User talk:Adamgerber80/Archives/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I set official source on Otomat.You are disruptive not accepting official sources.Outliner73 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:SPS. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 18:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok ,but accept my official sources otherwise i won't accept yours on missiles.Outliner73 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Outliner73: I don't think that is how this works. Discuss based on policy on the talk page. This is not a bargain or a transaction here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I added another link.Don't deny evidence.Outliner73 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a content issue. Please respond there. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

it seems you ignore.You edit on mine and i can't i on yours? That reference is very good.You hate Italy!Outliner73 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This has been an issue across multiple pages. Adding poorly sourced content to suit a POV and calling anyone a hater if they removed it for not meeting Wikipedia guidelines. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I dont understand if these things are not noteworthy? Why dont you call up the TA directorate and check if these are not true? The number of TA Directorate is 011-23094785 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.170.56 (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed this and a bunch of other names from the page which do not meet

WP:GNG. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 16:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page since this is a content issue. Also, please declare your COI there (paid or otherwise). This is bordering on

WP:PROMO now. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 00:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)\

@

WP:ANI. Please tread with caution. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 16:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Again you are making unnecessary threats. Anyway, take note that I am watching pages related to Khalistan movement and Indian separatism generally speaking. They are all controversial articles, so unless the edits contribute in an unquestionably NPOV sense, it's possible that discussion will need to take place. I expect it to be civil discussion. Also, please be nice to new users. --

talk

) 16:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:AGF even when I am aware that they are a sock. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 16:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassed_and_Wikihounded_by_an_Acute_Battle_Syndrome--DBigXray 20:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You have made your point, I suggest you to refrain from posting any more or going off topic. or lengthening the thread (Than already what it is) with unnecessary discussion, that will most certainly derail the discussion. There is an editor's conduct issue being discussed as the primary topic, instead of defending himself he is trying to blame others (AD Hominem). further justifies the case for bad faith. Good night --DBigXray 22:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hey buddy, thanks a million for all the work you do defending Wikipedia! Kautilya3 (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

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

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

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

The Signpost

• The next issue of
  the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here
  .

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber, By October 1947, Pakistan had raised four divisions in West Pakistan and one division in East Pakistan with an overall strength of ten infantry brigades and one armoured brigade with thirteen tanks. see this, and this, also [this]. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fayaz Rahman: Replied to you on the talk page. Please be patient if you don't hear back. It might take some time for me to reply. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber, Pakistan Army came into existence in 1947 by the British, it was actually one part of the British Indian Army, at first the army was very poor and modest, gradually in the 1950's it grew by the help of the US government's money, British Indian Army had raised divisions in where the soil of Pakistan now exists today, but there were much divisions that went to your country (I am not telling that the British hated Muslims or the creation of Pakistan), the first chief of the Pakistan Army was a native British who didn't love Pakistan but had done nothing wrong to the country, Ayub was the first local army chief of the country who was patriarchal (I hate patriarchal values very much) and implemented islamic ideologies to the army (not the whole), I also don't like religious influence in any part of the country, religion is the main reason that my country's women can't talk with men properly, can't wear bikini, can't have sex with their own will, though I still love my country, it's cuisine, it's parks, and I am telling you I don't hate India, I know that Indian women get freedom than any other countries in south asia, Indian girls make friendship with boys from childhood, they involve in sex in teen-age, Indian cities like Delhi, Mumbai are full of girls wearing shirt-pants, in our country there is nothing, we've just a large patriarchal army and patriarchal politicians (Imran Khan is also patriarchal). Lastly I am saying that I want good relationship with India and also wants patriarchal values to be removed from my country, Pakistan Zindabad. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fayaz Rahman: We have gone over this multiple times that this NOT a forum so please do not post random comments here. If you wish to discuss content related issues, please do on the article talk page with [[WP:RS}]. Also, please do NOT tag me in every article you edit. I watch over these pages, I do not own them or am an admin. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Adamgerber80, a few months ago you made me aware of the existence of GODL-India license, which opened up the prospect of the addition of thousands of free-to-share files on Commons; but I have got a question regarding the extent of the GODL-India license, I mean to ask, can pictures from governmental Twitter and Facebook accounts be uploaded on Commons under the aforementioned license?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 15:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@SshibumXZ: It is discouraged as attribution can be hard to trace. See previous discussion on c:COM:VPC. —Gazoth (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@SshibumXZ: Yes I agree with @Gazoth: here that any content off social media is not covered under the license. However, if I understand the extent of the license then anything under "*.nic.in" is since that is the official Indian Government domain and all content there is of the Indian Government and thus falls under the purview of the license. @Gazoth: Was there a resolution on the sainik samachar since it is hosted off a .nic.in website? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sainik Samachar is acceptable as it is under MoD, but not everything under *.nic.in domain is. Some state government websites are hosted at *.nic.in and content copyrighted by state governments cannot be used under GODL-India. Although there hasn't been a thorough discussion on this, at least one other editor agrees with me that they are out of GODL-India's scope. —Gazoth (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth and Adamgerber80: I get it; I am trying to create articles on Principal Secretaries to the Prime Minister of India (an article that I created today) and found a high-quality picture of the incumbent — Nripendra Misra — off of Twitter - [2], but now I would go by the advise the both you have given on not using social media pictures, but, I distincly remember Twitter claiming that governmental Twitter accounts were properties of the government or something along those lines, that may be a bit too ambigous for Commons, though.

