User talk:Aman.kumar.goel/Archive 2

New message from Athuasm
Hi concerning the Accurin page, can you kindly stop undoing all my work. I am expanding the stub and spent a lot of research on this topic in order to expand it. I am not vandalizing the page and requesting for protection for the page is highly unnecessary considering it currently only exists as one sentence. I am new to wikipedia so I am sorry if I am not making my talk right. Other users who are more knowledgeable in drug delivery have reviewed and edited the page but no one has gone as far as you to entirely delete all the information I am inputting. Kindly stop as you are only reducing the page and taking away any opportunity for learning for those who are interested in Accurins. If you do to intend this childish back and forth that is helping no one, at least leave feedback or commentary as to why you are deleting all the additional information. Athuasm (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

New message from DiplomatTesterMan
Request your wisdom here DTM (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, something to recharge you

 * Thanks bud. Sorry for not noticing talk earlier.Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert in Misinformation section
I had added the following line in misinformation section of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India article which you reverted saying it is an individual opinion

In a bizarre statement, parliamentarian Ramesh Bidhuri of Bharatiya Janata Party claimed that as per experts using Namaste as a greeting prevents contamination from the Covid-19, but using Arabic greetings like Adab or As-salamu alaykum does not as it directs the air into the mouth.

Then can you remove the following line from Discrimination section of same article as this is also individual opinion of Ilyas Sharafuddin

Indian Islamic cleric Ilyas Sharafuddin said in an audio address that "Allah unleashed Coronavirus on Chinese for persecuting Uighur Muslims". Ilyas said that "they the Chinese have threatened the Muslims and tried to destroy lives of 20 million Muslims. Muslims were forced to drink alcohol, their mosques were destroyed and their Holy Book was burned. They thought that no one can challenge them, but Allah the most powerful punished them."

According to this logic, almost every line can be called "individual opinion". So, I don't think you have made a correct revert.

Misfired DS_Alert Warning
The edits at kuladevata are self explanatory.

I added punctuation and made the sentences about nagaraja kuladevata concise and shorter.

Is "unexplained edit" a violation of Wiki terms of service?

Are my edits in question serious enough to warrant a talk message?

I have not made "persistent", "disruptive", or repetitive edits.

I don't deserve to be treated a WP:Vandal with a message User_talk:Porus_D%27Canara for an good faith edit. Porus D&#39;Canara (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Konkan Muslims sourced statmnts removed
Sorry that i did edit warring.

I understand that you are concerned about me getting blocked.

Why has only my account been selected for an edit warring message and blocking?

I have made an effort to comply with wiki policies Special:Diff/946528914

However I understand it is gaming the system according to you.

May I know why the other person edit warring with me was ignored and not given an edit warring?

Is not Neutrality and NPOV one of the most important Wiki terms of service? Porus D&#39;Canara (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I fell that we both of us editors should be treated equally and neutrally

But there is no message about edit warring on the talk page of the other editor as of now

It seems as though the other editor is being favourited Porus D&#39;Canara (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
—  Newslinger  talk   10:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Misusing Warnings & Impersonating an Administrator
You left warnings on my talk on "Interest in India, Pakistan, etccc" however I've only edited one article Open Defecation pertaining to this topic. You also aren't an administrator yet put this administrator ruling on my talk? Why? This is impersonating an administrator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive_5#Impersonating_admins Also that user has been blocked from edited Open Defecation recently for edit warring. , you also did not assume good faith when I stated a post on the talk page by an unregistered IP Special:Contributions/121.6.114.20 is a troll, as they also forgot to sign their comment.
 * Information.svg Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
 * Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Qayrawan (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism Alert
Disruptive editing and creating on the many pages by being non neutral, please Stop acting such. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this user doing disruptive editing by using two accounts?
and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amkgp are they both handled by same person and are they providing a biased information on wikipedia. Please do check Saifullah.vguj (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello I an سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ, I noticed that you recently removed the citation needed tags i put on the strengths of the combatants on  Kargil war. It must be remembered that every user has the right to question an uncited fact, if you really think that the tag should no longer be there then cite a source. —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Chamb 1971
Hi I am سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ I see that you removed all my edits i did on the page  Battle of Chamb well much of the information i got from defence journal i had writeen in my own words, only when it came to the exclusively tedious parts did i do some copy pasting and even there i modified parts of the sentences for increased clarification and made sure that the story it told fitted in with the story told from other sources. Even if you object to my edits on the base of copy rights then expunge only those parts that you think violate copy rights, i do not want to start an edit war سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have seen that you reverted my edit again on the basis that it violates copyright, I had changed the vocabulary and the structures of the sentences, i had shifted the order of facts to make it different and the heavy dependence on one source only occured in the Prelude section where it was the only citation available, it must be remembered that the section Prelude itself was non-controversial, the Battle section uses two sources one Indian and one Pakistani.سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Help required
Hi Aman, I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for author Dr. Sanjib Borkakoty. Wondering if you are able to help if I provide you the information. I do not have adequate expertise with the platform to do it myself. Thanks and regards, Mallika Mallika.borkakoty (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For layout of biography, see WP:MOSBIO.
 * You are not supposed to create biography of someone on WP unless the particular person is notable and has a significant coverage in media or academics. See WP:GNG for general details. Sources further you use, must be established reliable sources and not self published blogs. WP:WWIN Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. Article you create must be free of puffery language, well sourced and written neutrallty throughout for general information and not any promotional content at all. Have eyes throughout other articles how they are written to have an idea. Regards Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hi, dear, I'm Anaguaydf, The sources about Pakistan's edge over India in Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 are well referenced in the article which are enough to claim it. You appear to be reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page. Anaguaydf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, again, dear!, you recently deleted my edits on Abhinandan Varthaman, watch full video by ISPR Official, they have added someone video, showing one Indian aircraft by destroyed by Pakistan and felled into J&K, and Indian Army is handling that - Anaguaydf (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Your own observation does not matter, you would need to cite the reliable source supporting your conclusion. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * i am not that user Anaguaydf (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Appeared to be an error caused by mobile version of Wikipedia, but still you know what I am trying to tell you. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wolfagain1 (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-Kthxbay (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.-Kthxbay (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Closing reports you authored
As a matter of proper procedure, closing reports should be left to someone uninvolved. Not a big deal, just an FYI for future reports. El_C 14:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Gautama Buddha, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You can be very sure that Samuels does not state that the Buddha was born in a Hindu-family, as you stated with this edit, in which you also removed a source. This kind of pov-pushing and messing with the sources is unacceptable. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that I had added 700 bytes of content from a previous version. Fact that you removed the content over your personal belief against a single word information does reek of WP:POV pushing. Further, kindly further move discussion to talk page of relevant article. My talk page may remain for people sending me alerts only. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up DRN Volunteer 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions reminder
Hi Aman, you have been alerted about the ARBIPA sanctions.

When fires rage and sanctions are issued, people who stoke the fires from the sidelines are also issued equal amount of sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

DRN Case Update
This is to inform you that we are awaiting your input at the DRN. The case in question can be located at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. If you are no longer interested in participating, please let us know on the DRN in the case where your comments have been requested. If you do want to continue, please add your comments. If we do not hear from you within 24 hours, the case will be closed out as 'failed'.

