User talk:Adamgerber80/Archives/Archive 3

Concerning your defence at ANI
Adamgerber80, trashi deleʔ! I've seen you have posted your understanding of the incident on ANI and I appreciate your present. There's some of my notice:


 * I have noticed that a previous warning on my talk page might have misled you, but I can tell you: I don't know Tiffany Trump, and I'm not interested in it. I have no idea if or if not he has anything to do with Donald Trump but this building does have a absolute majority of Demoncratic people. I personally have no interest whoever, Hillary or Donald, would be the president, nor did I do any edit on Tiffany Trump. However, I do not know who shares this IP with me so I do not want to (and please do not) remove the message on my talk page, in case some will to read it.


 * 's understanding was you were biting, not biting a newbie. So your refute is flawed. If you want to refute it more efficiently, you'd better use a better explanation. I told you I don't believe Wikipedia allows biting "oldbies", but if you believe so, ignore this point.


 * For the "unsourced" issue, I have explained many times the reason why I add "content which was not clearly in the references": in Wikipedia we don't often add inline references to infoboxes and templates, since doing that will destroy the format. Also, self-evident things are not suposed to be referenced, as can be seen in Talk:Doklam, do you expect the Belgium article to be written that way? Anyway, as I said since the begining, I totally understand and have no problem at all if you undid the part you considered unsourced and raise it in talk page.

Here's my personal suggestion: if you can comment something like "I'll try to avoid this in the future" vaguely (without even admitting your have made something wrong), it will help you a lot in the case; if you admit you have made a mistake and claim trying not to do this in the future, I'll be almost sure (though I cannot guarantee) that they'll not withdraw your rollback rights; yet you can still choose not to, then there's still a great chance they'll not withdraw your rollback rights. Believe it or not I'm helping you. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Four-Star
@Adam Ji, In Indian military the term 'Four-Star' is not used at all, full admiral, full general are used rather than that term, in Pakistan and US the 'four-star' term is common. Nidhi Tumar (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Welcome to Wikipedia. I will provide three instances of which point to this: First, the actual flag of the all the 3 chiefs has 4 stars. You can check this here . Second, they are in fact 4 star offices by references here ,,. Third, the rank above it which is largely ceremonial and awarded very rarely like Air Marshal or Field Marshal is called a five-star rank as mentioned here . I think what you say might be true in common parlance but this not true of their actual rank. It would be great if you could provide references to back your claims. I am happy to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Adam Ji okay, thank you, I won't edit Indian military-related articles. Nidhi Tumar (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit stuff on any page and be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Just be careful of what you edit have reliable sources to back them up. Let me know if you have any further questions. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Adam Ji, I want to know if in Minnale (Tamil film) actor R. Madhavan is called Maddy like its Hindi version Rehnaa Hai Terre Dil Mein, please help me. Nidhi Tumar (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't know. You might want to google this. If you come across a reliable reference(read more Identifying_reliable_sources) then you can add it to the corresponding page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Benniejets sock
Special:Contributions/80.181.119.244 looks to be Benniejets. I've reported him at Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets. Persistent bugger. - BilCat (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is the same user. I have added some other pages which the user is "fond" of on my watchlist and give an eye out. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Typically, they're denying any connection on the case page, while engaging in the same behavior, including multiple posts on my talk page. Reminds me of toddlers who cover there eyes and believe no one can see them! - BilCat (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Asfandyar Bukhari‎
Hello Ademberger80. All the info i wrote on the wikipedia page has been taken from the official biography of Captain Asfandyar written by Prof Zaheer Qandeel. I shared his fb links of the excerpts of the book as sources. The book is not available online for obvious reasons as the author hasnt permitted it yet. How to cite sources from that book then? the fb links i shared were from the official fb page of the author but as i am almost sure that you cant read urdu you probably couldnt read those excerpts. doesnt mean that they were unauthentic or biased. you can translate and then read them. I request you to undo the edits after confirming the authenticity of those links. If fb links arent reliable enough then guide me as to how i should share excerpts from the biography which isnt on the internet. I can take pics of the pages of the book and paste them as source. I assure you the book is well researched with eye witness accounts and official army records. It would have been polite if you had asked me about the authenticity of the article before editing it. now i again ask u to undo the edits or guide me how to provide link from the book. awaiting your reply. regards
 * Hi, I can roughly translate Urdu into English using online sources. Unfortunately any form of Social media is not acceptable reliable source on Wikipedia unless it comes from the official handle of the Pakistani Armed Forces or the Pakistani government. You can cite sourced from a book as long it is available on Google books. Please read the WP:RS for more details. Second, you cannot use POV language like Martyr or Shadadat and have to use neutral words like killed, for this please refer to WP:MOS. Lastly, it seems to me that you are closely related to the subject of the article. If this is the case you should have a look at WP:COI before editing. I would strongly suggest you to have a look at these pages before you edit again. Also, if you have anything to discuss regarding the article, please do so on the Article Talk page. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I will add the book on google books before editing again. Thanks for the tip. Regarding the word Shahadat it is an Islamic concept and i read the Wikipedia policy which only restrains us form using the word martyr. Anyhow I dont think it anybody apart from ISIS will object to using the word Shaheed for a guy who fought hardcore terrorists. I had this discussion from a wikipedia editor before and he understood my point. I hope you also do so. Also please edit the many pages about Indians in which sources arent cited or the word martyr is used. Charity begins at home. As you are an Indian it seems a little biased of you to apply such technicalities on Pak army personnel before devoting your attention to pages related to indians. Any Pak army soldier KIA is officially designated the term Shaheed by the pak gov. It is considered offensive to label them dead. Shahadat is a strictly Islamic concept unrelated to martyrdom.
 * Hi, You have to use neutral wording on all pages and this is the policy. Shaheed translates to martyr and is thus allowed. Similarly, Shahadat roughly translates to going to heaven and is also not allowed. Dead is a neutral word which is used across all Wikipedia pages for armed personnel who were KIA. Please do not bring random ISIS or other logic about it being offensive here. I do edit multiple Indian pages and have removed the word martyr from them and if you come across others, feel free to modify the words. If you would like to edit on Wikipedia then please follow the rules. Finally, please do not look at this from the prism of nationality. It does not matter the country of my origin or my nationality, we all are Wikipedia editors here and work collectively. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Shaheed doesnot translate to martyr. I have read the wikipedia policy which only censures the word martyr. Shaheed is a strictly islamic concept which is insignificant for non-muslims. only muslims who would object to using the word shaheed for pak armed forces are ttp or isis terrorists. I dont think you should be too pedantic about it. also i dont edit word martyr on indian pages because indians consider those guys as martyrs and it doesnt offend anyone. I hope you understand. I have mentioned dg ispr's direct quote with reference which has the word shahadat not martyr in it.
 * Yes shaheed for English Wikipedia translates to martyr. Please checkout the English translation for shaheed which literally translates to Muslim martyr. Again, this is not about religion or nationality and who would oppose it. This is because of Wikipedia policy which clearly states do not use these or similar words. It does not have layout ever word for you to take this literally. Lastly, what the spokesperson says for these words does not matter unless you are directly quoting him (which you are not) since according to every country their dead soldiers are martyrs. Last, please feel free to replace the word martyr when you come across it since it not about being offensive but about Wikipedia policy. Do not edit the page unless you have gained consensus. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