As far as state governments — or union territorial governments for that matter — go, I think I would concur with Gazoth's views that content on them doesn't come under the purview of GODL-India, as, the aforementioned license makes it clear that it extends only to the Government of India and its agencies; and of course in a federal union like India, state government are independent, constitutional entities free from total federal control.

Thanks for the help!
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 21:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@SshibumXZ: Unfortunately, that particular picture was not uploaded to presidentofindia.nic.in, but this PIB picture should be an adequate replacement for the article. —Gazoth (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: that is a good image; but I went with another one; sourced off of RSTV, a Rajya Sabha agency. Thanks for the help, though!
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 20:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking for some help in categorizing batch uploaded Press Information Bureau images. More details are here. —Gazoth (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: I am quite busy with RL till the end of September. I will chip in whenever I can. Also, I had a look at the python script you wrote. Pretty neat. Let me know if you want my help with some python scripting. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries, quite a few people offered to help, so I think we can manage. Take all the time you need, this can always wait. I had some trouble with Pywikibot initially as its documentation lacks detail, but I've got the hang of it now. —Gazoth (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear admin, please keep watching the article Pashtun Tahafuz Movement. The same single-purpose user account, AS 199207, had again inserted his POV material into the article and had replaced some sourced material from the article. I reverted the article to your version. Thanks, 103.255.6.85 (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @103.255.6.85: I am not admin just an editor who watches over the page. I will look at the content more closely to see if it's entire removal was warranted or not. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair Enough!

But, want to ask/suggest the capitalisation of "InterContinental Ballistic Missiles"

Again, merely a suggestion!

All the best and Cheers,

PVH PVHenry (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@PVHenry: Can you please clarify on what you mean with the capitalisation of "InterContinental Ballistic Missiles"? Also, the content you had on that article might be useful as footnotes. But we might need some references for that. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

(

MoS guideline for expanding acronyms non-proper noun expansions should be written in minisculised forms. Hope this helps
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions

). 11:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait) I'll provide).Why did you revert aall my edits.I reverted even a vandal in B61 article. Have a look before.LongstreetJames (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.Now all articles are ok.I edit only with valid ref. and i always check them inside.B61 is stategic/tactical as in clear way the 3 ref report.Italian ranking is 25th and 32nd for gdp nominal and PPP per capita.Otomat Mk/2E of Italian Navy on PPA has a range > 360 km as reported in ref..Re. reports that it can be used as long range anti-ship missile and medium range land attack missile.Thanks.LongstreetJames (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Burger, (First Let me know if you dont like this name, its easier and shorter than copy paste every time)

regarding MediaBiastFactCheck how do you rate it ? it appears based on user voting to me. i admit i only gave them a cursory look. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have issues with the name but it might be better to use the full name or some abbreviation which is easily decipherable in discussions which involve more than 2-3 people. I get that you are referring to me but this might not be clear to somebody else participating in the discussion. On the website I would say that they are one of the good news evaluation sources I have found in recent times. Here is their methodology ([3]) which appears to be much more than just a user voting system. I believe that they do indeed vet news more thoroughly and by experts who provide a better evaluation of such websites than we can. I am also open to more suggestions from other editors but we cannot evaluate them in an ad-hoc fashion. Plus there might be antecedents in prior discussions (on say US based websites) that we can follow or adhere to. I do not wish to convert this into a right vs left battle but I have seen this discussion too often (across other India pages) now that I feel we need a discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

