action is to be taken? Because I don't mean to be that guy, but there are users of a certain nationality who are naturally biased when it comes to deciding how Pakistan's history is to be painted. Ofcourse this bias comes from both sides of the border RexImperio (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
RexImperio We do not view the edits here via the prism of nationality and please do not insinuate this against editors. Wikipedia is a community resource which is co-edited by people across different nationalities and we do not restrict anyone from editing any page until they follow Wikipedia guidelines. Second, the statues on that page reflect the statues on different conflict pages which were developed using consensus and WP:RS from different editors. Please put forth your discussion points based on WP:RS, WP:NPOV. As of now your argument (based on your edit comments) seem to be WP:OR and your WP:POV. This is not valid here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Project Tiger Writing Contest

In 2017 – 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India Chapter (WMIN) and user groups from India, are piloting a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program will (a) support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and (b) sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

Phase (a) has been completed, during which active contributors were awarded laptops and internet stipends. Phase (b) will be a contest in which editors will come together and develop a writing contest focused on content gaps. Each month three individual prizes will be awarded to each community based on their contribution for the month. The prizes worth 3,000 INR, 2000 INR, and 1,000 INR, will be awarded to the top contributors for each month. The contest started at March 1, 2018, 0:00, and will end at May 31, 2018, 23:59 (IST). Useful links are as follows:

Looking forward your participation, all the best. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) at 22:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Article redirect. NeilN talk to me 11:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

your revert

Hello Adamgerber80, you reverted my repair of an outdated link in Annexation of Goa, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annexation_of_Goa - now I am convinced that the German AND the English versions of WP are nonsense. Thanks for this clarification! --Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment on the talk page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

INSAS rifle

Regarding this revert of yours, which reinstated a link to a non existent page and removed a reference which mentioned its working mechanism. I hope you self-revert. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:522D:5174:B12A:40B1:8CDA:D8B5 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit has been fixed. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Mont Blanc de C

Thanks for reverting the IP. I have given a ref. Please keep an eye out on the List page and the separate peak page and revert if he/she changes it back. Eventually 3RR will kick in for him/her. Ericoides (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Ericoides The IP you are dealing with is a LTA sock who disrupts with an Italian POV on Wikipedia. I have filed a SPI against him/her at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Have commented on the SPI page. Ericoides (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

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

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, 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.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present)

I wanted to let you know since you have been doing a great job of updating this article, that I have done some major clean-up in the infobox regarding the casualties since the large volume of sources cited was making it almost impossible to confirm the figures cited. I have now unified all of the sources based on the template we have been using in multiple other war articles on a date-by-date basis or year-by-year. Now we have a nice overview of both soldier/civilian deaths reported by their respective countries and rival soldier deaths claimed by the two countries. I also found a few inconsistencies, as well as a few deaths that were not earlier included in the death toll. The unifying of multiple sources has cut down the large number of individual references and un-congested the infobox significantly, which is per WP policy which requires us to not inflate the infoboxes. So, what do you think of the new look? :) Between, you can use the same template in the future when updating the figures by just adding the new sources for the specific dates in the unified references. EkoGraf (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

PS If you ever need any future assistance in this regard feel free to ping me and I will help. EkoGraf (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Forgot one more thing. I saw on the talk page there was consensus more than a year ago, a consensus with which I agree, for the need to separate an article for the surgical strike from the subsequent border skirmishes. I will try and do this tomorrow and after I'm done you can check it out and see if there is room for further improvement. I will leave a summary of the strike as a background section to the skirmishes article, while a summary of the skirmishes will be in an aftermath section of the strike article. EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

New proposal for merger of "2018 Supreme Court of India crisis"

Hello, Adamgerber80. You have new messages at Talk:Supreme Court of India/Archive 1#New proposal for merger of "2018 Supreme Court of India crisis".
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Oriental Bank of Commerce

Hi, I work at Regional Office of Oriental Bank, The information that I added is fully reliable and 100% correct. You can confirm the same from any official of OBC. This information is very crucial for any person, also gives knowledge about the Bank's current structure and Branches. I think the information is fit to be added in the page of OBC. Kindly do not revert back the edits or provide some reason for the same. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatin garg (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yatin garg, We need a WP:RS to confirm that numbers. I cannot take your claim at face value that you indeed are an official at OBC. Also, the WP:BURDEN falls on the editor editing the content to provide a reference for their edits. It would be ideal if you could link this number off OBC's website or a newspaper article. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Arun Shridhar Vaidya

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

His community was explicitly stated in both sources. It was also put in quotes for easier referencing. I moved the citation close to the mention of the caste so you you see it more clearly. Here are the news papers and the quotes. They are present on the Arun Shridhar Vaidya page also.