i have changed the word shaheed and replaced it with neutral word commanded. iam directly quoting the dg ispr. you can see the link i posted as reference.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Adamgerber80 reported by User:AbdulQahaar (Result: ). Thank you. AbdulQahaar)

Notice of noticeboard discussion There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AbdulQahaar (talk)

Nomination of List of exercises of the Indian Air Force for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of exercises of the Indian Air Force is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of exercises of the Indian Air Force until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Obfuscating
You can read about obfuscating in the sic documentation. It prevents bots and other spelling tools from wrongfully "correcting" a typo. It has no effect on how the article looks. I'm assuming that's fine with you, but if not, feel free to revert me again and we can discuss it. --Muhandes (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was not aware of this. Which typo are you trying to obfuscate, the "Offical" to "Offilcal"? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. --Muhandes (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding content on P17A page
I found this pic. https://mobile.twitter.com/livefist/status/776348313167671297 It clearly shows RBU 6000 rocket launchers. Besides, they were used on shivalik class as well. So I believe it's safe to add it on P17A page Diligentemu (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Livefist is not considered as a reliable source per Wikipedia policies. If you can find a source in a newspaper or from the Indian Navy itself then this can be added. For more details on reliable sources please have a look at WP:RS. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK here's another link with a similar pic showing RBU 6000 launchers. Tell me whether the source is credible or not
 * http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2015-news/april-2015-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/2657-indian-navy-orders-7-new-project-17a-stealth-frigates-from-local-shipyards-mdl-and-grse.html Diligentemu (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Navyrecogniton is generally considered a reliable source but it does mention anywhere in the text that it is indeed a RBU6000. All that it shows is an artists representation of what the ship might look like. Your interpretation is based on comparing the image and saying it does like a RBU6000. This is my mind constitutes WP:OR and is thus not allowed. But I would encourage you to open a discussion on the Article Talk page and see what other editors think. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your valuable opinion. Diligentemu (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Baseless contributor

 * I have told you multiple times to discuss on the article talk page before you add POV edits on pages. Also if you want to remove content from pages discuss if they have been reverted. You have been warned multiple times. Please be careful. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding sources like IDRW.org and Livefist
I understand wikipedia policies and your habit of reverting edits from sources like IDRW.org and Livefist. If you are looking for a reliable source like newspaper or press release for such detailed information and that too for a project like Nirbhay missile which is under development then you are heading wrong way.