MediaBiasFactcheck is good-enough but it's entirely designed from a western perspective.I would not devote much credibility to it, as to correctly evaluating national-scape.I guess, we have to go by our own experiences and that stuff....... ∯WBG^converse 08:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You may be interested in commenting on this articles talk page Lyndaship (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

what is your opinion on this. Does Indian post stamp images come under GOI PD. Some editors think it is. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Can you please give a pointer to the discussion? There are many questions I have about this and it is difficult to weigh in without seeing all the facts. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Further information: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_October_1 § File:Gostha_Pal_India_post_stamp.jpg

--DBigXrayᗙ 19:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi.. Adamgerber80.. I added Dimasas in the article as my grandfathers and a lot of his brothers and almost a lot of Dimasa people from almost every village of North Cachar, kaebianglong and cachar did serve in the (Dimahasao) assam regiment in the eastern theatre of 2nd world war. My grandfathers cousin retired as a subedar major in the Assam regiment. In prepartition days under the British raj it was considered as a matter of pride and martial tradition(kshatriya) to serve in the Indian army. Very few do survive still now to live the tale in the hilly diatrict of DimaHasao to live the tale. A few veterans of 1962 war still are surviving. Daoga666 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @

WP:RS for that. Do you happen to have a newspaper or a book which states that Dimasas have been drafted into the Assam Regiment? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 20:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Adamgerber80, I see you added this pib citation at Air Marshal Anil Khosla article. How did you find the direct link of this press release? I checked on pib.nic.in and found http://pib.nic.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1548195, but this is embedded and not the direct link. —Sarvatra (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: Do you have any idea? —Sarvatra (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sarvatra: You need to get the ID of the press release that you need to link. It is usually in the last line of the press release. Once you get it, you can just add it to the end of one of these three URLs depending on whether the ID that you have is from the pre-2017 website or the new 2017 website: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid= or http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid= or http://www.pib.nic.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=. The first two are for release IDs from the pre-2017 website (somewhat paradoxically, beginning with the URL http://pib.nic.in/newsite/), while the third one is for releases from the 2017 website. For example, if you go to http://www.pib.nic.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx and navigate to some press release, the last line will have a press release ID of the form "(Release ID: 1498789)". If you append the number of first two URLs you'll get an error as ID is from the new website. If you append it to the third URL, you'll get the direct link: http://www.pib.nic.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1498789. On the other hand if you navigate to the same press release from the old site http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx, you'll get "(Release ID :169706)". After appending the ID to the end of the URL, you'll get direct links to the same press release on the old site: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=169706 and http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=169706. —Gazoth (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sarvatra: Sorry I was offline. This is indeed the correct way to get the PIB reference link. Thanks Gazoth. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history. It might be worthwhile to co-ordinate creation of new articles from there. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 20:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber, the history of raising divisions in Pakistan Army is an important issue as the army was originated from the well-known army of the world the then 'British Indian Army', I have added a reference about a Bengali book, Bengali is not understood by majority of Pakistanis also the language has not any international importance, on the other hand the English Wikipedia needs English reference(s)/book(s), Adamgerber I am telling you that Pakistan Army had played a very significant role in the country's building history (past history also), therefore the early story of the army should be included in the page, I think we should try to make the article a 'featured article' in this website. Pakistan Zindabad. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

My motive behind this discussion is to change the name of the country for Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (Azad Kashmir)

It is disputed territory and the dispute is still ongoing in the United Nations Assembly.

Hence, I want you to change the name of the country under quick facts section.