News Source: Nagpur Today (Nov 2014)

http://www.nagpurtoday.in/fishy-weekend-coming-up/11051340

quote:"Among the famous CKP people are – Balasaheb Thackeray and the entire clan; Mr. C.D. Deshmukh, India’s first Finance Minister and Governor of the RBI, film star Kajol’s mother Tanuja who is daughter of famous erstwhile actress Shobhana Samarth. Nutan was her sister. Admiral Tipnis, Chief of Indian Air force; General Vaidya and many more such luminaries."

news source: DnaIndia mumbai report (Dec 2013)

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-chandraseniya-kayastha-prabhu-s-aim-for-better-community-connect-1935881

quote: "CKP as a community has been known for its “writing and fighting skills”. Some prominent faces that it boasts as members are Baji Prabhu Deshpande, a fighter in Shivaji’s army, Ram Ganesh Gadkari, Marathi writer, B G Deshmukh, ex-chief secretary, Bal Thackeray, General Arun Kumar Vaidya, late army chief, and Tanuja and Smita Salaskar..."

Both this sources were right next to the field you reverted.Hope that helps. I am not sure how you missed this.

-Acharya63 (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Acharya63 What I meant by "Where is that stated" is where is it stated in WP:CASTE that is it okay to mention caste if the person is dead. I did see the sources and that was NOT the reason it was reverted. It seems you are the one who is indulging in disruptive editing since I was the one who reverted your edits. Instead of gaining conensus on the talk page, you have repeatedly reverted edits. I would recommend you take this to the article talk page, discuss before you engage in more descriptiveness. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Adamgerber80, WP:CASTE does not prohibit it - in fact it is an irrelevant page in this case. You are probably not familiar with biographies. It is considered perfectly acceptable to state communities/castes as long as it is sourced. See Bal Gangadhar Tilak or [[Mahatma Gandhi an an example. Please revert your own edit as I do not want to revert it - it looks bad - like editors are in a war. I think you mean well but are probably not familiar with the rules on biographies. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Also see this User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Sitush is the main editor for wikipedia articles. He has written the consensus there. Basically the rule is that for a dead person, the caste has to be sourced. For a living person, sourced caste is not enough unless he/she says it. For one example, Sonali Bendre is CKP but Madhuri Dixit is Chitpawan. However, only Madhuri's caste is added to her page as she mentioned it in an interview. Sonali's caste is sourced in https://www.mid-day.com/articles/goldie-bhel-s-maha-mantra/84701 but that sourcing is not enough although her husband says "Sonali's family is CKP...". She has to self-identify. Hope that helps. Thanks -Acharya63 (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Replied to your comment on the article talk page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sindhudesh

Your edit warring on this article is clear WP:HOUNDING, and not conducive of good conduct. I suggest you revert your edit there before I'm forced to escalate this behavioural issue. Mar4d (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you please explain how this is WP:HOUNDING? And what was wrong with an edit which made the content more clear? I did NOT revert your edit, just made the content more clear. You were the one who tried to sneak a revert in without undoing my edit. Also for your information I do also watch over related articles like Sindhis in India, Sindhis and have edits on them long before this edit. I would highly recommend you to take your issue with that specific edit to the article talk page. If you have "issues" with specific edits of mine that please be clear on how they violate Wikipedia policy instead of thinking up random allegations. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mar4d: Don't think about it, because that will result in WP:BOOMERANG, given you have least right to say that since you are wikihounding and edit warring in favor of a disruptive sock.[12] Capitals00 (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
It is definitely hounding, since Adamgerber80 had no edits on this article and clearly followed me there and is now edit warring. WP:HOUNDING states: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." Meanwhile, you are edit warring on another article removing content which I have sourced, and which is supported on the PIA article, so your allegation of "personal opinion" is completely misleading and false. Mar4d (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
While you are allowed to wikihound, edit war, in favor of a disruptive sock? You have been doing this for a long time, hence you have least right to make above warnings. There was nothing sourced about what you were restoring and even your recent edit could support only half of the sentence and it shows that this is clearly more about your general WP:CIR issues. When you can't even understand what you are adding, why you think about restoring what an obviously disruptive editor has edited? Capitals00 (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Mar4d I have clearly conveyed to you that I have edits on articles which are in the same sphere and have an interest in that article. If I take a quick list on your recent contributions Orient Airways, Shaheen Air, Delhi Gate, Lahore, Inter-Services Intelligence activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, History of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, History of Gilgit-Baltistan, Talk:India–Pakistan military confrontation (2016–present) and Pashtuns apart from Sindhudesh. Among this we have overlap on only 2 articles, both of which come under my sphere of interest and one them have edits for a long long time. If you are still unconvinced and feel that this is WP:HOUNDING then please feel free to take this to WP:ANI. I think you might indulge in this behavior and thus are getting paranoid when you see a single edit. There is nothing more I can say to convince you here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Capitals00 Let's keep the issue to what Mar4d has raised here. Other issues which might exist do not belong on my talk page. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adamgerber80/Archives/Archive_4&oldid=858885903"