Thanks,

Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 00:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer

Burhan Wani
Hello! Respective user, I am User:Pojitibu, I mistakenly sent you wrong message on Burhan Wani i press the wrong keys, I don't know what is wrong in my fixings, explain me! THANK YOU Pojitibu (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You've got a cool talk page
Hi,

Really like the way your talk page is formatted.

Amazingcaptain (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soomro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sindhi ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Soomro check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Soomro?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding can the subject journalist stand on her own. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Anjana Om Kashyap".The discussion is about the topic WP:BLP. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 17:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 16:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer

Inclusion of Ottoman Empire as Great Power
The issue of an inclusion of Ottoman Empire have long been discussed in both of talk pages in Template_talk:List_of_great_powers_by_date or Talk:Great_power. We did not decide the table by merely personal preference, but reliable sources in correspondence to each particular age which are the only thing we are looking into. if you have read them through and still dispute the current version, you would need to open a new topic or extend your points before further change.150.116.17.93 (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Kindly have a look through ongoing discussion at Talk:Great power what you just stated and contribute for concensus. Dismissal as "personal opinio" sounds vague. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible Resolution on DRN
Hello Aman: There is a possible resolution that has been proposed by the moderator on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You may add your input here. Thank you. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 16:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Galendalia (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Two-nation theory (Pakistan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jammu and Kashmir ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Two-nation_theory_%28Pakistan%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Two-nation_theory_%28Pakistan%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Question
I am asking this question in my capacity as an administrator: are you connected in any way to ? Please do not edit further until you have answered this question. creffett (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Opposition to the partition of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian independence ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Opposition_to_the_partition_of_India check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Opposition_to_the_partition_of_India?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Question
Is there anyway i can get you in confidence regarding the 500 club. What are the changes that i have to make in order to make it more meaningful and valid. If i remove the elite word and make it "countries in above list whose reserves are above 500" or some other way. I spent a lot of time to get all of those reference so please tell me what i need to do regarding this. These are stats and i don't think that there is any reason that it can be called wrong, i have provided the timeline for countries also. Is there anyway you can help me with this please. Gagan Kaushal (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH barrs you from reinterpretation of data with aim to make a directory. It doesn't mean that your analysis is factually incorrect. But you would need to prove that Elite Club with reserves > $500 billions has been covered significantly by at least 2-3 good sources. It would be attributed to unnecessary puffery as well otherwise. Unless you have sources covering nationstates with Forex > $500 billions separately, we won't have another section for them. Unless they are called Elite by sources, we won't attribute this word. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

So if any relevant source mentions the countries above 500b as a separate group then i m good to go right. Gagan Kaushal (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well yes. And if you want to add any word like "Elite" etc., make sure at least two high quality sources use that. Not random blogs but mainstream sources. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If i change the topic from 500b which attributes puffery if i change that to "top x countries reserves timeline" which is a familiar term and media also mention top 3 or top 5 countries with high forex reserves would that be relevant. Because almost every media agency covers that. Even if you go to South Korea reference i have given in the list and download it you will find they are mentioning top 10 countries separately. Is that enough to dodge puffery. Gagan Kaushal (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC) economics times have mentioned 500b as magic number although i can't provide you something of the reference elite but there is definitely intriguing about half trillion. I see that you are also a space enthusiast. If we talk about landing on moon soft or hard there are only few countries that have done it and media also mentions those as elite club. But yet you can't dodge puffery don't you think its a problem in wiki.
 * I guess it's fine. Just change the title of section from The 500 to "Timeline of forex exceeding $500 billions by country". I will provide you a good table as well. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, If we talk about landing on moon soft or hard there are only few countries that have done it and media also mentions those as elite club. But yet you can't dodge puffery don't you think its a problem in wiki. If attribute is given by multiple reliable sources, it won't be deemed puffery. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by providing a table?? Gagan Kaushal (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ever seen tables on articles on Wikipedia? It's best way to summarise statistical in for for comparison rather than paragraph where no one is going to read it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Edithgoche (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Correction
China didn't detain any Indian soldiers.

See

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-53102629

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-china-denies-seizing-indian-personnel-during-galwan-valley-face-off-2828683

https://www.dw.com/en/china-denies-seizing-indian-troops/a-53869186 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveEatingBats (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please reply only at the article talk page to keep the discussion at one place. Regards, ⍟ Field Marshal Aryan ⍟  16:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

See also: Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

About WP project
Hi Please remove WP Discrimination & fascist project from Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Talk:Hindu nationalism and Talk:Hindutva. These projects does not reflect the main article. And, add WP Conservative project instead. Thanks--Amrita62 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in India
In this edit, with an edit summary of Fixed template, you modified the Wikidata call to allow unsourced data into the article. This is in breach of the consensus at Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC and you need to self-revert immediately. You are aware of the discretionary sanctions in force for pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and I'll note that community discretionary sanctions are also in force for pages related to COVID-19. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually restored previous template which was calculating infection rate with respect to total tests (which was earlier displaying 0% for some error). The number of tests around which template data revolves have actually been sourced from ICMR website. Aren't they? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted and understood per concensus on other page. Regards Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you have now left an edit summary of Reverting myself till dispute resolution. Please let me know if you are raising a dispute, and if so, where. I should explain that I have no intention of becoming involved with a content dispute; my only intent here is to facilitate a project-wide consensus in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator. --RexxS (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I acually reckoned that data was correct per citation there in box and later realised that your concern was something else. So, no issues now. It would be a bit helpful if you could help me out whether it is necessary to source every single entry on wikidata (given what I was trying to display article was a derivative of another data set itself). If restriction remains, I am going to try some other method or remove that displaying incorrect data. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It really is necessary to provide sources on Wikidata for every item you want to import into Wikipedia from there, with the obvious exceptions of things like images and identifiers (which are their own reference). Anybody viewing facts and figures in Wikipedia should be able to find within a couple of clicks what the source is for those facts and figures, and our whole policy of verifiability is based on that premise. If anyone entering an updated figure on Wikidata simply adds (or  if not online), then anyone can verify the data, and that helps potentially 300+ other Wikipedias as well. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Your disruptive behaviour
When alerting other editors about discretionary sanctions, you need to make sure if they had been alerted in last one year or not. Issuing alerts disruptively, as you did here (less than one month after an earlier alert), can get you sanctioned yourself. When someone leaves an edit summary "see talk page", it means the edit has been explained at the talk page. This is WP:COMMONSENSE, nothing dubious. And quit claiming a consensus in discussions without proper evidence, see WP:CONSENSUS to know how a consensus is reached. -- Zayeem  (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page about your misunderstanding. You should keep discussion at one place. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Aman.kumar.goel, it looks like you are still edit warring on Bangladesh liberation war despite my report at the WP:ANI discussion. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm really tired explaining you dozens of times the difference between WP:EW and WP:DR, meaning of WP:CANVASS (and why I'm not canvassing when I'm tagging anyone to discuss a non content specific dispute with you) Why don't you have a look over guidelines? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All your reverts on Bangladesh liberation war are in content disputes, that too without consensus. WP:EW can only be discarded when a revert is made against obvious vandalism. Are you suggesting the editors who you reverted were vandalizing the article? Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
You have been reported at WP:AE, please see the proceedings here. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hinduism
Hello, I have been making factual edits on the Hinduism page and have been citing my information yet you still continue to try to ban me and try to remove my content. This is not proper and it is unfair to put hard work and citations only to be unfairly removed Tilakny (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 2020 China–India skirmishes. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.