POK or Azaad Kashmir is only administered by Pakistan as per the UN mandate. Otherwise it is not a part of Pakistan even as per their constitution. Kashish.singh31195 (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Azad Kashmir

(talk page watcher) Please reply and discuss there, as it is about the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi DBigXray,

I don't want the name of the country to replaced by any other name. I just want to remove the name of any country from the article till the ongoing dispute is resolved in the United Nations.

As far as the proof is concerned, if you read the article you will find that the region is disputed by two countries and the case is going on in the United Nations. So we cannot say to which country this region belongs till the time case is solved.

I want to draw your attention towards the same cases. Like the article on Aksai Chin, it is also a disputed territory between India and China. In this article wikipedia has not mentioned the name of the country to which it belongs.

So I want you to remove the name of the country column straight away till the verdict.

As far as the p Kashish.singh31195 (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Kashish.singh31195 replied at the talk page, linked above. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This admin clearly seems to be a pro indian, i can say that because i have twice tried to edit an article which is about Mirwaiz Umar Farooq in which someone has written that his rallies has ISIS flags in which i ttied to explain that those are not ISIS flags but ISIS has no flags but they only use Islamic flags, on doing that my edit has always been deleted and now i am warned not to do that else i will get banned, i cant understand why i cant do that, this guy doesnt read about anything but does whatever he likes to. Jockeyy13 (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:NPOV issues. If you still I am wrong, feel free to comment on the article talk page where other editors can also chime in. The warnings that I have left on your talk page are because you are consistently removing sourced information without discussion. Lastly, please do not see editors through a prism of their nationality. For example, I do not see you as a <random-country>-supporter or opposer. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 03:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey @DBigXray, Kautilya3, and Gazoth:, Sorry I was AWOL from Wikipedia for the past 3 weeks or so because of RL. I am back temporarily and trying to deal with the back-log of the articles I watch over. I have responded to the pings and am trying to engage in those discussions. Plus, I also see the discussion on Talk:Regional power which I will get to soon. Please let me know if my input is required somewhere else or there were any amendment in rules while I was gone. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Good to see you back, No change in the Wikipedia rules that I know of and worth discussing. take your time with the pings. The discussion of RSN for websites continued, not sure if it still continues, since I did not participate. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

[4] It is clear isnt it ? BTW, Your comment and request is simply impractical. If in doubt, don't participate, since it is clearly stated that border of the ban should not be tested. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back, Adamgerber. Nothing much new here, other than the Talk:Regional power debate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:MEAT

. Every time a border gets tested, somebody complains and there are numerous discussions. IMO, commonly occurring cases might not be too hard to list.

@Kautilya3: Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree to your comment except the last line. Even if you make such a gigantic list, folks willing to test the border will find other articles that you missed. Anyway, it seems that some editors knowingly or unknowingly are not following the policy
  WP:BMB which clearly mentions the case of "constructive edits" and why they are made in such a case. --DBigXrayᗙ
  14:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  (talk page stalker) DBigXray, I think in cases like this one, common sense should be exercised. We should go by the spirit of Wikipedia rules, not the letter. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 14:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BMB and understand why so. If you disagree what BMB says, by all means, you can certainly go and start an RfC to remove the policy BMB, and other than that you are most welcome to continue such behavior of constructive editing against the ban and depend on wiki lawyering your way through all that, but I am sure, you are not going to get far on that road. Anyway, I have already said all I have to say, and would let common sense prevail. You are free to continue this discussion further but please dont ping me anymore on this, this discussion is now becoming a waste of time for me. --DBigXrayᗙ
  14:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I have no idea as to why you got so offended all of a sudden. I was just opining what—in my opinion—should be the way to go about all of this. I am not against BMB, but, what I am against, though, is its [extremely] indiscriminate use. As far as this ‘dispute’ goes, trust me, I don’t have much interest in edit-warring on India-Pakistan articles, as some of our more productive (and blocked) editors do; I just went through this discussion and tendered my [unwanted] advise. So far as the actual arbitration request goes, I will just quote a minor character from Friends, in that “I don’t give a tiny rat’s ass.” Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 14:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC); edited 15:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