I would also like to remove your misconception about defense blogs like Livefist and IDRW. These blogs and forums are not run by some random people publishing nonsense. They are run by defense enthusiasts ,most of time ex armed forces people who have internal sorces in DRDO and armed forces. Contrast to wikipedia policies, these blogs are extremely accurate and reliable. DRDO publishes detailed info about a project only when it's complete. They also try their best to hide any foreign equipment used in a project like the Russian sourced turbofan engine in Nirbhay. So the info is totally correct and stop reverting things like a stubborn child Diligentemu (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not my policy but what Wikipedia allows. I know very well who contributes to LiveFist and IDRW and it is not permissible here. If you feel that my take on this incorrect than we can get a more experienced editor or administrator involved. The most important thing on Wikipedia is that the information is reliably sourced not that there should be enough of it. Lastly, I am treating you with respect and expect the same in return. Please do not engage in personal attacks or you will be reported. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding World Air Forces 2017 Citation
You reverted one of my edit.

The existing citation is this (archived version). The one I added is this (archived version). As you can see, the original reference is the publishers website but it is behind a subscription wall (and may be a paywall too). Whereas the citation I added is, though not from the publisher, but it is the actual magazine which gives the number of aircraft. So the way it looks to me, my citation is actually a reference as the information being quoted on the wiki-page can actually be found there. On the other hand the existing citation feels more like a promotion to me.

What do you think?