Please refrain from edit warring by reverting materials which has been added in the article well per talk page consensus. Secondly, the second citation clearly says, Sources in the government are claiming that as per U.S. intelligence reports, the Chinese Army suffered 35 casualties...... And no original US intellegence report is present in public domain. And casualty is best word here as it means killed or injured. I would ask you to self revert the materials and restore it. Drat8sub (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I assumed that you were having misunderstanding about the consensus which was established on talk page. You are forgetting that you had brought the discussion to RSN and was told that US News is accurate with their reporting so there is no need to second guess their conclusion. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My RSN inquiry was to see if US News is reliable or not. Similar to US News, PTI, The Hindu and many other are RS too. You cannot give weightage to one and ignore the other. Thus a word which is better suited for both is much more acceptable as described above and also can be seen through the consensus out of rationale at talk page. Multiple citations indeed took "casualty" better than quoting "killed" as there is zero availability of intellegence report. So, please self revert it and restore the materials. Drat8sub (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you must stop second guessing the reliable source especially after getting your answers on RSN. PTI and The Hindu are not as independent as US News for deciding what US intelligence said. Your personal analysis of their reporting isn't going to make them more reliable. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources, other than US News, also reiterated claim of 35 deaths. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

A polite reminder
Please stop edit warring on Bangladesh Liberation War per WP:ACDS. You already have recieved a DS alert, so you should know what this is about. Aditya (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't see how you justify your own edit warring over adding a meaningless tag. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You have continued to WP:BULLY other editors
Your recent comment on 's talk page shows you have continued to bully others with misleading accusations even after several admins had already expressed concern on your behaviour. The comment which was refactored contained blatant personal attacks like "Stop being so thankless and dishonest to actual events of Bangladeshi history" and there was nothing wrong in refactoring that comment. Keep in mind that you are already under the scrutiny of a report at WP:AE and continuing your disruptions would only mean you are inching closer to a sanction. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, you have very serious competence issues and have always displayed a gross failure to understand policies everywhere I have encountered you. Reading and interpreting basic policies than accusing me of bullying is only way to go as otherwise you are going to fail in your accusation and may again blame yet me of gaming the system which is not going to help you. If you can't differentiate between a "personal attack" (the one that could meet WP:REFACTOR) with a mere criticism of other editor (failing WP:REFACTOR by a long shot), then seriously, I have given up on helping you. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, this edit tells a different story. Much in disagreement with what is being said. Aditya (talk • contribs) 21:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you actually wish to say. The particular user was topic banned and got his comment removed and warned for it. Violating topic ban would have brought about sanctions for him otherwise if he would have continued. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 22:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. You could have said that on the other discussion, though. That would have saved some time for both of us. Thanks. Aditya (talk • contribs) 22:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did it in edit summary. Never mind anyway, you getting what I was trying to say is sufficient. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 22:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , good, since you have begun to look at the policies starting from WP:CIR, I hope you will soon finish reading WP:BULLY, WP:EW and WP:DE so that you don't repeat your misconduct. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2020 China–India skirmishes; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Xinjiang guy (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Matteo Bocelli ‎
Can you please move it back to draft space or stub it? Far too many of the sources fail BLP criteria. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad. I actually considered GNG after overview and left tags for maintenance so that I could edit some other day. I will have a look once more. In case sources are insufficient or inappropriate, will undo action for sure. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Having problem moving back due to redirect created. Can I be helped with moving Matteo Bocelli back to draftspace? I reviwed to move it to mainspace but now rendering that my action was not entirely correct. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 22:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've deleted Draft:Matteo Bocelli and Draft talk:Matteo Bocelli so you should be able to move the article and its talk page back. Let me know if there are any problems, and let me know if you need me to delete any redirects left behind. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Action undertaken. Don't think redirects Matteo Bocelli and Talk:Matteo Bocelli are an issue till it has again to be moved to mainspace (may take a bit long). Thank you very much again. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 23:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Conflict over edit reversal
Thank you for explaining Wikipedia policies to me. I will be more diligent in the future to avoid conflict. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Beauty School Dropout

Chairman of the Indian Space Research Organisation
Hello, I wanted to notify you I have moved the page as per the discussion. You are free to expand the article now. Thanks CreativeNorth (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War
Looks like we are nearing a consensus. Won't you make a comment now? Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I agree entirely but will support a compromised version for the sake of stability of article or edit warring is going to continue. Despite being careful with policies, keeping case consistent without any warring or canvassing, the clumsy way this issue has been handled that RfCs have failed and misconducts have got free passes, is quite discouraging for me anyway. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uniform civil code
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uniform civil code you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DiplomatTesterMan -- DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will be doing the review in pieces. But if you want you can start addressing the points from now on itself. DTM (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Go on, I will address the issues are discuss there. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uniform civil code
The article Uniform civil code you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Uniform civil code for issues which need to be addressed. DTM (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uniform Civil Code
The article Uniform Civil Code you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Uniform Civil Code for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DiplomatTesterMan -- DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uniform civil code
The article Uniform civil code you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Uniform civil code for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DiplomatTesterMan -- DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight newsletter notification
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes
 * added a link pointing to ISPR
 * Ayaz Sadiq
 * added a link pointing to ISPR

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The Downlink Volume 2 Issue 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

16 November 2020
You wrote on my talk page:
 * Hey there, I will find it exciting to collaborate with you on spaceflight articles. You anyway could be more careful to read source than amending information straight away. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the sources that were cited, they do not mention the sentences you reverted. I have tagged as so you can find better source. Be careful of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Albertaont (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources essentially suggested same for two of your edits I reverted. It included timeline of Indian HSP aimed for being fourth in world in available sources (and no contradicting sources I could trace) and S200 is essentially active with GSLV Mark III, had four launches. The source given there only documents parameters which were essential for table. No other issue I've pulled with. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Had a look on your edit. The source clearly says it's essentially GSLV Mark III, is sufficient for citing in article. I can add another source specific for rocket, yet this of your edit was neither necessary nor useful in any way. You have to understand where you need a cn tag. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The Downlink Volume 2 Issue 2
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

removal of sourced content from Rajput page
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.

LukeEmily that is what you are doing everywhere you pimp. Dont bother him.