Hey guys, it is fine to have different views and we don't have to argue over it, just put forth our perspectives. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 I am cool, there is nothing to get offended here, not sure why SSBM felt that way, it is just that the discussion over a well established policy of BMB is boring to me and I don't intend to participate in the futile exercise anymore. Especially when some of the much more experienced folks at ARCA have given their views on it already. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Adamgerber80, I think folks who are trying to derail this RFC should simply be ignored. I guess as of know certain comments are just meant to troll the topic and force a premature closure. what do you think ? --DBigXrayᗙ 21:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: The RfC as it stands is not going anywhere. It was initiated on 28 September (approx 16 days ago) and I am yet to see any substantial discussion about the topic at hand. What it has turned to is a free-for-all slug-fest about inclusion or removal of Pakistan. Editors who have absolutely no idea about International relations are now discussing tangents there with no connection to the RfC and some even want to "negotiate" about references. Then there are other editors who are bringing in references from random places like two random authors of Central University of Punjab, Bathinda. In what world are these guys experts? (they have between them a grand total of 2 publications including this one, which was published in Jadavpur Journal of International Relations with an h-index of 1 and an IF of null. I mean individuals have higher h-indexes than that). Anyways, sorry for the rant, but IMO that RfC is not doing any good for the page and will only lead to more t-bans and blocks because whichever side does not get their way will run to one board or the other. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• That is your opinion and personal forecasts, in my opinion this one still deserves to run its full course of 30 days per the policy. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello. You made this revert. May I ask why? Does the phrase "As of" used here indicate that the said Minister was appointed on that date? I figured we should update the latest date because portfolios change every few years. Chaos1618 (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Chaos1618: I have changed the structure of the sentence itself. The issue with using As of is that, as you said, is that it gets outdated. Constantly updating as of for positions which tend to be fairly stable is not ideal. Now there is no need to with the generic structuring. Let me know if you have further questions. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have created the task force here. Feel free to add your name to the participants list. Kges1901 (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Thanks a lot. I will also send out invites to others. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear all, I am happy to inform you that the Indian military history working group which was started in June 2016, as a part of the

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

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

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You reverted a pretty significant copyedit I made here, using Twinkle.

Please don't do that unless you leave a good edit summary. You say 'back to sourced' but the revision you use is not more significantly sourced than the copyedited version.

The changes made enhance readability.

Twinkle is a tool for vandalism and non-constructive edit reversion and should not generally be used for good faith edits (absent an adequate summary).

130.95.175.240 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at some other edits and similar problems appear. For instance, see here, where the change does not appear to reflect the reversion summary (where is one use of terminology sourced over the other?) Also, see here - I concede this point is uncited, but one Google search and I found this, see page 4, the pre-reverted change is correct (and so, as it stands, the page is incorrect). I appreciate your efforts removing poor quality content. However, (in a more sinister context), Blackstone said It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. I'd prefer 10 bad edits remain than one good faith or correct edit be reverted, myself. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Adamgerber80/Archives,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Adamgerber80. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Adamgerber80. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this s\clean up against the TERRORISM. Keep fighting ONLINE INFORMATION JIHAD of all terrorist group. Humanity loves you. Big thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are referring to but this is an encyclopedia and we work on references. I did see your comment on that talk page and my recommendation is that the talk page is for content discussion and should not be used a forum. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:TALKO:Off-topic posts. I am mainly referring to 2 or 3 by 222.164.212.168@222.164.212.168:. Or just WP:IGNORE

, better things to do?

Now the article itself does not use the word terrorist/terror/terrorism directly, and within the article is there only three times, twice in inverted quotes. This I would say is good editing according to

WP:TERRORIST

.

But more importantly, this has drawn my attention to what the user is talking about. Now I do not agree with that the user writes, that Wikipedia users must edit to fight terrorists who want to use Wikipedia as a platform for propaganda. Wikipedia users must edit according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Have you recently come across an good essay or link on Wikipedia that talks about this? Wikipedia against terrorism...etc?

talk

) 08:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You've been reported to administrator as vandal deleting some people edits.RobertoMercati1965 (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• The brand new account above has been reported as suspected sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adamgerber80, I have just created article