14.139.38.11 (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, then you can replace the earlier one (which is not freely accessible) with the archived one. Having multiple references of the same document is confusing. Also, please mention in the comment what you are trying to do and this helpful for other editors like me who patrol the apge and can review edits. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. 14.139.38.11 (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrect - it is available fo Free of charge, the PDF just needs to downloaded for viewing - FOX 52 (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When I go to the link it asks me to register. Is then available for download? Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes register with an e-mail address and then you’ll only need to log in once to access FlightGlobal’s premium free content. - FOX 52 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have reverted the edits accordingly. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding removal of name of keoti vidhan sabha in Urdu and Hindi ..
Why you have removed name Shamshadandraja (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Please read WP:INDICSCRIPTS. This does not allow any Indic scripts in the Lead. Please refrain from reverting edits until you understand why something was removed. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Islam in Europe
I insist you translate the page on google translate no where does it state such information its people like you Wikipedia loses its credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsi786 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, you have been indulging in a lot of questionable POV edits and many edits have been reverted bu multiple editors. I would strongly suggest to discuss on the talk page of the article before you remove any content or question the citation. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So i just leave the comment on the talk page and wait until someone talks about it? You yourself can translate the page from german to english with google translate it does not even mention the information which was given.
 * Please have a look at how Wikipedia operates. We try to work with consensus from the community here. A lot of your edits have been reverted and you have been warned about this. If you feel any information has not been correctly sourced, then discuss that on the article talk page. One or the other editor will respond in a few days or a week and take it forward. Please be patient. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Something Wrong With You?
I reverted only one of your disruptive edits & you're accusing me of edit warring? BarricadeX (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have left a message on your talk page. Please read WP:INDICSCRIPTS before editing again. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Admit your a indian troll who has nothing else to do but stop person from making corrections, nothing is wrong with me; something is wrong with you; you seriously need to stop watching indian news as they just brain wash indian public with hate and encourage its public to hate pakistan CorrectionLab 3000 (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:INDICSCRIPT and Urdu
Hello, I noticed you've been making edits recently in accordance with WP:INDICSCRIPT. For several of those edits — specifically on Islam-related articles — the only non-English script in the lead was Urdu. It seems strange to me to remove Urdu script from some of these articles when the majority of work written by or about the subject is in Urdu. Furthermore, according to my understanding of MOS:INDIA, Urdu, along with Kashmiri, Punjabi, and Sindhi, is not even included in the scope of this guideline, as it is not written in an Indic script: "This convention will normally apply to them only when transliterating from writings in an Indic script". It seems your understanding is different. Can you explain? Thanks. Axiom292 (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First, in my understanding the language scope covers which language articles come under the scope of the India Wikipedia Project and thus the MOS:INDIA. Some of these languages are spoken very widely in the India for example, Kashmiri and Urdu and thus are found extensively in WP:INDIA articles. Second, The articles I have removed Urdu from are biographies or places which fall within WP:INDIA. I don't understand where this claim comes from that most of the work is written in Urdu? Islam in India is also covered in Malayalam, Bengali, Hindi and many other languages and no single language has monopoly over it. If this was an article about some book then I would understand. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)'
 * I just discovered that Manual_of_Style/India-related_articles is lifted directly from Naming_conventions_(Indic). That section makes much more sense in the latter article, where it is preceded by the statement: "This applies to any articles related to Indic subjects, or words derived from languages written in an Indic script. It also applies to most of the religious works of the Indian religions." The section then does seem misplaced in MOS:INDIA and probably should be revised, since the scope of MOS:INDIA is larger than that of WP:NCINDIC. So lets ignore that Urdu is not in the scope as written. The fact is that WP:INDICSCRIPT states: "Per the Manual of Style page on India-related articles, avoid the use of Indic scripts in the lead sections or infoboxes". Is Urdu an Indic script? No. So if I am to follow the exact wording of the rule, the guideline does not apply to Urdu. However, if I ignore the fact that Urdu is not an Indic script, then common sense would still preclude me from removing Urdu script from biographical articles where the majority of work written by or about the subject is in Urdu (I was referring to the subjects of particular articles; I did not intend to claim that the subject of Islam in India is entirely written about in Urdu). For example Muhammad Zakariya Kandhlawi, Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, Mahmud al-Hasan were all Islamic scholars who primarily spoke Urdu and whose written works are primarily in Urdu. The majority of primary sources on these individuals are also in Urdu. The same goes for Islamic seminaries such as Darul Uloom Deoband, where the primary language of instruction is Urdu. Axiom292 (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This was the exactly why WP:INDICSCRIPT was written to avoid this issue about WP:COMMONSENSE. If you read the RFC carefully similar arguments came up about why not have artists names in the language which they perform in or known for. An example here to have a Hindi writer to have also his/her name in Hindi per WP:COMMONSENSE but this was turned down because somebody would come and argue that his/her works was also translated in other languages and thus they should also be included. Another example, was per WP:COMMONSENSE to add names of places in native language depending on that part of India but this was also turned down for exactly the same reason. There are only 3 exceptions allowed and in my view these articles do not fall under the exception. It does not matter if they primarily spoke Urdu or not and there are enough primary sources here which are in English (I can also show you other articles about movies where primary sources were in another language and yet the script was removed). Similarly, even if Deoband has its primary language of instruction as Urdu it also teaches in other languages (including Hindi) and this would lead to the same clutter. Lastly, in my view your understanding of what language is covered under this is flawed since the idea was to remove non-English (the wording puts it as non-Latin) scripts from article leads and infoboxes to avoid clutter which was also includes Urdu since Urdu is widely spoken in many parts of India and many articles had Urdu mentioned. If you think that my understanding is flawed, we can get an administrator involved who was also involved in the original RfC. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:INDICSCRIPT and newspapers
Hi, I see that you're removing the Indic scripts from articles about Indian newspapers. I reckon you must be aware of the exception about texts in a given script (and any sort of publication would fall here). Is there some sort of an exception to the exception that I haven't heard about? – Uanfala 11:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi My interpretation of that was actual books which were originally written in that language. In hindsight, you are correct that newspapers also fall under this rule since they are technically considered texts. Though there are newspapers which are published in multiple languages. In my opinion it does make sense to remove the Indic scripts in cases where the newspapers are published in multiple languages. Feel free to revert my edits on pages where you think they were not required. Sorry about this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A new user, asking for some guidelines
You recently reverted my edits on Sino-Indian war article related to 2017 doklam standoff. I am a new user and I don't exactly understand. The 1987 issue was a non violent standoff too. Maybe I am missing something? I am not at all trying to edit war. I just noticed you are from India too and thought you might enlighten me on the topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishant.sankhe (talk • contribs) 19:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Welcome to Wikipedia. The 2017 event is treated as a standoff and not a conflict. While the event in 1987 is treated as a skirmish (and this is reflected in the names of the articles) since there were actual clashes though no one died(no reference on whether it was blood less). That is the reason why we do not include 2017 in that paragraph because if we did then we would also have to include other such standoffs including 2013 Daulat Beg Oldi incident. if for some reason you think otherwise than I would urge you to open a discussion on the article talk page and put forward your views. In general, if you are edits are reverted once, it is a good practice to open a discussion on the article talk page and understand why they were reverted instead of reverting them back. The behavior you depicted is similar to edit warring and is frowned upon. Happy editing! Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Makes sense now. :) -Nishant.sankhe (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Not qualified to be an administrator
I see you lack basic knowledge on indian defense topics and things related to it. I provided two references for my edit and still you call it "unsourced". Everyone knows BEL makes radar under license from Thales. LW08 is sold to indian navy as BEL RAWL02 MK3. They are used on kolkata class,Brahmaputra class, Delhi class and many more ships. So my edit is completely correct and you reverted it like a dumb stubborn child. I advice you to enrich your knowledge on indian defense topics before being an administrator. Lastly, I don't care about your childish threats of blocking or reporting. I will continue to do edits and if you have any problem then provide me with reference that my information/edit is incorrect. In this case, prove me that Thales radar on P15A and P15B are imported and not license built by BEL. If you fail to do so then I will redo my edit. It's a challenge Diligentemu (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First, I am not an administrator and have never claimed to be one. I am just an editor who maintains/patrols many India and Pakistan armed force related pages. Second, Wikipedia does not work the way you think it works. You have to add information which is correctly and reliably sourced. I don't need to provide sources to disprove what you think is correct, you need to provide sources to back your claims. The two sources you have provided state this that the Thales radar is deployed on multiple Indian ships but does not specially mention the Vishakapatnam-class. The second source you provided a similar radar manufactured by BEL. Compare this to a source from Janes which specifically states that the Thales radar will be used. What you are doing is considered WP:OR and is not permitted on Wikipedia. I have time and again told you to open an discussion on the article talk page and involve other editors if you feel that my interpretation of this is incorrect. But you have failed to do so and continue to add either poorly sourced information or WP:OR. The warnings that I have left on your page or not threats but standard Wikipedia warnings to let users know that their edits are disruptive. If you continue to disruptively edit, then you will be reported and potentially topic banned or blocked. Please be careful. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am now totally convinced that you don't have any knowledge on indian navy ships, it's equipments and standard fitments. You don't even know nagain towed array sonar was scrapped long ago. Any source mentioning nagin sonar is unreliable and so is deseaver decoy system. Elbit system's official website does not mention any indian navy ship. Kavach is the indigenously developed decoy system equivalent to "deseaver". A ship cannot have two different decoy systems. Some sources mention kavach like this one