The Brocky (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Brocky, See WP:NPA. I have not removed any sourced content. I have asked a former colleague to share some pages of the book you quoted that seems to be WP:PUFFERY for Kayastha(monogamous, tradition etc.). If I find that you have misrepresented the source or using WP:OR by falsely quoting sources you will be definitely reported. LukeEmily (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Dalit edit
The source clearly states: "many incidents of religious intolerance with respect to Dalits. Since ages, Dalits have never been allowed to practice mainstream Hindu religion." Your text obscures that point. How do you wish to correct that text to reflect the source? Hardyplants (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The Downlink Volume 2 Issue 3
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – February 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting edit examination and opinion
Greetings,

Please do visit Talk:Cynthia D. Ritchie to examine discussed edits, if you find topic interested requesting your opinion, there.

For neutrality purpose opinion request is being made to users who significantly edited different sides of Pakistani political spectrum articles.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HAL TEDBF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mach.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

DTTR
Hi! While WP:AGF, when you see an edit summary like this please think twice and WP:DTTR Vikram Vincent 09:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * As per WP:BRD, you made a Bold edit by adding a notability tag, I Reverted it and invited you to Discuss. See my edit summary. By undoing my revert you are violating BRD into BRR something. Having said that, do have a look at her Disha Ravi's references section and you will see news report for her other works. Vikram Vincent 09:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a poor understanding of not only WP:GNG but also WP:DTTR. A discretionary sanctions awareness alert can be posted when you have edited the relevant area. Ultimately, WP:DLTAGF. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL I mentioned that I was assuming good faith but it looks like it was lost. Best! Vikram Vincent 12:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether you/I understood something or not was for the Discuss phase as per WP:BRD, which you did not heed when you simply proceeded to revert my revert. When a page is under DS as you yourself pointed out then BRD cannot be changed to BRR or something else cause then you would be in violation. Also please tag me if you want me to see/respond as I normally don't keep track of user pages. Best! Vikram Vincent 13:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Aman.kumar.goel

Thank you for creating Koo App.

User:Csgir, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Csgir (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Koo App
Hello! Your submission of Koo App at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bahnfrend (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Pre-Islamic Period - Pashtun History
I have started a discussion on changing the word "Gandhara" to "East Afghanistan" in reference to Pashtun history in the Pre-Islamic Period 

You had previously shared your insights, hope you can contribute to this discussion also PashtoPromoter (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – March 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indian rivers interlinking project, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kosi, Parbati River and Sarda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit revert on Aam Aadmi Party
Hello, you recently reverted an edit that I made on the Aam Aadmi Party page, which was in itself a revert of a previous edit of yours. By doing this, you have engaged in an edit war with me, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. The rule is bold (you were bold with your first edit) - revert (I reverted it) - discuss (we are meant to discuss the topic). You are not supposed to revert a revert. I am more than happy to discuss the changes you propose making to the article, and I'm sure we will come to some sort of compromise, but you cannot simply impose your version once another editor has contested it. I am going to restore my previous edit and then it is up to you to bring your objections to the talk page. If, instead, you revert again, you will be reported and may have your editing privileges suspended. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since version published by me wasn't without reasons or edit summaries and since you restored it for talk without refuting reasons, it's clear that I didn't initiate any edit war nor undertook misconduct. The case of article's low quality stands here. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood. When you restore an edit that someone reverted, this is by definition "edit warring", whether you think the revert was justified or not. I don't wish to argue with you about what is and isn't edit warring, I'm sure you can look it up for yourself. I'd rather discuss how to improve the article in question. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't just push any dispute under the carpet of edit warring. Unless you had a case of argument against my version, you shouldn't have reverted me. You are just disrupting the improvements that way which doesn't affect me even if you report me. I'm aware for what I can be blocked and for what I won't be and I don't think I made any controversial changes. So please argue on article talk page (and not on mine or your user talk page) and bring any proposed changes you think were needed to be done. I will look into those. If you don't have any problem, you should restore the older version and close this case. Regards Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indian Space Research Organisation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Refurbishment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – April 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Space industry of India
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread concerns editor S Marshall....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Uniform Civil Code
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/has-the-supreme-court-set-the-ball-rolling-for-a-uniform-civil-code-101615802810671.html, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will rewrite the stuff. Regards Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have seen the edit. I think I had already modified the opening of sentence there. It will be helpful if you can be specific since there is no similar sentence in the HT article. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can view the overlapping text by looking at this report. It's in the section "Definition of the proposal". You can review what I removed by looking at this .— Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, then I don't think it can go anywhere much beyond it after all there are just crude definitions in both HT and my diff on Wikipedia. "Common set of laws governing personal matters" is the very definition of UCC. If changing text before and after it wasn't sufficient, I would really need help for what else I can do. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You could put the definition in quotation marks. Since you have to quote it— Diannaa (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Misusing Warnings on others' talkpage
You left a warning on my talkpage, for keeping sourced content. Please take talkpage consensus before removing sourced content. Nenetarun (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

DS Alert and reaching consesus on talk page
. Your single-handed reading of talk page consensus is wrong and refrain from reverting well-sourced valid criticisms without first establishing a proper consensus on the talk page itself. You are not some final arbitrator or something. Roller26 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – May 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Taliban Insurgency and Afghan War page
My Sources are not "Original Research" They are official government reports by the Ministry of Defense. https://mod.gov.af/en/press-release

These are press releases from the Afghan Government, and they have given out numbers for several years. Several sources already applied to the 67,000 to 72,000 already use them. For Example, the source which claims 18,500 Taliban were killed in 2016 is from a the VOA, which sourced the Ministry of Defense number of Taliban killed that year.

How is it unfair then to continue adding upon a source that has already been used??

On top of this my other source is from Di Antonio Giustozzi I have clearly labeled the source as "Taliban At War: 2001- 2018" Specifically page 261 within the book where he labels KIA reports (from the Al Somud) yearly from 2002 to 2018 (though he omits the year of 2013). It is clearly unfinished... None the less it reports from 2002 to 2012 alone, there were around 70,000 Taliban KIA in the war. https://books.google.it/books?id=CB6sDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA261&dq=taliban+kia+2001+2018&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqyeurh-3uAhWDz4UKHQcSBbIQ6AEwAHoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=taliban%20kia%202001%202018&f=true The page is accessible through Google Books (though it may be a regional difference) None the less, I have sourced the specific book, author, and page.

I would appreciate it if you would stop attempting to undo my edits, and attempting to get the source frozen. I am using official sources, and building upon what has already been given, which is incomplete Taliban death counts.