Hi Adamgerber80, you reverted a link of the MMRCA deal to the Rafale controversy with a "WTF - separate" comment. Your revert here is incorrect. The allegation is precisely that the MMRCA contract was not signed in favor of the new deal. And there is an entire separate page about the controversy. Thus linking this page (MMRCA controvrsy) to that separate Wiki page provides for continuity. The article does not speak to the truth or otherwise of the allegations. Please do not undo this unnecessarily - I'd hate to get into an edit war. Also left comment on the talk page of the article itself for on topic dicussion. Barath s (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Barath s: Your choice of words are incorrect. How did the deal "result" in a controversy. I have reworded the statement and added it. Please be careful to how you term things since they can be misleading. Also, please do not have a battle ground mentality with an edit-war. If there are differences, they can be resolved on the article talk page. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: Your choice of words and the implications was not correct and a neutral observer might defend my edit terminology . My point was to avoid an edit war instead of implying that I was creating one - and further, I had edited the article talk page specifically to avoid it. The article edit you made now is fine . (Due to politicisation of the topic, one has to be careful to be neutral). All is well that ends well. Have a great day ! Barath s (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adamgerber80, I recently created the page for the retired Indian Lt. Gen. Raj Mohan Vohra and yesterday you truncated the page in an absolute fashion. I have reasons to believe that the information provided has had been discerned with some misreckoning. I list down below all the major changes that took place

• You changed the language and removed facts and links from the maiden paragraph of the article.
• For a military person, The section should be called 'Military Career' instead of Career. It was neatly delegated and sub-delegated into the Battles, (of which you removed two) and a battle within the battle (read Indo-Pakistani war of 1971).
• You removed important information from the Early life and education section
• You removed the section Military positions and offices held
• You removed the Personal life Section
• You removed vital pieces of information from the Awards and Honours section
• You removed the Trivia section
• You removed some of the references
• You removed categories and Military of India template

The data collected and penned for the page was thoroughly verified yet vital pieces of information, sections, references, categories were wiped out. Did it all seem libellous or unnecessary for the users? You also removed important links, awards and data from the Military Infobox which I fail to comprehend 'why'. Things like 'Personal Life' is present in almost every biography articles irrespective of professional background but it's no more there.
Then you changed terms like Scinde Horses (14 Horses) to 14th Prince of Wales's Own Scinde Horse; that's not how military persons refer to it.
A lot of effort was administered to muster all that data in order to create the page but with such big ommissions, I feel it's now reduced to shambles. Even if the Wikipedia guidelines allow you (from the standpoint of a neutral observer) to alter phrases which might be quasi-extolling then probably you could've removed 1 or 2 lines (which I reckon went well with the article's flow). I need a positive solution for this, please.
Your response/action is requested. Dhawan Hitesh (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Kalpana chawla was born in India, she is Indian. I agree with you on Sunita williams, not Chawla. Now allow other editors to edit. Thank you. Uricnobel (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Uricnobel, hi! Going through your contributions, I presume the point of your conflict is at the article on Rakesh Sharma and it seems to me that you want to remove the words 'Indian origin' and replace them with just plain old 'Indian'.

The thing is, we don't allow dual citizenship, so, if one takes up the citizenship of another nation, one has to renounce one's Indian passport and all the benefits and rights in India that come with it. As Chawla renounced her Indian citizenship and became an American citizen, I reckon that 'Indian origin' should be used in lieu of 'India'. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 11:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC); edited 19:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC).

@SshibumXZ: The issue as you noticed and corrected on the page is that Uricnobel keeps adding Chawla in the lede of the Rakesh Sharma article. That does not make sense to me. It does not belong there. On the contrary the max that we can have is Chawla's page being in the See Also section. @Uricnobel: Please discuss on the Rakesh Sharma article talk page if you wish to re-add Chawla in the lede, gain consensus and than edit. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, yep! Trivial and tangential, not to mention incorrect, information like that should certainly not be in the lede section of the article. I absolutely agree with you on that. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 19:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me.

Since the talk page of "middle power" is anticipated that reply will not come due to depopulation, please come if you are not inconvenient.

"Germany and Japan.....some academics" is my page.

Thank you. Souserera (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am in a rude manner because I am translating. Souserera (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Adamgerber80/Archives,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Can we use GODL-India for the image File:Jyoti Nirala AC.jpg ? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 16:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)