http://www.financialexpress.com/photos/business-gallery/451252/ins-chennai-indian-navy-largest-ever-made-in-india-guided-missile-destroyer-commissioned-10-special-facts/2/ While some mention deseaver decoy system. So it's a disputed topic. So I want you not to add "deseaver" until we have a clear,correct information. Also, Indian Navy hasn't imported any electronic warfare system in last 25 years. Right from Delhi class destroyers, every warship constructed in india has indigenous EW system named "Ajanta" developed by BEL. IN's official website also confirms that EW system has been completely indegenised. https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/major-systems-indigenised You can clearly spot Ellora ESM on P15A's mast which is a part of Ajanta EW system http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2726840/India-welcomes-home-built-warship-PM-Modi-commissions-INS-Kolkata-Defence-Minister-prepares-launch-INS-Kamorta.html The same system is used on P15B as well since both have same weapon systems except main gun. Diligentemu (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion currently on at Talk:Visakhapatnam-class destroyer. Provide your views there. I have told you multiple times, my talk page is not the place to add this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Research & Analysis Wing
Hey Adamgerber80 ! There has been a misunderstanding about the edit that has been done to the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) page. Under the content RAW: 1968–present, the current budget estimation of the agency has been put at US$450 million to US$100 million, the sources cited are inaccurate at the most, not verifible violates copyrights and hence the statement would be considered void and not a fact, but mere fiction. Wikipedia stores information that is factually correct and therefore we don't display a good version page, but a veracious version page. It is thus requested to rectify the problem. Regards. VClutch (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi The references are Time and Brasseys International Intelligence Yearbook which to me seem reliable. Why you think they are unreliable? Also, can you please elaborate how they are violating copyright policy? Also, the word speculated is used which indicates that this is a rough estimation at best. Do you have alternate numbers from better sources? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Correction
A correction made by me was reverted. I made the correction as the facts are incorrect. And many a time this is quoted out of context. Can u help put the right perspective. Right from the logo to the history to what the Garuds ado are incorrect. Ravenperches (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Welcome to Wikipedia. Yes I and another editor did revert your edits. If you think any information is incorrect, can you please discuss this on the article talk page Talk:Garud_Commando_Force. This way other editors will have a chance to participate in the discussion and raise issue if they have any. You will need reliably sourced references for editing information. For example, I noted that you had changed the name from Garud Commando Force to Garud Special Force. Is there a reference for this? Also, there is a new logo? Is this on the IAF website? Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Careless Redo
I just noticed your message that you've rolled back my changes made to the Medium-range ballistic missile. You mentioned I haven't give adequate reason, however, I clearly gave my reason that the delete content is unqualified for the main title. The subject Hyunmoo-2C has an operational range less than 1,000 km, which clearly contradicts to the definition of Medium-range ballistic missile. It's not just incorrect, it logically doesn't make sense. Reference: Ballistic missile. See sub-category Missile Types.