Thank You!
 * Your personal research is irrelevant. See WP:OR. You need sources which clearly support your figures. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Its not Personal Research its 2 Sources Di Antonio Giustozzi "Taliban at War: 2001-2018" which is published by Oxford University Press "Dr. Antonio Giustozzi is an independent researcher born in Ravenna, Italy, who took his PhD at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). He is the author of several articles and papers on Afghanistan, as well as of five books, War, politics and society in Afghanistan, 1978-1992 (Georgetown University Press), Koran, Kalashnikov and laptop: the Neo-Taliban insurgency, 2002-7 (Columbia University Press), Empires of mud: war and warlords in Afghanistan (Columbia University Press), Policing Afghanistan (with M. Ishaqzada, Columbia University Press, 2013) and The army of Afghanistan (Hurst, 2016). He also authored a volume on the role of coercion and violence in state-building, The Art of Coercion (Columbia University Press, 2011), one on advisory missions (Missionaries of modernity, Hurst, 2016) and edited a volume on the Taliban, Decoding the New Taliban (Columbia University Press, 2009), featuring contributions by specialists from different backgrounds, and one on DDR processes, Post-conflict Demobilisation, Disarmament and Reintegration: bringing state-building back in (Ashgate, 2012)." The Numbers provided to you are from Pg 261 of "Taliban at War: 2001-2018" The Other source provided is from the Ministry of Defense https://mod.gov.af/en/press-release Which is already included some of these press releases within previous numbers FOR EXAMPLE the claim of 18,5000 Taliban killed in 2016, is from VOA, where they give the source from the Ministry of Defense numbers. I am merely adding more to the Taliban casualty list, for it is incomplete, and missing these reports How is this my own "Research" These are official reports from 1. One of the leading officials in the field, who has cited Al Somud has his main source for Taliban KIA.... I have provided the source, and page number and 2. I have provided Ministry of Defense numbers, which have already been used in previous Taliban fatality numbers.

You are reaching for an argument you dont have.

Battle of Kamdesh
I would appreciate it if you would stop attempting to freeze a page simply because you want to push a POV I have provided several sources that show Taliban losses between 150 to 200 KIA https://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/01/battle-for-cop-keating-afghanistan.html https://mohmuseum.org/copkeating/ https://taskandpurpose.com/news/medal-of-honor-cop-keating/

This includes the Medal of Honor ceremony itself. It is clear you are POV pushing, instead of attempting to look at the sources and I can tell from other posts here that you have been doing the same on other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:C200:B030:3DDE:FD11:5106:33BC (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your military.com link is not working. Museums are not reliable source. We need secondary sources which say that 60 or more Talibanis were killed, not 150 or 200. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Source1: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/clinton-romesha-battle-kamdesh.html Source2: https://abcnews.go.com/WN/Afghanistan/camp-keating-commanders-disciplined-attack-killed-22-us/story?id=9761160 Source3: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126055332 Source4: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/world/asia/06afghan.html Source5: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2015/1227/Amid-Taliban-surge-a-witness-to-Afghanistan-s-endless-war

It is the most commonly attributed number to the event 150 to 200 (some say up to 300)


 * I still see no point in removing independent sources in favor of US' claims. US military report is not a neutral source here. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, because the source provided before was an "Independence" non American source? There is almost nowhere where the estimates are not 150 to 300 Taliban KIA https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2647711/Revealed-Hunt-Bowe-Bergdahl-left-troops-unprotected-bloody-battle-left-EIGHT-U-S-soldiers-dead-22-wounded-produced-two-Medal-Honor-recipients.html British Source? The source even provided that gives 60 to 80 Taliban is supposedly an US Army Training Video You do realize that?

The Downlink – June 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Koo App
Hello! Your submission of Koo App at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Some new issues with the hook and have been raised. Please stop by as soon as possible to address them. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * More issues on the nomination. Please stop by as soon as possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Last call. The nomination is over four months old, and will be closed shortly unless you deal with the remaining issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Koo App platform details removed
Hi, I had noted that you removed koo app platform details stating it's un-sourced. In most articles only the playstore and ios app listing is required to put such details. I had re-added the details. Please tell me what sources you need to approve the content before you remove it if you are still unsatisfied with it. Thanks. Anoop (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Koo client application is available on both Android and iOS platforms," is not sourced and rest of the useless information is using primary sources for sourcing. It is this kind of poor editing which is contributing to the potential failure of the article's promotion at Template:Did you know nominations/Koo App. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

So you mean wikipedia have no value for the most authenticated source witn respect to an app and you need external reference to allow this content? Anoop (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

July 2021
Please assume good faith, and discuss edits, not editors' motivations as you did in this edit. Adding a DS alert to the talk of someone who has never edited in IPA because they expressed a concern about an India-related DYK was also not appropriate. —valereee (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How come Desertarun has commented multiple times for weeks but finally had time to read the hook this recently? This is why his comment looked nothing more than nitpicking and my suspicion was further confirmed with this baseless attack by the editor on this article for which you left him no warning. Why you haven't warned him? WP:AC/DS applies on all namespaces, as such the notification of the DS was entirely correct. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * By baseless attack, you mean the edit summary? It's a bit rude, and probably a bit over the top to use the word advert instead of promo. You'd just posted a DS warning on their user talk, and in apparent retaliation for their DYK comments, as you certainly didn't do it because they'd shown a tendency to edit contentiously in IPA. I'd be pretty annoyed if you did that to me for simply expressing concerns about an India-related DYK, too. I don't off hand know how much experience you have at DYK, but nitpicking is how it works. This information is going on the Main Page -- Wikipedia's front page, if you will. We are trying to find a balance between an interesting, snappy hook and policy concerns. DYK hooks are formally approved by at least three people and usually informally by dozens. Multiple people may come stick their nose in if they have a concern. If someone objects to an ALT, we try to come up with another that addresses the concerns. It can take weeks to get through the first review, although for a well-written hook with an in-policy article it can also take just minutes. It can feel frustrating, but unless you have solid evidence, backed up by diffs, that show concerns about an editor's motivations, you just shouldn't comment on it. And no, you certainly shouldn't be leaving DS notices in apparent retaliation when there's absolutely no evidence of tendentious editing in IPA. —valereee (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you still haven't left him a warning just because you "be pretty annoyed" too, but that makes no sense to me. You haven't read the very sentence of the alert which reads "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." DS alert can be left to anybody who has edited the subject in concern in any namespace. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read it. The fact you can leave it to anyone doesn't mean you should. We leave DS alerts because an editor is working in a DS area in a way we think could get them in trouble, and we want to ensure they understand that these areas aren't governed by the same policies as for most articles. The point is to 1. warn well-intentioned editors who might not realize, or 2. lay the groundwork for a quick DS block of an ill-intentioned editor so we can stop their disruption fast. That's because there's so much disruption at DS areas that if we let everyone go until they've gotten four warnings, it would make editing in those areas even worse than it already is. The point is not to leave a DS alert for every editor who comes anywhere near a DS subject. And in this case you seem to have done it because they'd made well-intentioned comments that you found nitpicky at your DYK nom.
 * The reason anyone can leave a DS alert is because we're trusting everyone's judgement on when it's approprate. If you consistently drop them for reasons other editors find inappropriate, someone is going to eventually decide your judgement in the area isn't good enough and ask you to stop dropping them at all. —valereee (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope that "someone" will be aware of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not following. What does the fact we seek consensus rather than a majority vote have to do with this? —valereee (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I cited it because nothing will happen only if "other editors find inappropriate", instead it has to be undoubtedly inappropriate then only something can be done. I am aware that lots of people do object to the overall presence of this notification but unless Arbcom decides something else, we have to abide by their rules on this notification. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okey doke. Well, I think I've done all I wanted to try to do here. Best to you. —valereee (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Koo App
Hello! Your submission of Koo App at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 19:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Koo (social network)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