Before applying redo, I hope you to give more thorough considerations to each users changes/comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efgus (talk • contribs) 03:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi The missile Hyunmoo-3C is stated to have a range of 1000km and is thus rightfully placed in the Medium-range ballistic missile page. You are correct in stating that the version of the missile on that page is 2C and was incorrect. I have updated the missile version that but it does not merit you removing the missile altogether. In the future, please discuss these changes on the article talk page or provide a more detailed edit comment than unqualified. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPs are human too
You need to read WP:IPHUMAN because on December 3, you reverted 18 edits by an IP. Your actions did not appear constructive and have been reverted. Please avoid such actions in the future. --Max Cooper (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are currently engaging in disruptive editing. Cheerypicking edits to revert. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Denying me to perform a edit
Hello, I am uttam. I did a edit on Arjun content but you removed it because you thought the citation is blog. You are wrong. "Livefistdefence.com" is a indian defence news channel and in fact it has verified twitter account. Uttam mahatta (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am very well aware what LiveFist is. Unfortunately, per WP:RS LiveFist or IDRW are not acceptable sources. This is not my view but this is as per Wikipeda policy. I would urge you to search for reliable sources for that information and only then add it to the page. Having a verified twitter account is irrelevant here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Trans-Karakoram Tract
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Trans-Karakoram Tract. You reverted an edit and restored Hindi in lede at 04:37 here with an edit summary stating "It is only valid on articles which come under WP:INDIA and this does not." At 04:39 you added to WP:INDIA here at Talk:Trans-Karakoram Tract. You need to remove Hindi from the lede or remove WP:INDIA from Talk per WP:INDICSCRIPT or I will. You can't have it both ways. --Max Cooper (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do read WP:INDICSCRIPTS closely because I have. I have used it remove INDICSCRIPTS from many articles and I am very aware of its usage. It clearly states that Indic scripts are to be only removed from articles that predominantly come under WP:INDIA. Articles that come under other projects as well as is the case with Trans-Karakoram Tract are exempt from this. Secondly, Trans-Karakoram Tract comes under WP:INDIA the same way other projects come under WP:PAK. So please stop with your POV edits as you have been doing so far the last few days. If your edits are reverted, discuss them on the talk page to understand why they have been. You have been already warned multiple times so please be careful. Disruptive editing can lead to topic sanctions and even blocks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Arunachal Pradesh
Hi, is there any source to claim that the 1909 map shows the 'traditional border' between India and Tibet? Thanks — Jakichandan (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean is there any reliable source which terms the 'border' as shown in the British map of 1909 as 'traditional border' between India and Tibet? —Jakichandan (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, The map is itself pretty well sourced from Oxford University Press and shows the border clearly. I agree with you that the description of the map does not state that this the 'traditional' border but does clearly show it as the border in 1909. There is also a follow-on map which shows a different border and maintains the wording as well. IMO the word traditional can be removed since there is no WP:RS for it. But I would urge you to open a discussion on the talk page first to see what other editors think since this content has been up for quite some time and nobody had objected to it. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I never questioned the source of map. I only questioned the description which is not reliably sourced. Wouldn't it be better to describe the map as the "1909 British map"? Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think quoting this is fine "British map published in 1909 showing the Indo-Tibetan border" since the maps are there specifically for the section on the McMahon Line. IMO, the word traditional can be removed since we don't know what traditional here means. But it would be ideal to do this via the Article talk page since other editors might think differently. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion on the article talk page, you may wish to discuss there. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I replied there. Wait for a few days. Other editors might chime in. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see the advice to wait for a few days before I edited the article. I think other editors may revert if they wish and discuss it on the talk page if they have any content dispute. Thanks —Jakichandan (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. It is always good to wait for a few days(maybe a week) for other editors to reply. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

AutoPatrolled
Hi. You should consider asking to be given the autopatrolled status at WP:RFP/A so that all your new pages are automatically patrolled and don't need to go through New Page Review. You obviously know what you're doing and I haven't found any issues with your new pages Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks for the pointer. I have considered doing so in the past. But I have seen proposals of other editors that have been rejected. The reason given was most of the created articles were stubs. Maybe an endorsement or a word of support from a fellow editor might help. Thoughts? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you do and I will definitely put a word in Gbawden (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

your revert
Manual of Style/Clarity states that "editors should not use passive voice constructs to avoid attributing words or actions to the appropriate speaker." According to Weasel_word, "the passive voice is legitimately used when the identity of the actor or agent is irrelevant." When the only source for the alleged capabilities of a new Russian weapon is a Russian govt agency it seems quite relevant to point that out, and it makes me wonder why you would insist there was "No need to mention" the source. --Webmgr (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Are you referring to the Zircon (missile) article? If yes, than usually we do pickup media sources and name them individually. If you think that the capability is alleged than add a counter source and the speed referred by that source. What your edit does is pointing that only one media is unreliable which we cannot claim or state. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would argue the opposite: Unless several independent sources are listed as refs it is unacceptable to use the passive voice that is suggesting a summary reporting. --Webmgr (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, I would recommend to open a discussion on the article talk page and put forth your views there. Let other editors chime in and see what they have to say. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