List of converts to Islam from Hinduism
You have undone my all contributions to the page with the edit summery: "RM BLP violating version." Can you please specify so I can improve it? --Bringtar (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bringtar (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

List of conversions
I am sending this to everyone involved in the dispute. Can we please all stop adding or removing entries from these lists, unless there is an obvius BLP issue (which for most of them, there isn't). Please let editors who are neutral on the subjects look at them instead. I have made a start on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and have re-added some entries with sources, and not re-added them where sources are flimsy. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – August 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Help
Hi Aman.kumar.goel, here to discuss about a user @Bringtar. The user is basically vandalizing list articles by the names List of converts to Hinduism from Islam and List of converts to Hinduism from Christianity. Initially, the user started removing names from the prior article and I managed to report the page and stopped the user from editing further. Many names were still removed by then claiming "no reliable sources" or "no proper declaration by the convert". The user keeps repeating this, For inclusion, there should be a reliable source which states the person has "converted from x to y" and in case of living person, self-admission by the person is required from a reliable source. Now the same user is removing names from the latter, List of converts to Hinduism from Christianity. Apparently from about 20 over names provided with sources in List of converts to Hinduism from Christianity article just around 9 remained. The term "convert" cannot be used in most cases when it comes to Hinduism as there is no official conversion ceremony dogmatized in Hinduism. Most of the so called "converts" are "initiates" or just "practitioners" or adopted Hinduism in their lives. So in most cases they will never be "self-admission" as the user standardized. Looks more like the user have little or no knowledge at all on the basics of Hinduism. The user looks like he/she is from Algeria, so obviously the person will be looking at Hinduism from the user's lens of religion. I am seeking help from you as I saw your name in List of converts to Islam from Hinduism article where the user has reverted one of your edits claiming (Restored last good, rm WP:BLP violating version). The user's reasoning to revert it back was ("creating space for a new name") without even checking the sources given for those new list of names. Personally I found this very biased against one over another. I could not do much about this issue, if it is one, as I just do basic edits on Wikipedia and not so well-versed in the rules and regulations here. Thought of reporting this to you as you seem quite experienced about Wikipedia. Hope you will do something about the user and the edits the user is making. Thank you! Good day! Naveen Ramanathan (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – September 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Panjshir conflict
Do not remove maintenance tags until issues are resolved please, see on when to remove WP:WNTRMT. Please restore the template you've removed here. Viewsridge (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viewsridge (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink
Hello, Aman.kumar.goel,

I went to unsubscribe a blocked editor from receiving this newsletter and I noticed that another editor had removed your name from the distribution list. Typically, editors only unsubscribe themselves unless an editor has received an indefinite block and it looks like they won't be returning so I was surprised to see this. It was this IP editor's only edit so unless you were editing logged out, you might want to re-subscribe yourself at WikiProject Spaceflight/Downlink/Mailing list. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. It indeed was not me. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

SPI
Thanks for your work on the SPI. It is now closed.VR talk 01:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Honorary titles of Indian leaders
Hello. Why have you removed/ omitted some honourary titles of Indian leaders and reverted it back to Pre-Sock Version ???? Is it only for some specific 5-8 persons only and not for others who were also honoured and are known by their honourary titles ???? ItWiki97 (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

strikeout & preview
Your use of here struck the rest of the page. Could you fix it please? Cabayi (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It has also created the impression that you are accusing several users of being sockpuppets without evidence, which I don't believe you intended. It looks like you owe several users apologies for the collateral damage. Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes and "preview" failed to bring correct image of the result. I just saw that won't work properly if it has been added before the colon. Fixed it here. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Indian Space Research Organisation GA nomination
Aman.kumar.goel, it looks like someone vandalized your GA nomination on the article's talk page way back in April 2021, which prevented it from appearing on the master GA nominations page. A couple of days ago, someone fixed the GA nominee template, and the nomination has reappeared. I'm very sorry that this happened and that no one noticed the problem, since it did cause some display issues on the talk page.

My question is whether you are still interested in pursuing the GA nomination, which means being the person addressing any issues raised when the article is taken up for review, which will hopefully be soon. If not, perhaps the nomination should be withdrawn, since you didn't notice that nothing was happening with it in the ten months since it was vandalized.

If you'd prefer to withdraw the nomination, let me know. If you'd like to pursue it, then I would expect it to be taken up and reviewed in the near future. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948
Hello, Aman.kumar.goel,

Please do not tag templates for speedy deletion, CSD. When you do this, every single page that the template has been put on ends up being tagged for speedy deletion as well. This can involve dozens of other pages. It can be very confusing to find out, when looking at these other articles, why they are tagged for deletion, since they haven't actually been tagged and it's impossible to remove the CSD tag because it is associated with a template, not the article. Just nominate templates for deletion at WP:TFD next time and you can explain there why a template should be deleted. Thanks very much! Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just saw that myself. Is this some kind of glitch that every single page where the template has been put on also ends up being tagged for speedy deletion? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Thalaivii
Hello! I am just here to talk about the edit you reverted on a film Thalaivii. First of all both the sources which are calling that movie a "flop" are not relaible, Bollywood Hungama which the most relaible website for the box office of Indian movies has not said anything. Also, 2021 was a year of Covid-19 pandemic, most of the theaters were closed in India and most of the movies which got released during that year were released in just few states and with limited screens so it just unfair to term these movies as a "flop". Also, if you don't know 9/10 Highest Grossing Bollywood films of 2021 are commercial failures. 8/10 were released in limited states with limited screens and the one film which was successful was released with a new rule of 50% occupancy. So i'm just saying its just unfair and if its fair then term every single movie of 2021 as a "flop" on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.195.1.151 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Indian Space Research Organisation
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Indian Space Research Organisation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bluesunnyfox -- Bluesunnyfox (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

did you adhere to the three-revert rule?
I saw you reverted a lot of what someone else did. It's around 8 reverted edits. Did you make more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours? WP:WAR for reference

I might have to quick fail this article (for GA nomination) if this is true. blueskies (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * blueskies, it would be most inappropriate for you to fail a GA nomination for reverted edits: that is not part of the GA criteria. While article instability is an issue, it refers to current instability; the most recent edits by Aman.kumar.goel were on March 6, two and a half weeks ago. I would like to point you to a very useful essay for people new to GA reviewing, What the Good article criteria are not. This is, as you note when you opened the review, a nomination that has waited nearly a year for a reviewer (unfortunately, the nomination template itself had been vandalized, and the vandalism gone unnoticed, so the nomination disappeared from view for over ten months), so it would be great if the review adhered to the usual criteria without diversions like the above. Thank you for your interest in GA reviewing. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. By the way, I wasn't going to quick-fail this article because of how long ago it was. Thank you. blueskies (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I will not be able to finish the review.
Due to unhelpful circumstances, I will not to able to finish the review in a short time. It's been nearly a week. I am immensely sorry and I hope your article can find a great reviewer in no time! I hope you understand. blueskies (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for fixing my typo here. That small copy edit helped my blood pressure. Best wishes, 86.186.155.200 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Aman.kumar.goel. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Important notice
Renat 13:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Anton Lončar
Sorry, but why did you revert those IP edits? Drmies (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Because of unsourced content, mainly height and weight. I have corrected it now though. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Bluster?
I posted some feedback for your tact at Talk:Vladimir Putin; your response was to... deposit ...a missive CUT AND PASTED FROM YOUR OWN TALK PAGE, without any explanation. It sure seems like a blowfish response- a bit of something you've appropriated to drape your deportment with an air of authority. Look, dude- this is part and parcel of why you are having conflicts with other editors- your tactics and disposition are closer to combative than collaborate. That's the impression you've left, wrong or right. Only you can do something about that. Mavigogun (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misconceived the notice that clearly notes "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." I have replied on your talk page as well. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the notice is clear. However, it is not an auto-generated notice- you took it upon yourself to post it to my talk page.  What was YOUR purpose?Mavigogun (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already explained it on your talk page. Take a look at WP:ACDS and also WP:AGF. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you have not- there, as here, you have deflected.  Over the years, and recently, I've made plenty of posts within this sphere- none have taken upon themselves to post such a notice.   You have done so- I asked for an explanation of YOUR actions, not the wording of the notice.Mavigogun (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You missed the part "It is a standard notice ought to be posted on talk pages of the users who have edited Eastern-European related namespace just like you have." Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hear me: I did not miss that.  I have read and understood the notice.   I am not asking about the notice- AT ALL.   I am asking about what motivated YOU to post it to my talk page, and what PURPOSE you had in doing so. Having read more than a few of your posts, I know your English comprehension is sufficient to understand my question- so, please respond in good faith. Mavigogun (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You edited an Eastern-European related article, thus I left the notice on your talk page just for alerting you that this area falls under WP:AC/DS thus you will need to be extra careful with your editing. I would repeat that is just a AC/DS alert thus you don't have to worry at all. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Space & Upper Atmosphere Research Commission. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. FoxtAl (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I deliberately mentioned you in that manual edit so that you can be notified that I reverted you and I'm glad you approached me regarding it.
 * I couldn't understand why CN tags had been added adjacent to references given (there are other methods if those references don't verify the mentioned text).. Please catch and reply me at Talk:Space & Upper Atmosphere Research Commission where I am shifting further discussion. Regards Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging again. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We can discuss there. —FoxtAl (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI, May 2022
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sneha04  💬 07:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Where is the Unconstructive editing?

 * What is the reason of your revert? All other year articles exist and only 2019 articles were removed by you now. So revert your reverts back. There were no any deletion discussion. 46.211.145.53 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Any comments? Reason of your deletion? Link to deletion discussion? 46.211.145.53 (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * IP user, see the second thread at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2021/August. Ideally, yes, we would merge all of the Q School series articles into one per year, but we haven't gotten round to it yet. Creating articles for non-notable tournaments inst the solution.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

UTV HD (India)
Is there any reason for this to have a separate article instead of redirecting? There isn't enough content here to meet the GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can redirect. I won't object. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing and paraphrasing concerns
In this edit to ISRO, you added the sentence ISRO has target to develop a launcher in the decade of 2020s which will be capable of carrying nearly 16 tonnes to geostationary transfer orbit which would be nearly 4 times of existing GSLV Mark III. It is identical in structure to the source's Over the next decade, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) is targeting several advanced capabilities including a heavy-lift launch vehicle that can carry upto 16-ton payloads to Geostationary Transfer Orbit, said ISRO chief Dr K Sivan. The capacity of heavy-lift vehicle will be four times the current lift capability of GSLV-MK3..Please read WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING and correct the violation.

In the same edit, you claim "SHLV"capable of delivering 50-100 tonnes into orbit in various reports, statements and presentations from ISRO officials. You added a similar claim, but with even more specificity, in this edit to Super heavy-lift launch vehicle. I'm unable to locate any such claim, specifically about tonnage and orbits, in the sources used. Can you please quote the source content where such assertions are made? Hemantha (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC) (I'd struck a sentence in this post, but the edit was removed later. Restoring the striking since the current thread does not represent what I said accurately. See Special:Permalink/1090430542 for the full discussion.) Hemantha (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock
 * That instance does not violate WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING. can share their view on this.
 * As for the 2nd, I had added imgur link which show presentation by S. Somanath and at image no.72 it mentions "Super Heavy Lift LV (130t to LEO)". Though I assume mainstream sources can be found now on internet about the capability over 50 tonnes+. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the passage is too closely paraphrased.— Diannaa (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Aman.kumar.goel. Thank you.Hemantha (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

Welcome!
Hi Aman.kumar.goel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Because I saw you are working on spaceflight-related articles, I thought the general intro, spaceflight collaboration and the Constellation program pages would be helpful to you. Happy editing! Starship SN20 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting alerts and adding on talking pages
There is nothing wrong in getting opinion and confirmation. You made a claim without any Wikipedia policy or guideline page to verify. So to get verification, I asked experienced editors and administrators. There is nothing wrong in doing that. Its not canvassing. Please stop mis-representing alerts on talk page. MehmoodS (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

Your GA nomination of Indian Space Research Organisation
The article Indian Space Research Organisation you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Indian Space Research Organisation for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Whitewashing of page Teesta Setalvad
Why are you removing the crucial info from lead, by doing so you are whitewashing the page. You have removed very significant noting of the Supreme court from the lead Nalasopara (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

Your GA nomination of Indian Space Research Organisation
The article Indian Space Research Organisation you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Indian Space Research Organisation for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

An earlier revert by sock
Hi. Just noticed that this revision was a revert by a sock recently getting blocked. Wondering if this edit by them should be reverted as well. I'm not sure and hence checking with you. Personally, I see many sourced info (quote box of the perpetrators threatening the prime minister, people pelting stones, etc.) have been removed, apparently to whitewash the issue, as the removed comment states. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I ignored that edit because it involved an editor who has been also indeffed, that's why I was not seeing a point in continuing that discussion. You are free to revert any sock edits you see. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. I missed that part. Thank you. And sure, will do. Rasnaboy (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for the Covid topic area
Doug Weller talk 18:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Requesting help to check for sock puppetry
Hello, Aman.kumar.goel, I'd like to report another alt of a user called Nangparbat as I noticed you just blocked one account but I couldn't add this on Nangparbat's sock investigation page. User Satrar is a suspected sock in my opinion. The user reverted sourced content from Bun kebab's page, just like previous alts Veland.Ak did, another alt Taxia4 did the same  as well. Removal of sourced content saying the dish originated in India and labelling it as Pakistani without a source. Can you help and check if they're an alt or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehrajJamwal (talk • contribs) 16:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add another user User:USaamo, he left this comment on Veersa8's page, the last sock of Nangparbat that you just blocked him. In this edit he removed a source, calling it Indian pov and untrustworthy. In this edit, he removed content sourced by NYT and called it pov by nationalists. Nangparbat did the exact same, dismissing and unexplained removal of content he assumed was 'nationalist pov by Indians'. MehrajJamwal~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehrajJamwal (talk • contribs) 16:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop reverting back to my work on Brokpa
I have done a real research on Brokpa population and villages with correct numbers and figure and population but you reverting everything I said back. Please stop doing it Minaro123 (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Manastu Space
Hello, Aman.kumar.goel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Manastu Space, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Query
Sir,