INS Sardar Patel
Hi. I saw your edit of re-basing INAS 310 to INS Sardar Patel. Now, since INS Sardar Patel has an air squadron, does that make it a Naval Air Station now? I was looking to edit List of Indian Navy bases and Indian Naval Air Arm based on that. Sarvatra (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * } I am not sure if we can do that yet. The Indian Navy has not released any statement stating so. All that was released was that a Naval Air Squadron was re-based from INS Hansa to INS Sardar Patel from the official and verified naval twitter handle. I went and looked through news clippings and other PIB releases and they make no mention of a Naval Air Station or of plans to have one there. All that is mentioned is that it would function as a Forward Operating Base (FOB) for logistics. IMO we should hold off for now since adding a NAS there would constitute WP:OR per Wikipedia policies. Once we have a statement/passing mention from a WP:RS that it is indeed a NAS, then we can modify it. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A little clarification from my side - there are two naming conventions used for Indian Navy Air bases (a)Naval Air Station, and (b)Naval Air Enclave. When the air base is fully owned by navy, it is termed as Naval Air Station (or NAS) and it is given a proper name with INS prefix (like INS Hansa, INS Rajali, INS Parundu, INS Dega, INS Garuda etc.). But when navy doesn't own the airbase/airport and is allocated a small part of land on it, navy terms it as Naval Air Enclave (or NAE) and it's not given a name with INS prefix, like (NAE Santacruz at Mumbai Airport, NAE at Cochin Airport, upcoming NAE at Bhubaneswar airport, and similarly at NAE at Porbandar Airport ). Based on this, I would edit List of Indian Navy bases and will add proper citations. Sarvatra (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. NAE Porbandar is also reflected in the Indian Navy Western Naval Command Organization Chart here . Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello sir.
Can i please improve to my article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethirajalu Andra tigers (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello sir.
Can i please improve to my article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethirajalu Andra tigers (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please be more specific? You are free to improve your article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

December
I am not sure whether you are being dumb or you are practially one. Tejas.gov.in is the official source a site run by government so is the facebook page i quotted earlier.

I am not making changes to make some browny points nor I am earning anything out of it. I am making changes after verifying facts, if you can't fathom that get your act right and read the source before making vague edits.

I could have reverted your Kalvari edits you made a day before launch, I didn't, simply becuase it was a fact. So stop cribing and take some time to read whats in the source.

The tejas.gov.in is all over the article if you can't see I can't help.

No offence meant.

Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashpant (talk • contribs) 03:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, if you make personal attacks again, you will be reported per WP:PA. Please comment on the content not the editor. Second, my last edit was a human error and I apologize for it since I did not view tejas.gov.in correctly. Your first two edits were unsourced and from a facebook post which was reverted not only on this article but another article as well. This is not the first time your edits have been reverted by me (or by other editors) for either being poorly sourced or being completely unsourced. Please read WP:RS to better understand Wikipedia policy. IDRW, LiveFist, unverified social media pages/handles are not acceptable sources here. You can only add content which can verified reliably by other editors not what you consider 'facts' in your mind. Second, feel free to revert my edits if you think they are unsourced, incorrect or against Wikipedia policy. But you must have a valid reason for reverting edits otherwise it will be considered disruptive editing. Please be careful. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Brazilian Navy
Do not undo my edits. They follow the MOS. Yours do not. If you do, I will bring you to ANI for disruptive editing. Llammakey (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry my edit on that page was a mistake. I was trying to edit some edits in the see also section from another editor across many submarine class pages. Your edits are fine. Please calm down and assume good faith before you understand what happened. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Confused about certain things...
I get your point about removing the flags and such, but "Adding List of submarine operators for every Navy which operates one is not very relevant." I mean if we don't put the List of submarine operators on navies which operate them, the list can be removed because no one will ever access it? It will become a obscure page that only people who know the direct name will stumble onto. The same goes with adding List of submarines in service at every submarine-class page that is actually still in use. I'd like to hear your argument for it not being relevant, because to me it seems it is relevant. Edit: I also like to add that it gives users who are interested in which navies also operate submarines a simple shortcut to a list of submarine operators. Dragnadh (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is simply this. For many existing submarine classes the see also section is getting a bit ridiculous. People keep on tacking all possible submarine classes there. Similarly, this will set a precedent for users to keep now tacking list for every ship type operators as well. The page List of submarine operators will not be obscure because it can be added across many pages where it is directly relevant. For example, Attack submarine, History of submarines, Submarine base, Cruise missile submarine and so on. You can also look at which pages point to it here . Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey there!
Hey there, I see that you have delete my addition, why the removal? and why you say that this has been discussed? , I have added the word " capabilities", why the removal?, I think that you have act too fast, let me know why please.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all that is not sourced. You removed some existing content about missiles and replaces it with blue water capabilities without a source. Second, you are very aware of the discussion which happened on the Blue-water navy and Green-water navy pages regarding Italy (since you participated in them). There is some ambiguity there and some authors also claim that Italian Navy has limited capability which does not extend beyond the Mediterranean sea. So, no I am not acting too fast, it is you who are adding content without sources having very well known the outcome of the previous discussions. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! Well, I think you refer to the source about Italy in the Page of blue water navy, well that is ok. well I personally I can say you about the blue water ! I dont believe that  Italy has today no capabilities "outside the mediterranean". Todd & Lindberg classification system says other thing  and even the  United States Navy  has released an image of the Italian capabilities. so what I can add?  I can add  this" according to Todd & Lindberg ,the Italian navy  have "Multi"-regional power projection ?LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest first taking this up on the Blue-water navy page and see what other editors say. had raised some points last time during the discussion. First, even under the Todd & Lindberg system it is clearly stated the Italian Navy has "Power projection to regions adjacent its own" which conflicts with what you are claiming and your statements are purely WP:OR. Second, I don't think the USN has any weight here because they are not the authority on which navy is Blue water. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * oh ok, Thanks for your explanation, now I understand why you have delete my add!.it is always constructive to discuss with other users!LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings
 Dear   I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and, a very Happy New Year. Thanks for all your help and contributions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Lotus Temple
That article really is full of it. Large notable visitor section. I removed it per BOLD. Also added CE & puffery tags. What do you think of that? Nice building. Please ping, watchlist full... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi I support your removal of the list. Sorry, I was removing some vandalism and removed an edit too far. My edit was immediately followed by a self revert. Thanks for the message. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw the self-revert. I don't bite (too often), so if you had reverted, I wouldn't have said anything. That article needs a major cleanup. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC){{}
 * Yes it does. Needs some removal of content in the distinction section which is puffery and not really necessary. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Why your revert at Indian army
Regarding your revert here, what do you mean by "why these 3 people?". I have added 14 female officers, not just 3, all sourced. Do you have objection to 3 mentioned in my edit comments but not with the remaining 11? I do not understand your comment and reason of revert. Take what to the "talk page"? Re-read all thoroughly and please explain yourself clearly. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That page is about the Indian Army and not about female officers in the Indian Army. Please explain the direct relevance to the subject here. It does not matter if you added 3 or 14. Also most of them do not even meet WP:GNG. If you wish to add more information than I would recommend creating a separate page say Women in Indian Armed Forces/Indian Army. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is not a valid argument because several of these are notable enough to have own sourced pre-existing articles created and reviewed by other editors. Women in Indian Army are part of the Indian Army, by your logic then should remove all personnel, weapons, everything from the articles, but that would defy the purpose of having the article. Only thing I buy is, it might be getting too long and will take up the disproportionate space in main Indian Army article as the content grows. Hence, may warrant a separate article on its own, which I have already mentioned in my edit as an invisible embedded comment. Same information on the "Women in Indian Army" is replicated in 3 places: (a) Women in the military by country, (b) Women in combat, and (c) Indian Army. (c) is the right place to have it. As it gets longer then it warrants a separate article. It is a long winding process for me as ip to submit, have it reviewed and publish an article. Please do me a favor, if you are on laptop now, please copy paste the whole section (including my edits) to a new Women in Indian Armed Forces (catch all branches of military) article. I will take care of the rest, i.e. enhance the new article, pipelink it to 3 pre-existing articles, and clean up all 3 existing articles (condense and make them different). Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have created the Draft:Women in Indian Armed Forces, please review/approve and add to your watch list. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the article you have created still needs quite some amount of work. One important point is there is a difference between Armed Forces (under the MoD) and the CAPF (under the MoH). So either the name of the article is misleading or it has content which does not belong there. Plus I am still not convinced on mentioning all those names. Names of women officers for which pages exist like Punita Arora makes sense. Other names are one time events and IMO are not considered notable on Wikipedia. Lastly, if you think editing with an IP is burdensome then I would encourage you to create an account and edit. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like your input
Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advanceDragnadh (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain your unconstructive edits on List of Wars Involve China section.
Hello,

It appears that you are consistently making nonconstructive edits on that page. Also you removed sourced materials. Please refrain your actions.

I also reverted some of your other edits that appear the same way.

Thank you,

--2600:1700:1020:9A0:6D34:C965:8EF5:97A6 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are currently engaging in disruptive editing. Take it the respective article talk pages if you have issues. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)