What was the reason of reversion of my recent edits on "Hindi" page? জাবিরটটক (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote an analysis which was based on a non-English language and it is not really needed on this article. See WP:UNDUE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Sir, what was the reason of reversion of my edits on "Bhagvat Geeta" page? জাবিরটটক (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit used unreliable sources there. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Reverting Changes with Insufficient Explanation
You seem to revert changes with simple comments like "not important" and "not needed". And, you had the audacity to send some warning about disruptive changes. I'm pretty sure this is not in keeping with Wikipedia standards. If you think something is "not important" or "not needed", take the time to explain exactly why it's not needed or why it's not important. HandleDePlume (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Manastu Space


Hello, Aman.kumar.goel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Manastu Space".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 08:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Sock?
I'm moving this discussion here, as it is unrelated to move request.

In this comment you said that 37.111.136.217 had "already voted once" linking to a comment by 37.111.136.28. Given that those two are different IP addresses, I asked why you believed they are the same person, and you responded to check the block history of the IP. So looking at the block history of both 37.111.136.217 and 37.111.136.28 I don't see anything that would indicate they are socks. The only entries in both's block logs are those made by (courtesy ping to ) and they are only for using WP:PROXY IPs, not because these IPs were linked to a particular person. In any case, both IPs are currently unblocked and were obviously not blocked at the time of their comment so if you believe this is sockpuppetry, shouldn't WP:SPI be the first thing to do? VR talk 17:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I confused the OP with this IP in that message.
 * Nevertheless, both 37.111.136.217 and 37.111.136.28 are same person. See their details here: Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, the coordinates for both IPs are exactly the same, but I wonder if that's possible if the location happens to be a library, internet cafe, etc. I wonder if there is some admin we can ask about this, or post this question in some forum? VR talk 00:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Kejriwal guarantees(gujarat) in "other states wings" section
In "others states wing" section kejriwal guarantees(manifesto) shows bjp Gujarat manifesto.

Why did you remove following from talk discussion? In "others states wing" section kejriwal's manifesto is incorrect and should be edited 🙏.

Lapid
Good work there, Aman. I hope it is not changed again.😁 MBlaze Lightning (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

CSD G5
Hello, Aman.kumar.goel

According to WP:BANREVERT, CSD G5 doesn't apply to categories in use or transcluded templates because of the impact the deletions have on other articles. If you believe they should be deleted, please nominate them at WP:CFD and WP:TFD. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, categories and templates can be G5. You are misrepresenting G5 and incorrectly claiming that socks are allowed to create categories thus waste our time.
 * Self-revert yourself and delete the sock creations as soon as possible. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you guide Liz about G5 that it also applies "categories in use or transcluded templates"? I have myself got hundreds of such categories and templates deleted so far in these few years. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 01:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm not an expert on CSD, but looking at WP:G5, I see it says, G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or populated categories unless they have been transcluded or populated entirely by the banned or blocked user; these edits need to be reverted before deletion.  So, I guess it depends on whether the "unless they have been transcluded or populated entirely by the banned or blocked user" clause applies.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not put myself in the position of attempting to 'guide' about anything related to deletion; she is one of our most experienced and respected admins in that area of the project. Having said that, my understanding would be in-line with RoySmith's comment - it would depend upon whether any other editors aside from the sock had used them.  Girth Summit  (blether)  14:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Aman.kumar.goel!


Happy New Year! Aman.kumar.goel, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

My edit on Jawaharlal Nehru
Dear friend, I am a newbie in Wikipedia, and I am trying to learn. I had made an entry on Nehru's magnanimity on his criticism. The edit was presumably reverted because it is a youtube source. May I respectfully add that youtube references are allowed by Wikipedia. Even templates are given here. Furthermore Mr. Vajpayee himself is seen speaking. Thus the video cannot be fake. Kindly educate me why this addition was improper. Many thanks. -Neotaruntius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotaruntius (talk • contribs) 04:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:OR. You must add a reliable source which has done the analysis. You are adding your own analysis that you observed.
 * The uploader of this video does not own copyright of the clip. See WP:LINKVIO. We can't link to the things that violate copyrights. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Aman Kumar Goel Thanks. I understand the problem. We can then remove the analysis part [the contrast between Chamberlain and Churchill]. But rest of the inference is straightforward. Vajpayee ji himself is saying that Nehru was very much open to criticism. Thanks again. -Neotaruntius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotaruntius (talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have restored the edit but after rewriting it and using a lot better sources.
 * See here
 * You can analyze now that how these edits are made. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @ Aman.kumar.goel Happened to come across recent edits to the article. You seem to have copy edited a little, Though I can't claim myself to be very good in en grammar to point out mistakes, I feel sentence "..Vajpayee added that such kinds of criticisms were only possibly in those times. .." bit awkward. Whether it is really necessary to be in plural? Can it be changed some thing like to "..Vajpayee added that such kind of criticism was possible only  in those times. .."
 * I find next sentence ".. Other admirers of Nehru from opposing parties included George Fernandes who joined the socialist movement subject to the precondition that Nehru would not be replaced. .." also bit unclear and strange. Nehru would not be replaced from what ? And would any departing leader put any such condition sounds strange. (This is not to say that you added those sentences, but since last edits seem to be from your side so I just preferred to discuss with you.) &#32;Bookku   (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked temporarily from editing to prevent further disruptive removal of material, as you did at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17 and Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. —Cryptic 18:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I left the message 4 minutes ago at User_talk:Cryptic about this unnecessary block. You should respond there. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Aman.kumar.goel, I don't know what you were thinking when you closed that DRV, and then started edit warring over it, but it is NOT a good look. Leave it to the admins. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Side note, since I got distracted by frustration over my browser crash - delrevxfd doesn't get removed from afd pages when a drv is closed; it stays on there forever, to
 * document that the afd has been reviewed, which is sometimes relevant to later reviews (though the 2019 drv of Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (3rd nomination) wasn't this time around), and
 * so that people looking at an overturned afd don't get confused when the close says "delete" and the article link is blue, or "keep" and red.
 * See transclusions in Wikipedia namespace. There's a result= parameter to the template to say specifically how a drv is closed, though as a practical matter it almost never gets filled in. —Cryptic 21:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted.
 * I closed the DRV, which was started by this blocked sock, per WP:DENY. You can see that at that time there was nobody opposing your AfD closure.
 * I made the revert because once the request is closed, it has to be either disputed per WP:CLOSURE or a fresh request has to be started depending on the circumstances. I made 2 reverts but so did another editor. Block is supposed to be preventative. I was already making the discussion on at least 2 venues, but after that made the block without a warning. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 21:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)